Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/20/2024 DraftSeptember 20, 2024 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 20, 2024 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: Chairman: Edwin Fryer Vice Chair: Joe Schmitt Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, (CCPS) (Absent) 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 Eric Johnson, Principal Planner September 20, 2024 Page 2 MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning, everyone. I want to begin by saying I'm about to lose my voice, so I'm going to do the best I can here. Please bear with me. Welcome to the September 20, 2024, 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. 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. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart is not here. We have all the members of -- the voting members of the Planning Commission present, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Full house. Thank you, Secretary. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: As noted on the agenda, the Items 7 and 8 have been continued indefinitely. That's -- excuse me. Mike is correcting me. They are asking a continuance, and we need your September 20, 2024 Page 3 concurrence on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve the continuance as requested by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You said 7 and 8? I only have -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's David Lawrence Center. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but I only have 7 on my agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a companion item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's a page that didn't come out, or is it on the back? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. Maybe I -- well, anyways. MR. BELLOWS: It's the Hope Home project, but -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So 8 is Hope Home also? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Am I correct that we have public speakers who want to be heard on this? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. May I speak? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment. I would -- I would have to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though this -- speaking on a matter that would be quasi-judicial or will be when it comes before us, we probably need to swear in witnesses. Does that sound right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then everyone that wishes to be heard in this matter -- this is the matter to be -- which is before us for possible continuance, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the September 20, 2024 Page 4 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. Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just a clarification. Are they going to speak on whether we should grant the continuance or on the substance of it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the only thing that's before us right now. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So that's all, it's whether we should continue? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I mean, if we don't grant the continuance, then the matter would be before us, but right now the only thing that is before us is the request for a continuance. All right. Is there any discussion from up here, or should we go right to the -- well, I guess we ought to -- we ought to poll for ex partes. So we'll start, Commissioner Vernon, with you, please, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, unless there's some reason not to grant the continuance, it seems like it was done appropriately and should be granted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think he was asking for ex parte. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just can't wait to get out of here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Out of an abundance of caution. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm on the David Lawrence Center board, so I would have recused myself from the vote, so I've talked to them about this on a regular basis. September 20, 2024 Page 5 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: None. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've had meetings with staff, matters of public record, and a conversation with petitioner's counsel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've had no discussions about this at all. But just for the person who wants to speak publicly, none of us have even got any documentation on this because it's a continuance. So I have no information on this. I have no idea other than what was advertised. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I had discussed briefly with staff. I looked at staff material, which is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For this item, 7 and 8? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We didn't get any. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We didn't get any. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, I know. Just in the agenda, just that it was on the agenda. And I spoke to a long-time friend of mine, Father Orsi, who I believe is involved, at least interested in the David Lawrence Center's work. He asked me what the status of it was, and I simply told him that I would find out and that it was postponed, and I would no longer be on the Board. So I don't really know where that's going. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Regarding Item 7 and 8, I have no information on it and have had no discussion with anybody on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then -- anybody else want to be heard before we hear from the public? September 20, 2024 Page 6 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we ought to ask staff to weigh in on the subject. It's -- it's a little bit complicated because -- thanks primarily, I think, to the Sunshine Law, there's really no way we can hear and consider these things informally, and it puts the applicant and members of the public in a difficult situation. But I've thought a great deal about how to accommodate it, and I can't -- I have not been able to come up with a satisfactory solution given the circumstances. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if they speak now, when it comes up, can they speak again? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. This is just on the question of continuance. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because it's just -- speaking now is a long time between when we get the package and the information and probably is less impactful than if you spoke when it was actually before us. That's all -- the only reason I'm suggesting it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and I think -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: And, again, just to -- whoever speaks would just be speaking on the continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And I think that is important to clarify. And unless staff or the County Attorney disagrees that the remarks that are to be made by the public need to be confined to the question of continuance. Is that fair or not? Because if they're going to speak on the merits, then that raises the question of whether they get to speak again. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. It's a procedural question, so it should be limited to the continuance. September 20, 2024 Page 7 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else, Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let's hear from the public speakers, then. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have two public speakers, Cheryl Zickler and Michael Rizzo. Cheryl is ceding time to Mr. Rizzo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Rizzo, please go up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Either one. You understand the ground rules, sir, that we're talking just about the continuance, not the merits? MR. RIZZO: I understand. When you find the merits of this proposal, you'll understand why our community doesn't want it to be indefinitely postponed. We would be comfortable with a date, but we cannot go indefinitely living in the environment this is creating as far as fear. We submitted all of our documents to the Planning Commission so as to make our concerns clear, and the last documents we submitted were in the middle of July, which made it available to the petitioner to see everything that we were concerned about. They initially planned this meeting for August 15th, but the most experienced land attorney in Dade County that moved over here forgot to put the sign up. So we had to postpone it for six more weeks because they forgot to put the signs up. So my neighborhood remained frightened and waiting for closure for another six weeks. And then the NIM meeting was more than -- about a year ago, and the first mention of this was in the beginning of July of '23 that my neighborhood has been on edge about closure. And then the last day before the chance to cancel this scheduled September 20, 2024 Page 8 meeting for the 20th of this month they requested an additional indefinite continuance. Either they should withdraw their proposal, or we should pick a date that we can get closure on this, because 52 residents that live in close proximity to this proposed project have not been able to sleep for a year. And when you find the merits of the project -- I won't go there now. When you find the merits of the project, I think you'll sympathize with the community. But we cannot have an indefinite, no-closure plan to address something that families with children are thinking of moving over. People that are buying houses are finding out this is happening, and they feel they were double-crossed by realtors. This is a really serious impact on our community, and postponing it indefinitely would not be the right thing to do. It might the -- it might feel like the right thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do. So that's all I have to say. I don't need 10 minutes. I gave you two minutes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff, for clarification, "continuance," in my mind, pushes this out at least 60 to 90 -- at least 90 days, if not more. But if they withdraw, is it six months or a year before they can resubmit? MR. BOSI: Is it six months? Nine months. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nine months. If they withdraw, nine months later they can come back in and resubmit. Continuing indefinitely, when I look at thinking about advertising and other requirements, they're going to probably -- they're going to have a NIM again, most likely, and advertisements. We're still talking at least four to six months before we see this. September 20, 2024 Page 9 So I'm not sure -- I heard what was asked of us to basically deny the continuance and force them to withdraw, but regardless, they can resubmit. There's a matter of, what, 60 days' difference in time. So I don't understand what comfort that would bring to the community because they could still come back and ask -- resubmit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask Mr. Yovanovich, if I may, and then we'll go. Would you be willing to continue to a date-certain? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. We're not prepared to pick a date. And let me -- if I can respond to some things that were said. One, I'm assuming I'm the experienced land-use lawyer from Dade County. I'm not from Dade County. I've been living in Collier County since 1990. What happened with regard to the sign was the planner -- the lawyers don't post the signs. The planner who is responsible for that left the company they were working for, and there was a mess-up, an innocent mess-up with regard to signs, so we did need to continue. We followed every process. If you remember, your regulation -- or rule or resolution that you guys adopted was you did not want -- you didn't want to read a thousand pages worth of documents and then have me show up that day and say "I would like a continuance." So we did what we've been instructed to do or understood we were supposed to do under the new rules, made sure everything was continued before you received any materials. So we thought we were following the process in requesting the continuance. We're not ready to move forward on a specific date. My understanding under the rules is the nine months Mike was talking about was if we were denied we would not be allowed another hearing. It wouldn't -- it has nothing to do with when we can September 20, 2024 Page 10 resubmit. That doesn't apply, because if we withdraw, we will have not had a hearing, and we will just simply file again tomorrow, we'll pay the fees, and nothing would have been accomplished other than we'll waste some money with regard to paying application fees. I don't want to get into the merits. We followed the process. It's not unusual for petitioners to say "we want a continuance" because we need to -- we need time. I got e-mails last week regarding this project forwarded to me by staff from Mr. Rizzo. So I didn't check the dates on it, but they were a little bit different than what he said in the past. We have a right to ask for a continuance, and we're requesting that continuance. Nothing is served by forcing a withdrawal or forcing us into a date-certain where we may come back and say, "You know what, we're still not ready." So with that, we ask for our continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think -- I think Rich covered a lot of it. I mean, he's done everything by the book, so I don't know why we'd question that. And, you know, this is such an important project. I mean, every -- every group in this community, government/nongovernment, agrees there's so much evidence this is a great project, you know. So I think the issue is where it's going to be. So, you know, I think it ought to be on their timeline to bring it before us as long as it's properly noticed and all that stuff. So I don't see any reason why we wouldn't grant their request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it's -- go ahead, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And staff will note if there's no activity within six September 20, 2024 Page 11 months, we will contact the applicant to let them know that they need to take action or withdraw the petition. We'll also look at when the neighborhood information meeting was last held; we'll look at that timeline. If it's past a year on that, and we don't have a date-certain, they may be required to have another neighborhood information meeting just because of the time lapse. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be required to do another neighborhood information meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it's been moved and seconded that we grant a continuance indefinitely for these two matters. And I guess I should -- I'll read the PL numbers just to cover that. It's PL20220005195 and PL20220005096 to be continued indefinitely. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: (Abstains.) 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 right. Mr. Bellows, any other addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is potentially set for October 3rd, but with the matter that was just September 20, 2024 Page 12 continued, I don't think we're going to need that date. Nothing has been noticed out to be heard on that date. We could -- we could continue something that we started today. I don't think that's going to be necessary, but we can take that up at the end of the day just to be sure. So that takes us to October 17. Anyone know if he or she cannot be here on October 17th? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are we saying the 3rd is off? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we're going to -- we're going to take action on that at the end -- I'm just -- I don't think we're going to need the day, but we'll know for sure at the end of the meeting. And then we'll cancel at the end of the meeting if we don't need it. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mr. Chairman, I am unable to attend October 3rd's meeting. I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And if -- do you know that we will have replacements for our fellow council members that are not going to be here? In other words, maybe we can't even have a meeting on the 3rd for quorum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Based upon the executive summary, we have -- a replacement for Commissioner Klucik already been appointed. The replacement for Commissioner Vernon is being -- is suggested within the executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners on their -- next Tuesday, the 24th. So the replacement for Mr. Vernon as well. There is still a request from Commissioner Kowal for his representative, which Commissioner Fryer now sits. Commissioner Fryer has his application in, but the commissioner has asked for time until he appoints -- he's looking for additional applications. So when we do move forward on our next hearing, probably the 17th of September 20, 2024 Page 13 October, we may be down one commissioner based upon the executive summary as it's currently presented. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further on that, I'm going to have a meeting with Commissioner Kowal and find out what his intentions are, and we'll go from there. All right. So that takes care of absences. Approval of minutes, we've got three sets before us for action today: February 1, 2024 -- and this was -- somehow got skipped. I mean, this is many months ago, but we need to take action to file them with the official record, and then those minutes of our August 1st, 2024, and August 15, 2024, meetings. First of all, is there any objection to us voting on all three of these minutes with one joint motion? Anybody object to doing that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. If not, I'd entertain a motion, then, to approve the minutes of all three of those meetings in one -- in a single motion. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve all three sets of minutes as presented in our packet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. September 20, 2024 Page 14 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All three sets of minutes are approved unanimously. Thank you very much. Board of County Commissioners report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On September 10th, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Elanto Naples RPUD and the Immokalee One-Stop Shop MPUD on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. We go to our first advertised meeting. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I had a quick procedural thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. Go ahead, sir. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner. I didn't see you were lit. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. A very minor thing, but I don't even know whether I had to recuse myself from the postponement, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It didn't matter the way the vote came out. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I didn't vote. So I guess if we could let the record reflect that I did not vote on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I did comment, as I'm allowed to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The record will so show. Thank you. All right. Then we go to our first -- our first meeting -- our first hearing, excuse me. This is PL20240004018, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to eliminate the cap on the size of a town and for certain other September 20, 2024 Page 15 changes. The matter's primarily legislative in nature, so no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. The Chair recognizes Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant, which is Ave Maria Development, LLP. Chris Scott is the professional planner on this matter. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Excuse me, Mr. Yovanovich. Chairman, do we need to do ex parte now for the rest of the meeting since we only did it for the continuance? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, this matter's legislative, so... COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Because it's a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment, but thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I apologize. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: This item was originally discussed informally by the Planning Commission, oh, probably a year or so ago. I think -- I think it was Planning Commissioner Klucik said, why do we even have this 5,000-acre cap in the Growth Management Plan in the first place? And I think the general consensus was we're not really sure why that was there. So we have taken it upon ourselves to bring forward a Growth Management Plan amendment to eliminate the 5,000-acre cap. That doesn't change the maximum acreage that's eligible to be designated an SRA. It just simply allows petitions to come forward at greater than 5,000 acres. By way of example, if Ave Maria wanted to add additional acreage to the town instead of bringing in a companion Growth Management Plan amendment to exempt itself from the 5,000 acres, we would just simply come forward with an SRA September 20, 2024 Page 16 designation package for your-all's consideration. And then we wanted to clarify uses that basically serve both the town and surrounding areas would be counted towards the required minimum square footage for each dwelling unit that is part of the town. So those are the two changes. Staff is recommending approval. These are the actual strikethroughs that you would see in your package that we're making to the Growth Management Plan. It's really a fairly straightforward, short and simple request. Not -- that doesn't mean it's not important, but we're requesting your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners of the two minor changes that we're making to the Growth Management Plan to accommodate increasing the -- eliminating a maximum acreage for towns and making it clear that certain uses would also qualify as goods and services for towns. And with that, either Chris or I can answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record, Chris, I was part of the staff as -- back then what we called the administrator for Community Development/Environmental Services when the Rural Lands Stewardship program went through the legislative process. And my recollection, the 5,000 acres was really nothing more than a concern on the size of a village, nothing more. I can't recall -- like Mr. Yovanovich just said -- any justification. But I think -- I strongly support this. The plan has been in effect. We've had a couple amendments but, frankly, it's, what, 22 years, the Rural Lands Stewardship program, and it's inevitable that as development has taken place, especially with the development of the towns and villages to the east, there seems -- there appears a need to adjust and modify the rules, and this is a good adjustment to those September 20, 2024 Page 17 rules, so I would strongly recommend to my colleagues that we approve this as asked. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I'm -- I kind of was just curious about it and about why it was 5,000, and nobody had an answer other than, "It seemed like a lot at the time." So kind of like, yeah, I mean -- but my only thought is, is there any reason to cap at some level? Is there any level in which this may cause a problem? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to see every -- every town application, so I think that they each kind of stand on their own merits. So we'll come forward. Let's say we wanted to add 2,000 acres to Ave Maria, so 7,000 acres. You'll see it. You'll understand it. And you may say, well, that may be too big or it's fine. But you'll see every application. So I think it's important that you have the flexibility that is kind of on a case-by-case basis and not have -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Rather than putting a cap on it, 10 years from now we'll go, why did we do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, why did we do that, and then we're here again saying, you know, guess what, we're at 7,001 acres. Do we need to do a Growth Management Plan amendment? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just kind of looking at my fellow -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Making up a number. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, get the thoughts of my fellow -- whether you guys have any -- Joe, do you have any concerns over not having a cap? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. The -- understand that the Rural Lands Stewardship overlay, it's already zoned. It's zoned for development. It's the -- it's the applications and then the tradeoff between Sending Lands and Receiving Lands. September 20, 2024 Page 18 So the size is strictly based on the Receiving Lands, what -- how big you can put a town in on the designated Receiving Lands. So it's -- like I said, it's already zoned. It's just a matter of the application process is the tradeoff of the lands that are placed into preservation through the other -- you know, through the transfer of development rights for those properties. I don't know if I answered your question. The size of the -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just seeing if anybody goes, "Well, we need a cap at no more than" -- and nobody's saying that who is in the real estate world or the Growth Management world, and Rich has answered it, so I'm fine with it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can only believe at that time there was a concern that this thing would consume the entire county. But, again, you're limited on the Receiving Lands. That's -- that's clear. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I'm good with it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I would say that, you know, as a cautionary measure it made sense because it was a new beast, and everyone was a little -- you know, it was -- everyone -- not everyone. There was momentum to approve the RLSA program, and I think it was new, and so that made sense that there was some caution and some -- some -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'd just add -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- yeah, some guard -- guardrails put on the program to make sure -- well, we don't know what we're dealing with. We don't know how it's going to end up, and it makes sense to put a cap on it. What I will say now is -- if we can go to the pink-and-green map. September 20, 2024 Page 19 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can we throw that up there? Make it larger. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, boy. I've got to phone a friend. I don't know how to make it larger. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I guess what I'll say is in the middle you see the orange-striped area is Ave Maria, my hometown. You want to point that out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So if you see all the pink area that's adjacent to Ave Maria, just to the north and all that land to the right on the east side of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: All this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- Camp Keais Road. So if the developer wanted -- you know, if the current developer of Ave Maria wanted to go ahead and buy all that land -- and they've acquired some of it, or maybe they even own all of it, I don't even know. But I know they have some of the land beyond the orange boundary -- right now they can develop every inch of that if they, you know, use -- you know, if they do the tradeoff system where they, you know, have sending and receiving acreage and they do all of that. So what's the -- I think the rationale is at this point we can see, what's the rational basis to force the developer of Ave Maria to piecemeal do a bunch of villages or hamlets to fill in the pink area, which is obviously going to all be part of the same community, versus just saying, "Hey, you know what, let's be comprehensive, and we're going to relook at Ave Maria town." And it's 5,000 acres now or 6,000 acres now, and we're going to go ahead and add 1,000 acres, and then we're going to add 3,000, then we're going to add 2,000 acres, and then all of a sudden all that pink area, which is going to be developed anyways, maybe even by the same developer, instead of it September 20, 2024 Page 20 being taken down for planning purposes as a bunch -- you know, like, as five additional villages, why are we doing that? Because when you have the five, you know, different villages, I don't know what the advantage is to just allowing a landowner to go ahead and say, "Yeah, I'm going to expand what I've already got." That makes a lot of sense to me. I did advocate this idea before, and I'm glad to say that, especially on my last meeting as a planning commissioner, that I, you know, get to vote on this and to give just a big, you know, fat, wet kiss to Ave Maria Development, to Rich on the way out, who has always -- always, you know, certainly faced scrutiny, but I think always, I hope, fairness in the things that he brings before us to hear. And in this one, I think it's -- I don't -- I don't see any reason why. The only thing I would like to flesh out -- why not to approve it. The only thing I'd like to flesh out is the add-on, because I know you just can't resist that. Let's talk about the uses. Talk to me about that, how you're redefining that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, where -- I'm going to try to get to that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Or however you're rejiggering that. I'm not sure exactly what you're doing, so help me understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're clarifying is there's certain jobs that technically don't qualify, from staff's perspective, as goods and services. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Certain jobs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Industries, you know, professions. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what we're trying to clarify is that those jobs and professions -- and I can have Chris come up with greater detail as to what those are -- would qualify because as goods September 20, 2024 Page 21 and services -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you have a minimum number? MR. YOVANOVICH: What you have is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: At buildout, you are required to have a certain minimum amount of certain categories of development. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Under goods and services, we're required to have 170 square feet per dwelling unit. The jobs that we're trying to add in would not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: To make sure it's not just a bedroom community? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So what we're trying to -- and it would not qualify under the definition of goods and services, they would not apply towards the 170 square feet per unit. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So give me some specifics then. Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where did he go? MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Chris Scott, planning manager with Peninsula Engineer. Let me -- the RLSA program -- I think it's more of a clarification than it is a revision. Towns and villages are required to provide goods and services. If you look in Attachment C of the RLSA program -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Well, just -- that's great. I do want to hear what you have to say, but my specific question is: Give some specific examples of what doesn't count -- MR. SCOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- that right now it doesn't count and that you've decided, "Oh, wow, we need to get this modified because that should count; otherwise, we can't do what we'd like to September 20, 2024 Page 22 do or what we foresee, you know, we're going to do." MR. SCOTT: Certainly. Well, using Ave Maria as an example, Arthrex, and the new glass factory, large employment centers should count towards the square footage, because the goal of the RLSA program is to have self-sufficient towns, not just where people can shop and get their everyday needs and services, but also the park -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you're saying goods and services should now be defined to include factories? MR. SCOTT: We are saying that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I mean, that's a really easy question to answer. MR. SCOTT: Yes. In short, yes, employment centers. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I don't know as I -- I don't know as that makes sense to me. What's the requirement otherwise for -- or the rule regarding a factory? MR. SCOTT: There are none. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So right now you can have a factory, but there's no requirement one way or the other, but it doesn't count as goods and services. What is goods and services? How is it defined right now? MR. SCOTT: It is not defined right now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. How it classically, traditionally defined? How is it defined in the county? What is the expectation when people read that line? It must mean something. Your company, your client clearly drafted what they put before the Planning Commission in two thousand and whenever, and they asked for goods and services of X. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What did they envision -- because if you can't answer that question, then I'm going September 20, 2024 Page 23 to, like, just say, yeah, let's go ahead and approve the -- you know, getting rid of the cap but that we're going to delete -- recommend deleting the redefinition of goods and service because I don't -- first of all, this is the first I'm hearing of this, and I'm a little disappointed that staff didn't make it more clear to me that it wasn't just an expansion. I do -- have always relied on you guys to help me understand the -- you know, what's really going on. I didn't think this was significant. I think it's pretty substantial whether or not, me and -- I and my neighbors have actual goods and services, and I certainly, on any reading of goods and services, would never think, you know, factory space counts. And I don't want to be -- end up without actual goods and services in my community. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And I would think goods and services has historically been retail, offices, medical offices, things like that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I can run around and do my daily business and have the things that I need right there in town, which is not normally a factory. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or -- correct, but they're also part of what -- the purpose of the RLSA was to keep people from coming to the west coast by providing jobs, opportunities for people to live in their community, work in their community. And I'll tell you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What about my concern that there's going to be a lack of goods and services now because you're able to say, "Oh, we have 170 square feet per dwelling unit of goods and services. Look at all these giant factories that's provide -- you know, provide jobs but don't provide actual goods and services to the people who live here." MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, could I -- I'm September 20, 2024 Page 24 sorry to interrupt. Could I just ask a clarifying question just so I understand where -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will you yield for his question? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's to you, Robb. Are you objecting to the concept of -- say, Arthrex being out there, places like that, are you objecting to the fact you feel like they're taking -- they're going about it the wrong way? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. No, no, no. I -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just trying to figure out -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I welcome -- I welcome the economic activity and the -- you know, and the creation of jobs in Ave Maria. