Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/19/2023 DRAFT TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 19, 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 Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (participating remotely) Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher ABSENT: Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager 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. It's October 19, 2023, at 9 a.m., and so this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission is now in session. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, are you on the phone, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Calling Commissioner Klucik; are you on the phone, sir? MR. SABO: He is not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. He's not. Okay. Well, let me know if and when he does. In the meantime, we have a quorum, barely, so -- but we've got a quorum. All right. Mr. Secretary, please call the roll, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt, no. Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon, no. Commissioner Klucik, we haven't heard yet. It doesn't sound like he's on yet. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart, not here. Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addenda to the agenda -- oh, I should also note that those absences, I was aware of them, and they are all excused. Addenda to the agenda, the first thing I think we ought to do is bring to mind the fact that every October, as a matter of tradition for that particular month, we consider election or reelection of our officers. And so without objection, I'd like to put that on -- this being our second and last October meeting, I'd like to put that on as 10 or 11, which is new business. 11A, election of officers. Without objection, that's what we'll do. Mr. Bellows, any other addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences, our next meeting is on November 2, 2023. Does anyone know whether he will not be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. And the one after that is November 16, same question. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Approval of the minutes, we have one set of minutes today. Those are the minutes of September 22, 2023. Any corrections, changes, or addition to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll motion to accept. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of approving those minutes, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. BCC reports, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On October 10th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Cocohatchee Bay PUD amendment, and that was approved 5-0. On the summary agenda, the Rod & Gun Club conditional use and compact rural development both were approved on the summary agenda. Then the rezone from Estates to PUD for self-storage facility that was on Collier Boulevard and Green, that was continued to the December 12th BCC meeting to allow the applicant to work out some revised plans to reduce the square footage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And I just got a note from our folks in the back. I think Mr. Klucik -- Commissioner Klucik may be online right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, are you there, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll take a vote on you, just if you wouldn't mind giving us a reason. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I have a client whose closing keeps getting delayed, and we could close this morning, or we could close tomorrow, and I just don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. Unforeseen business circumstances. Without objection, we will approve your participation by phone for that reason. Thank you very much. And let's see. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearings, advertised, our first hearing will be on companion items PL202300012389, and that's the government -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just -- did you already vote on it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I did it without objection. Would you prefer we have a vote? We will. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, that's fine. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention because I'm not in the room. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'm just trying to move things along; I'm sorry. There was no -- there was no objection from the four commissioners in this room. So this is the government public service residential tourist and commercial subdistrict small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment and its companion, PL2023 -- you know I said three zeros for the first one, and that was wrong. It's two zeros. So I'm going to reread the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment PL number. It's 20230012389, and then its companion, the MPUD-A, is PL20230012392. Amazingly, we're getting into the two zeros department. And Mr. Bosi indicates that if we're not careful, we'll find ourselves into one zero before the end of the year, but I hope not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: There are three zeros shown on the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know. That's a typo. Okay. 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, starting with the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meeting with staff, and a communication with the representative of the applicant. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Agenda packet and a site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. And I keep looking down there, but it's all we are. Oh, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff material and staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sir, I apologize. When you're out of sight, I really can't say you're out of the mind, but for that one moment, you were. All right. He just -- he indicated his -- oh, yeah -- oh, could we get some more gain, some more volume, on Commissioner Klucik? Is that possible? While that's happening, the Chair recognizes Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, a certified planner. Here with us today representing Stix Development is Ryan Hyler and David Tuttle; the land-use counsel is Rich Yovanovich; I have Mike Delate from our office, who's the civil engineer on the project; and Jim Banks has performed the traffic analysis. And I have a lot of slides I can go through, but I think what I'll try to do is do a summary, and then if you have questions, we can get into more of the meatier detail. So this project is part of what was originally zoned in 2019 with a new subdistrict, which I won't reread the title, because it's a little cumbersome, and then the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development incorporated the Golden Gate Golf Course, which the county acquired, as well as the hotel property, which is still under separate ownership. And if all goes well today and through the board, Stix Development would purchase the hotel tract, which was set up to be the residential tourist tract as part of the subdistrict and planned development. It's outlined. I'm sure many of you -- the hotel's been here for, you know, decades, and it's currently vacant. They vacated the premises. And so the intent here is to take the hotel building that has about 150-some-odd rooms and convert that into up to 215 efficiency rental units. And part of that is that we've adjusted the language in the subdistrict, and we've adjusted the language in the PUD document to put income restrictions on many of these housing units. The commitment's for 22.8 percent of the units to be income restricted. Half of that number would be at the 80 percent or less rental rates, and then the other half of that 22.8 percent would be at 100 percent or less. So the commitment is there for there to be this income restriction, and then we have a provision that all units would be rented for folks that are at the 120 percent rental rate. So the other unencumbered with the income restriction are still going to be controlled at the 120 percent or less of the income guidelines. So, again, we held a neighborhood information meeting several months ago. We did it in conjunction with Golden Gate Civic Association. It was pretty well attended, and just in the last week, Mr. Hyler also presented again to the Golden Gate City Civic Association. I wasn't in attendance at that meeting, but I don't think there's any objection from the civic association, and I think that there seems to be a lot of interest in making this project happen because of the conversion to some much-needed housing in our community. So that's kind of, in a nutshell, what we're doing. There's -- you know, we have one deviation that's for a parking deviation to allow, essentially, one space per unit. These will all be efficiency units, so we think one space is sufficient. The parking lot is in need of some repair. We're working with the client on coming up with a revised parking lot layout. We're also working with Collier County Government, who owns the little outbuilding right on Golden Gate Parkway. That's going to be converted into a training center for the school district. And there's going to be some cross-sharing, and there's a cross-easement parking agreement in place today that's probably going to be modified at some point. Again, this is to convert the existing buildings and the clubhouse. The community will have a swimming pool, fitness facilities, all the other typical amenities found in our newer apartment complexes in Collier County. And I think, in a nutshell, that's what we're attempting to do, and I will be happy to answer questions if you have any. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why do you term the 49 units one thing and then the 166 rent? You use different terms, but they're all affordable housing under 120 percent of AMI, correct? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But why aren't -- why do you differentiate the 49 from the 166? MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Rich describe. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know the answer, but I don't -- I'd like to hear it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. We do not have an income restriction on those units, but we have a rent restriction on those units. We, from the business model standpoint, could not commit to filling all of those with income-qualified people. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. If I may, I thought I saw this in the write-up, but if you could, please confirm. The main entrance will be off of Golden Gate Parkway. And is there a secondary auxiliary exit/entrance onto Collier Boulevard towards the east, southeast corner of the property? MR. ARNOLD: So north is to your right on this plan, and you can see all these access arrows. It's a little complicated, but there are a couple of access points on Golden Gate Parkway, and we'll be working with the county to try to do some sharing for the school's resource center. There is an ingress/egress easement that goes across the county property that is to our east and, ultimately, out to Collier Boulevard. That's in place today. You could technically drive across it. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I was on it today. MR. ARNOLD: It will probably be limited for emergency access for our parcel. The county -- as part of the larger picture here, as you go down the -- down Collier Boulevard, you can see there are other access points for the balance of the property. This property will have sharing with -- through the tract that was set up to be a community facility tract where the school district and the county will be developing their facility. So we'll have emergency access to Collier, and then we'll have our primary access on Golden Gate Parkway. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. And you plan to continue the -- heading west on Golden Gate Parkway, the left-turn lane, into your project? And I'm sorry; I'm looking at your information in the packet, which is an aerial view -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- which to me is a little easier than -- yes, sir, that one. So you're planning to maintain that left turn on Golden Gate, correct? MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Mr. Hyler speak to that. MR. HYLER: Ryan Hyler with Stix Development. So we are in communication with the county, and eventually the county is redoing Golden Gate Parkway. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. MR. HYLER: And we do not yet know how that will ultimately impact ingress and egress. The county is planning on building a loop road on the opposite side of the training facility, and, ultimately, we will have access to that. And so it's more of a long-term strategy, working with the county to determine how that entire area gets redeveloped. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, anything from you, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I take that as a no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, would you approach, please. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I fell like I'm going to the principal's office. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll see. We had a brief conversation this morning, and right now I just want a yes or no, and you'll have a full opportunity to present your point of view. Any change since we spoke earlier? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Here is my concern with this. As everybody knows who takes any interest in this stuff and follows the work of the Planning Commission, I am a firm believer in affordable housing with special emphasis on workforce housing and, more particular, essential services workforce housing. That is a very important consideration for me, and without it, I'm not altogether comfortable that just naked affordable housing without any other objectives to be served is entirely within the best interests of Collier County. And, recently, at this last meeting or the one before, we had the Ascend people come before us, and here's the language that they agreed to: Preference to set aside units -- that's what they call the units in question -- shall be given to essential services personnel, ESP. ESP means natural persons or families, at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel; a childcare worker, a teacher, or other educational personnel; healthcare personnel; or public employee. The period of time the rental will be reserved and advertised for ESP persons will be a minimum of 90 days from the date the unit is first available and 45 days thereafter. In the event that no ESP person rents a set-aside unit, then the unit may be offered to the general public non-ESP but shall remain at the rent and income as restricted. At minimum, advertising will consist of providing written notice to the Collier County Community and Human Services Division, housing operations, and the human resource departments for local hospitals, the Collier County Public School District, Collier County Government, the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. Now, as it happens, several days ago, an article -- well, October 17th, two days ago, an article was posted on the FOX4 website by a reporter called Bella Line who was quoting some representatives of the Collier County School District, and the headline of this article is Collier County Schools Leans on Workforce Housing as Housing Crisis Continues. And I would -- I would submit that the problem which is clear and present in the school district also is present in such services as the fire districts, EMS, shortage of nurses, shortage of other essential workers, government workers. And these are -- you know, without saying anything negative about providing housing for people who cannot otherwise afford it -- and I'm not saying anything about that; I'm just putting a positive spin on it. I think we should, at all times, absent extraordinary circumstances, be requiring these applicants to reach out and do their very best to get these units leased by essential services personnel. Without that, I'm not sure there's significant benefit to the county. And so I had this conversation by text exchange with Mr. Yovanovich yesterday and then again briefly this morning. So to my way of thinking -- and he's going to have full opportunity to respond. But to my way of thinking, this application should be supplemented with some meaningful opportunities for Collier County's essential services personnel, because they're very important to Collier County, that they would have a first opportunity and on a realistic timeline. And in Ascend we had offered or suggested 90 days from the CO, because you could get that notice out -- you know, you didn't need to wait for the building to be completed, and then 45 days afterward so that it wasn't -- it wasn't out not being rented for a long period of time. So I feel very strongly about that. I don't know how other members of the Planning Commission feel. No one's lighting up, so -- whoops. Now we've got -- I'm going to hear from other commissioners, and then you'll have all the time you want, Mr. Yovanovich, to respond. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Good morning, Rich. So these are efficiencies. We've heard one parking spot per unit, so we're looking at -- it ideally will be one individual per unit. So if we look at those income -- what is it? -- 22 percent at 80 percent, the other half at 100, and then a cap at 120 percent, what are those income levels for that one person to qualify? MR. HYLER: I can tell you rough numbers without looking it up. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. That's fine. MR. HYLER: So the -- did you have it? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it. For one person making 80 percent of the Collier County median income, that is for someone making $55,900. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: 55,900. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, I'm going to have to extrapolate because we don't have one for the 100 percent. So the 120 percent is 83,880. So if we add 83,880 to 55,900, divided by two, that would be an estimate of the income threshold for -- and I can't do that in my head. That would be the income threshold for one. Now -- and numbers change a little bit because there could -- 69,690. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, there could be -- some of these units could be occupied by two people. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- and we anticipate that some of that will occur as well. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Some of that will occur, okay. I agree a lot with what the Chair's saying with a portion set aside for our essential service providers here in the county. I think, being married to a teacher, obviously, I talk to a lot of teachers. I can tell you that you are -- your teachers coming into the industry fresh out of college, yes, they are looking -- they are looking for something to rent. When you start getting further down, they're looking for something to own, which is a lot of what the issue is in between the teachers in the district. And I know their union's working very hard on that right now. And I think the same goes for the other industries as well. I mean, we had -- we had a nurse from NCH in the last meeting testify that she had left her position when they offered a $2 raise over $35 an hour. I mean, that's almost 80,000 in itself. So I think this housing will not only service those that are starting out in the industry, whether it be with the fire district or with the Sheriff's Office or teachers, but I also see the need for other providers. We've got a shortage in our hospitality workers right now. We've got a shortage in our site providers in our high-rises in our large HOAs. We've got a shortage across the board. So I'm on the fence of requesting that they build this into the language when I see how short the other industries are, in talking to those members. So I'm on the fence on that one, but I think this is a great project. I think it's going to serve a lot of our Collier residents, but I'm not sure if that language is needed specifically to this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me clarify, and then I'll call on the other commissioners. I'm not saying it should be held out only for those people, just that they have a first crack at it. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: After that, the financial constraints remain in place, and it's opened up to everyone who can meet those constraints. All right. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do agree with much of what you spoke about just now. As a technical question directly -- directed to you, is this something that you would like to evolve into something that's on all programs that have affordable housing? Because I would wonder if it's fair to suggest or even try to impose this on this project but not others. Maybe that's something we can have a more in-depth conversation on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course I'm keeping an open mind on future cases that come in, because they're decided on their own facts. But my mindset at this point would be to ask for it unless -- and to insist upon it unless there's some good reason not to. And I can't at this point -- I haven't set out to endeavor to think of what those reasons might be, but certainly there could well be, and I would keep an open mind on that. But this project that's coming forth to us so soon on the heels of Ascend, where I thought we came up to a very good resolution, I think -- and we'll hear. And, you know, maybe Mr. Yovanovich is going to have reasons why this is inappropriate, and we'll give him every opportunity to reply. But -- so that's, I guess -- I think I've answered your question. I hope I have. Well -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I guess we'll take each project on its own then. Very good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, oh, absolutely, always, always. I mean, that's our responsibility. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And is that because of this price point of the project here and the size of the facility being, more or less, a studio apartment; whereas, for example, Habitat, which is a larger structure, a larger home, may have different qualifications for the type of folks? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's a perfect example of where -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the essential services personnel would not play a role in that, or Habitat, and there could be a myriad of others. And so, you know, I pledge to keep an open mind on each one. I reviewed this material carefully, and, again, I'm going to listen carefully to what Mr. Yovanovich says, but that's -- I wanted people to know where I am on this project as of this moment. Mr. Shea -- Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I view it like you. I would view it case by case and giving the essential service personnel just a little bit of a head start. I mean, that's the key people in the county, so I would absolutely support it in this case because of the project, and I might not support it on another project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's why I am, too. All right, Mr. Yovanovich. What's your thought on it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm glad the Planning Commission agrees that each project needs to be viewed individually because it seems like the latest agreement for a developer because it fit into their business model becomes the new standard, and I think that that is the wrong way to look at each individual project. This is a hotel that has been condemned by the county. It's in really poor shape. It's going to cost $35 million to build this project. My client has a lot of money at risk, and, frankly, the more restrictions you put on his ability to rent units makes the ability to get money to fund the project harder and harder. My client thinks that -- and I've heard this from others, is, we all love teachers, we all love firefighters, but we also like to go out to dinner, and we like to eat, and we have a lot of other people in this county that need housing as well. So I think it's unfair to require every project to hold units aside for a 45-day period with the potential of having no rent on that unit because we want to give teachers and firefighters the first shot at renting this unit. My client won't agree to it. It affects the business model. It's a -- if the unit stays vacant for 45 days, worst case scenario, they all stay vacant, it's a million eight. Now, if the county wants to lease up the units, a master lease, and they could take the risk of making sure that essential service personnel lease those units, we're all in. But my client has thought about it, looked at it, and from a business model standpoint, can't agree to hold units off the market for a 45-day period hoping that, quickly, a teacher, firefighter, or other essential service personnel person will rent the unit. Interestingly, the county's actual definition of essential service personnel is not only those people; it's everybody with a low income. So I don't know why we've decided that we're going to limit or reduce the definition of essential service personnel from what the county has actually adopted as that definition of essential service personnel. My client is absolutely willing to provide the same advertising provision that's in Ascend; we'll do that. And we'll -- on the initial lease-up, we'll -- because we have 90 days before we -- before anybody can move in to, you know, give essential service personnel a first crack at the units. But once we get -- once we get past that 90-day period, the business model doesn't work if we have to continue to let units remain vacant because we've limited who the universe is of people of who can rent that unit. So that's our -- that's our position. We understand, if that's not good enough, well, then we don't have a project, and we don't have these 215 units on the market, and we just have to walk away. It's purely economics. And the -- if you've noticed, the private sector has stepped up and come up with projects to try to address the affordable housing unit [sic] in an economical feasible way. You heard the one project for Bembridge, which was a county project, I forget how many units that was, but you're not going to get too many Bembridges from this point forward. You're going to have to rely on my client and others to figure out how to economically make it work. We can't -- we cannot meet the Ascend requirements other than what I just mentioned. And with that, that's where we are. And we -- vote up the project or vote down the project, but that's the way it's going to -- that's what we're going to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I typically don't agree with Rich, but I kind of do today. I have in the past -- excuse me -- managed low-income housing in Fort Myers, and we've taken it through developer turnover or rehab projects, and the marketing that was done typically would go first to those industries that are around the county: Sheriff's Office, school board, so on and so forth. Because if you market to those first, it's an easier way to fill those units versus doing a public advertisement. Having said that, we also heard in the last meeting from a young lady from Golden Gate City who's a business owner who spoke of the rising rents within Golden Gate City that were pushing people out of Golden Gate City, correct? So I think that this also services that local community where you've got neighbors moving out because they can't afford the rent anymore, and it brings them back into their community. My question for Rich is -- it could be for the planner -- what's the ETA from the time you get approval at the Board of County Commissioners meeting to get your first unit up and ready for occupancy? MR. HYLER: So we believe that from time we get approval at the Board, we're probably 120 days to permits. From there, we believe we'll deliver -- so there's four buildings on the site. We'll deliver those in stages. We think we're probably seven, eight months from the first building. So end of 2024 with the remaining three buildings lagging by five to six months. So Q1 of '25. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. So -- all right. So we're still a year and a half, which is, as with most projects, where we're looking for that. I'll have a question for Cormac here later on that, but that's all I have. Thank you, Rich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I just wanted to make sure. I understand what you're saying is you won't provide any advance notice, but you will provide specific notice; in other words, when you start advertising, you might send a notice to the essential service personnel employers? MR. YOVANOVICH: We will -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I think you said. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the Ascend commitment was to provide -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Just won't hold it open for a period of time for just essential service. MR. YOVANOVICH: We said we would do that for the initial lease-up, the first 90-day. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: After that -- if the units aren't filled in 90 days in the initial lease-up, we can lease it to anybody who meets the income categories, and from that point forward, anybody who meets those income categories. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else want to be heard on that? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm okay with what Rich just proposed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I'm inclined to -- you know, to agree with Mr. Yovanovich and the petitioner, and I think he's proposing something that's reasonable and that really does -- obviously, you know, if there is an acute need, which I think -- you know, I think there is, in the beginning, that acute need can be addressed immediately, and that's a -- that three months to be able to do that, I think, is a great opportunity and -- you know, and those who really fit that category can, you know, swoop in, take advantage of it. There's plenty of time for the news to circulate, and then at that point, I agree, it becomes quite a burden on the -- you know, on the developer here from a business standpoint to just hold units open hoping that, you know, someone's going to come along. So I would be willing to support what Mr. Yovanovich has suggested as an alternate to an across-the-board Band-Aid. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Question for the applicant: Your standard lease, what kind of termination notice do you provide in it? MR. HYLER: Do you want to speak to that, David? MR. TUTTLE: David Tuttle with Stix. We normally have a 60-day notice provision. You know, I think to further address it, you can imagine a situation where maybe a unit's vacated, somebody skips or so forth, so we have a unit available for rent. We have a qualified person there who wants to rent it today, but, yet, with the set-aside, we would have to tell them to go away and come back in 45 or 46 days because we can't rent it to them today. I just think that would put our staff in a terrible position, just from a humanitarian standpoint, that if somebody desperately needs a home to turn them way for preference for somebody else in the county. So thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's say that you get a notice from a tenant that the tenant is not going to re-up. Would you be agreeable at that point to sending notice to essential services personnel but not holding the property off on the market? MR. TUTTLE: Yeah. We're definitely going to have a pipeline to essential services folks because we honestly think they're most likely the people to come and want to live there. Organically, that's what we have in our other projects. You know, we have schoolteachers, support staff at schools, nurses, et cetera. I can't imagine it would be any different here organically. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So let me just be sure, because maybe we can work this out. In the case of the CO, the initial tenant, you'd do 90 days because you could start that well over 90 days before the CO? MR. TUTTLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that, I think, is good. Now, in the -- you've got 60 days' notice in your lease. Let's say that a tenant comes in and gives you 60 days' notice, and let's also say, just to make it interesting, that you've got somebody outside waiting at the door who wants to lease immediately. Would you still be willing to send out a notice and maybe give it five days? MR. TUTTLE: And I'm not trying to be argumentative to this point. It's just, from a managerial standpoint, to have a 45-day or 5-day standoff just makes it very, very difficult to manage. And, you know, every day that a unit is vacant that we don't collect rent makes the project less affordable and attainable for the general public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, I have one more shot here to try to see if we can -- MR. TUTTLE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- come to an agreement. In addition to the 90 days, which we've talked about, let's say that you get a notice from a tenant that the tenant's going to vacate in 60 days, and there is nobody else waiting at the door; would you then be willing to send out notifications and not postpone re-leasing, but just send out notifications to the essential services personnel and then let nature run its course? MR. TUTTLE: Yes. MR. HYLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Well, I can live with that. All right. Thank you. I have a -- anything else, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear from staff. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff has reviewed both the GMP and the PUD amendment, and as contained within our staff report, we are recommending approval. We view this as a unique commodity. This is adaptive reuse. This is something that's pretty new to Collier County, and it's -- I think the purpose of it, for providing for additional multifamily opportunities for the workforce and attainable housing, is one that we most certainly are supportive of. Regarding the discussion that was just had, we do recognize the unique distinction between this and the Ascend project. Because this has the 49 units that are income restricted but the rest are rent restricted, there's constraints in terms of the -- you know, the fiscal business model; we recognize that. In Ascend, you had your portion, your 30 to 34 percent that were going to be income restricted, but the rest were free market to be able to subsidize the income-restricted units. This doesn't have that same luxury, so to speak. So their pro forma, I can only imagine, is a little bit -- a little bit tighter, so we do recognize that, and I think we would applaud the Chair for leading the discussion to find that compromise, because we do think it's a good compromise, at the beginning of the 90-day notice and then just to -- if there was a 60-day notification, send it out to the essential service providers, but the first person who responds to it and is qualified, you know, could most certainly move in. And just wanted to let you know that another aspect, just to show you how unique we find this and how much support staff is behind this project, within the agenda packet, there was a proposed modification to the minimum housing standards. We have minimum housing standards within the county for two people for 450 square feet. We are suggesting a modification to that, and what that will say is for when you have adaptive reuse of an existing building to multifamily and have a commitment for affordable housing, there can be a reduction within the minimum square footage from -- two people from 450 to 250 square feet, recognizing the uniqueness of this adaptive reuse program. For all those reasons, staff is recommending approval to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With the agreed-upon changes? MR. BOSI: Yes, with the agreed-upon changes discussed between the Planning Commission and the applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Now, do we have any members of the public who have registered to speak? MR. SABO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one registered public speaker, Ilen Estrada. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And I'm pretty sure you have not been sworn in because I saw you come in. So we'll get you sworn in. 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? MS. ESTRADA: I do. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Of all the things that I've heard here, I think one of the things that I agree with is that this may be the best -- the best idea is to drop this project. As a resident of this area and businessperson of this area, this project does not serve the need that this community has for affordable housing. What we are doing by reducing the square footage to 200 and something is we're increasing a motel room. We're renting motel rooms. And we live in that area. We have family in that area, and they are single mothers with children that need housing that cannot live in 200-something. So this project is really not helping anybody. I've been a resident of Collier County for over 30 years and a real estate agent for over 30 years. I speak to people every day who are desperate for affordable housing, and this is not going to fit their needs. The families out there are not going to fit with this. Another thing is that we keep on putting up projects without doing the infrastructure, thinking about the infrastructure first. That corner is a headache. There has been, for years, for over 30 years, as long as I live in the county, prostitution, drug trafficking in that corner. Now, just living across the street where we're paying very high taxes and very high money for homes, to have this type of housing really is masquerading -- masquerading hotel rooms as affordable housing. I totally do not agree with this. I think that is not the highest and best use for this land. And if that building has been condemned, maybe the best thing is to tear it down and really think about good affordable housing for families that work here, deserve decent affordable housing, women with children, and, yes, the people that serve us. Fine gentlemen, I understand. I'm a businessperson. I'm into money. I like money. And I -- you know, I totally agree what you want to do, but to you, 45 days is a long time? Guess what? We're going to have to live with this for 20, 30, 40 years. Golden Gate City is the dumping ground for this county, in my opinion, in my humble opinion. We have more than enough projects where there's supposedly affordable rent in Golden Gate City. How about we spread the affordable housing throughout the county? Why does it always have to be Golden Gate City? When we don't want something, where do we take it? We take it to Golden Gate City, or we take it to Golden Gate Estates. And you know what? I am so sorry, because if this project was going to go up in some other place of this county, this whole place would be full, but since it's Golden Gate City, people who cannot afford to take a day off to come here and object to this -- guess what, there's only two people here to object to this. So, again, I say the best suggestion so far is that they drop this project. I'm pretty sure there's developers that would be interested in putting houses out there that can really, and not hypocritically, do affordable housing for families and not single men or people who -- I mean, 200-and-some square footage? Are we kidding? I mean, are we going to get more of what we have right now in that corner? Prostitution? Drugs? We have to live with this every day, the ambulance, the police, everything there. How come we don't have a police officer here or the chief of police, our sheriff talking about the number of arrests and things that are done in that corner? And we have to live with that. So 45 days -- to wait 45 days to rent [sic] a unit and not make money, guess what? We live there. We live there. We work there. We have to drive through there. And there's no infrastructure, you know, plan, or anything on this. I'm sorry, Commissioners, but I truly, truly, truly, as a resident, taxpayer, and businessperson in this town, object to this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other speakers registered? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have no other registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone in the room who's not registered who wishes to be heard, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, we will close the public comment portion of this hearing. And I have just another question or two for the applicant. In the -- at the NIM -- and I'm referring to Page 4 of the 32-page free-standing NIM transcript -- whoever was speaking said it's a smaller unit as the sacrifice that you give up for affordability. The other thing that it offers is actually less barriers when it comes to finding a new home. So because all the utilities are included, you have blank, blank, blank. Now, my question is are all utilities included? MR. HYLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And will they be for 30 years? MR. HYLER: Yeah. I mean, we are not deed restricting the property, right? But our intent is to provide cable, Internet, water, electric. We do a valet trash service that will be all-inclusive. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, maybe it's a matter of nomenclature, but you are deed restricting the property, because this is going to run with the land for 30 years. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, what the county makes you do is subtract from -- and I'm making up a number. Let's just say the rent is $1,500. And if we don't provide those utilities and those utilities cost $100, we can only rent it for $1,400. So utilities are included in the rent. In this particular case, we'll bill the 1,500 and not separately bill for utilities. So that's when -- you're talking about utilities being included -- and Cormac is way more qualified to explain how this works, is -- but you do -- you do, in fact, have to subtract a utility allowance out of the rent you can charge. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Just so that I understand completely, let's say that for business reasons, a decision is made down the road within the 30 years to break out the utilities and separately meter for things. How would -- how would that affect -- how would that financially affect the tenant? MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't, because we'd reduce the rent to cover what's separately billed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that covenant already -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the requirement of the program. MR. HYLER: Yeah. That is -- that's actually a HUD and Florida Housing Authority requirement when it comes to affordability. Yes, it is a -- it is viewed as a net number, and so statewide it is managed that exact same way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, County Attorney, is there any reason why we need to put anything in the 30-year commitment, or is it covered by state law? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If what they're saying is correct and it's covered by the affordable housing requirements of the state or federal government, then, no, I don't think you need to put it in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I think an easy way to understand it is when we have these numbers of 80 percent of, you know, or what -- you know, when we put those limits on there, that number for rent is not just rent. That number is rent and utilities, and, therefore, the rent that's charged either has to include the utilities or has to be reduced to cover. So I think that's what I'm hearing. And so that applies no matter what. So even all these other projects have the same -- you know, that we've already acted on and mandated or, you know, approved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think that's -- I agree with you. I think that's what's being said, but at this point -- and I certainly understand the County Attorney can't be thoroughly researched and prepared to answer every obscure legal question that might get thrown at them, but we're -- I take it, then, you were careful and judicious in your answer, and I don't believe you said that that's what the law says. You said if the law says that, then you don't need it in the document. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, is Cormac here? He can -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- clarify that information. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear from him. Good idea. Mr. Giblin, welcome, and what say you, sir? MR. GIBLIN: Good morning. Cormac Giblin, director of Housing Policy and Economic Development. What's been said so far is correct. The income limits posted by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation that are derived from HUD are gross rents that include utilities. Should an apartment complex not include a particular utility, there is a schedule of values that those are then deducted from the rent to make up for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And my question's been fully answered. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Good morning. One quick question. Are there different sized units, the ones that might go in the basement versus first floor, second floor? Just curious. MR. HYLER: I can say we don't have a basement. But, yeah -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But the lower level where the parking floor is? MR. HYLER: Yeah, yeah. It's the ground floor which, actually, a lot of people prefer because it's easier access to their vehicle to unload groceries, et cetera. So please don't view that as a detriment. But, yes, there are different sized units based on the existing footprint of the building as it was built. So we are not modifying the shell, so to speak, and so the unit sizes range from around 305 up to around 455 square feet as an approximation. Some have balconies; some do not. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that if you would like some comfort in including, you know, the rent will be calculated including, you know, the following utilities or -- because you mentioned cable, and I can't imagine that HUD would require cable television as part of the calculation. I would think the calculation includes things that are, like, necessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would the applicant agree to inclusion of that language? MR. HYLER: I don't -- I think that's already covered under state law, and I think that we're getting a lot of restrictions on a property that's already very slim, and I think it's an overburden. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So does the rent adjustment include cable television? MR. HYLER: So to be clear, so right now we include rent as a package because we are able to buy a bulk package through Spectrum or Time Warner that is substantially less expensive than what an individual tenant can go get it for. We pay about $40 a month for both, and market rate is 90 to $120 a month. If in the future that company goes out of business or we're no longer able to achieve those economies of scale and we don't provide it, no, we would not be willing to deduct whatever market rate for an individual is because we can buy it so much cheaper. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope we're not going to get into having PUDs now spell out exactly what utilities are going to be included in the rent in order to get a project approved. I mean, at some point, we have to just say the program that's out there is sufficient to provide safe, decent housing for people who otherwise wouldn't have safe, decent housing and working in Collier County. I don't think we need to nitpick and get into what utilities are in the rent and that we're going to commit to that for 30 years. We're committing to a program that's out there that requires certain utilities be deducted from the rent or be included in the rent. We're going to commit to that program. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It does make it difficult for staff to administer if, you know, they have one program here, another program here. So to that extent, I would agree with Rich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Anything further from the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just -- I'm not going to address the comments from the public speaker, but I do want her to know that this is the first project, at least that I've been involved in -- and I've been involved in several of the most recent affordable housing projects -- that's in Golden Gate City. All the others have been in other portions of Collier County. So we're not dumping affordable housing into Golden Gate City, and you-all are aware of those other projects. She's probably not. So I just thought that the record should be a little bit clearer on that. And, candidly, I can't imagine that anybody in Golden Gate City would like this hotel to stay and get renovated and remain operable, because nobody's going to buy this property, knock it down, and put in multi-bedroom apartments and make it work financially. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Sparrazza, or did I forget to turn your light off? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: There's too many people agreeing with Rich today. That's all I'm going to say. Being the District 3 planning rep, that hotel is an eyesore. It has been for years. It's been a problem. I agree with the things that were going on there. You know, it has been a burden on our Sheriff's Office to babysit. But also, you and I spoke at the last meeting, and we discussed how people bought houses in Golden Gate City sight unseen and raised rents on tenants that live there and pushed them out of the community. Hindsight's always 20/20. Perhaps there should have been some type of ordinance put in place that could not raise the rent on somebody for a year if you were purchasing the property that it was already rented to somebody in need. This project is not looking to house families. Obviously, it's efficiencies. This is -- as Rich said, could be the first project of many. We've seen the commercial property on the outlies of Golden Gate City, that some of them are closed down and derelict, best condition to use for it. Those properties under the Live Local Act, a developer come could in because it's commercial -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Bosi -- and put in a portion of affordable housing and larger units if they choose so. So I think this project steps in the right direction versus a developer coming in, knocking it down, and putting in condos that nobody in the Golden Gate City area could afford. So that's my aspect of it. I do support this project. I don't think cable TV needs to be included. I think the state statute covers what's required of them to include in the rent. And I did have one question for Mr. Giblin. And I'm sorry you went back there. I was going to try to grab you before you ran back, but... The question I was going to ask you, sir, was on rent subsidies that the county provides currently to the state, if you have that information. MR. GIBLIN: The Community and Human Services Department covers the grants that are available to renters in the county. I can tell you that they have a tenant-based rental assistance program that they offer. They work with landlords and low-income residents to help offset a portion of the rents that they can't pay. Also, the Collier County Housing Authority has at Section 8 program. Both of those have pretty long waiting lists, but there are people in the county that are getting assistance today. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So the funding right now, you would say, is kind of at its limit, and there's people that are waiting to get -- MR. GIBLIN: Correct. Both of those programs have waiting lists. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The reason I ask that is because when we see these projects that are a year out, like this one is 2024 for the first phase to be ready to go, I'm just asking as to how we're funding those as in-house. Thank you. That answers my question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling at this time, and, therefore, we will take the matter under advisement for deliberation and motion. The floor's open to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes, sir. I would like to move forward with a motion to grant this proposal with the statements that I believe we've all agreed upon as far as the timetable for the visual availability and public announcement for when the project is available going to a smaller sector, being the essential workers, and also I believe it was discussed that upon -- any unit that becomes available, it might be something as a quick email to the essential services headquarters personnel programs that alerts them, "In three days we have a program that might become available, wanted to inform you of that." I don't know if the exact wording follows what I just said, but I think we have a pretty good idea to that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Close enough. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So that is my proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to try to clarify what I think. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Please do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That -- and I'll say it this way: Even -- Ascend is not a precedent. We don't have precedence around here. We take each case as it comes along, but the language there is a pretty good starting point. So I would like you to consider amending your motion to say we will -- and I read the Ascend language and can read it again. It's going to be Ascend except we're going to delete the 45-day requirement, and in lieu of it, when the owner becomes aware of an impending vacancy, the owner will send out a notice to those same essential services personnel agencies that are identified in that language I read, but they're not required to hold the property open for any length of time. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you for that clarification, and I would like to include that statement in the initial motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Does the seconder agree? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I understand, if you don't mind, we're basically going to take the Ascend language and appropriately modify it for what we just discussed. So we would be providing the notice to the same entities that are identified in the Ascend ordinance, and we would initially lease up -- for the 90-day period, initial lease-up to that smaller group. After that, no restrictions on who we lease it up to, but we're going to provide notice, but if someone's sitting there who's income-qualified, we can still rent it to that person and not have to wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. I think you've stated it well, yep. So does the rest of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further comments or discussion before we take a vote? Anything from Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I'm -- I am very pleased with how this has been wiggled into what's presented right now on the motion at hand. So I'm glad that that's where we're at. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, members of the public, staff, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Both of them, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's -- oh, that's right. And the motion -- just for full -- complete clarity, there were -- this was a joint motion both on the GMPA and the MPUD-A. Correct, movant? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct, without objection, Planning Commission, that's what we did. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Both have passed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Yes, both have passed, right. And we did not need to have an EAC vote on that. All right. So we may be breaking some records here today. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Don't jinx it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Don't talk too quick. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The amount of people agreeing with Rich, plus a speed record on this meeting, I mean -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is -- something is just way wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll have to buy a scratch-off ticket when I leave here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll do my best. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Our second hearing today, second and last, is on PL20220006512, which is a large-scale GMPA to change the land-use planning period. The matter's purely legislative in nature, so no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. With that, I'll turn it over with a word of welcome to Mr. David Weeks. Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome back. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, a contract employee now for Collier County Government. I actually work for NOVA Engineering & Environmental. This is a Growth Management Plan amendment, and it's a very simple one. It is to amend the Future Land Use Map land-use planning time period. The map presently reads 2012 to 2025, and the proposal is to change that to 2023 to 2045. This is necessitated by Florida statutes. There is a requirement to have a 10-year planning horizon, and then in 2023, the Florida Legislature also added a planning requirement to go out also to 20 years, and this amendment will accomplish that. As you note here, there are no other changes to the Future Land Use Map. There's no changes to densities or intensities of land use. It has no effect on prior property rights. And also I would note that the capital facilities planning period remains at 5 and 10 years. So every year when you see the Annual Update and Inventory Report and Capital Improvement Element update, that will continue to be 5- and 10-year periods. It is not affected by the statutory change. This simply shows the Future Land Use Map. Again, in the upper left-hand corner is where the change is made from 2023 to 2045. The statutes still require that the Future Land Use Map accommodate land uses necessary to support the population in the horizon year, in this case, the year being 2045, and the current projected population at that period -- time year would be approximately 491,000 persons. And staff's analysis shows that the Future Land Use Map will accommodate the needed land uses, residential, commercial, industrial, government facilities, parks and recreation, et cetera, to support that 2045 population. And with that, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Questions for Mr. Weeks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. All right. Any registered speakers on this one? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there are no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any persons in the room who have not registered wish to be heard in this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands, we'll close the public comment segment of this hearing, and we'll take the matter up for deliberation and vote at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve the large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to change the land-use planning period as outlined by Mr. Weeks. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Weeks. Thank you, staff. Now, before you run off, everybody, we've got one more item that we put on, and that's 11A, election of officers. Oh, Mr. Bosi, did you want to be heard? MR. BOSI: After election of officers, I just wanted to engage the Planning Commission about the December 7th potential for a night meeting and -- but we can talk about that after. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***All right. Okay. So just to set the table here, the Collier County ordinance, it's 2009-29, Section 1, as amended, provides that the Planning Commission officers' terms shall be for, quote, one year with eligibility for reelection, unquote. And per Robert's Rules, nominations to office do not require a second. With that, I'll call for nominations to the office of chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I nominate Edwin Fryer for Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Are there further nominations for the office of chairman? If not, the nominations for the office of chairman are closed. All those in favor of reelecting the chairman to that office, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Now we'll turn to the office of vice chairman. I'd entertain motions -- entertain nominations on that office. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I make a motion that Joe Schmitt continue in that role as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further nominations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: There being none, nominations are closed. I'd entertain a motion to reelect the vice chairman to that office. I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Oh, motion. My apology. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I second. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Not required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This isn't a nomination. This is a vote on a nomination. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Vice Chairman Schmitt is unanimously reelected. Now to the office of secretary. And so that he's not embarrassed, I'm going to open the nominations by making one. I nominate Paul Shea. Any further nominations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, nominations for the office of secretary are closed. I'd entertain a motion that we elect -- reelect Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motioned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Congratulations -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Mr. Secretary. All right. Thank you very much. We completed our business, and now we'll go to Mr. Bosi who wants to drag us back in here for another meeting. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. We had briefly spoken about at a prior meeting we have the need for a nighttime hearing. We have two, potentially three, LDC amendments that will require that 5:05 start time. We're proposing it for December 7th. We currently tentatively have two petitions scheduled. If those two petitions remain scheduled, we're going to estimate the time, and we will send out an email to the Planning Commission members to see if a 2:00 or a 3:00 start time would be agreeable and that we will have a quorum for the December 7th meeting. As we probably -- it will probably be the first or second -- first or second week of November, we'll send out that email as correspondence just to confirm the availability. But I remember when we had this initial discussion, we had -- tentatively had agreed that there was going to be able to establish a quorum for that day, but just wanted to further make the Planning Commission aware of the need for that nighttime hearing on the 7th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Discussion from the Planning Commission? We're already going to be here in the morning or, perhaps, the afternoon, and what's being proposed is come back the same day. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And, Mr. Bosi, did you state you intend to start this meeting midafternoon, not at 5:05? MR. BOSI: Yes, because there will be two petitions that aren't required for nighttime, are just traditional petitions. COMMISSIONER SHEA: In lieu of a 9:00. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: In lieu of the 9:00, we start at 2:00 or 3:00 -- MR. BOSI: 2:00 or 3:00. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- and then reconvene at 1705? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I assume, though, that it -- since, really, our only constraint, I believe, is notice, and that's 15 days, that things could come in that would add to that and maybe necessitate 9 a.m. start or not? MR. BOSI: I would highly doubt a 9 a.m., but there may be a 1:00 start if we get another petition. The two petitions that we have aren't expected to have a tremendous amount of public interest. So staff will gauge that. And another note, we have tentatively canceled the December 21st because -- CCPC meeting because of the proximity to the holiday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did you say tentatively canceled? MR. BOSI: Well, we wanted to make sure it was okay with the Planning Commission before we did so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Yeah. Well, let's first -- let's just take a quick vote on the night meeting on December 7. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm going to be -- the one meeting I have missed in a while. I'm going to be out of town at another board meeting, and I'm going to miss both -- that whole day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if it still works, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anyone else have a problem with the evening meeting? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I should be able to make them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, you on board with that, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I don't foresee a problem. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Then we will meet at some point starting at sometime during the day on December 7, and then either come back or continue through into the 5:05 evening meeting. All right, good. And then the -- so that's been settled. Then the matter of the December 21 hearing, it seems to me that it would be altogether fitting for us to cancel that meeting as well. Any objections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, that meeting's canceled. MR. BOSI: And, good. Just for your own knowledge base, we do -- we will have a couple petitions on the July 4th -- or not July -- January 4th CCPC. It's the first meeting of the new year. So after the holidays, it won't be long before we're back up and running just -- but we'll send you more information as those become a little more solid. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. So I think that completes our new business, and we didn't have any old business. And so anybody in the room who wants to be heard on a matter that was not on our agenda today, now is the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, 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 10:12 a.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.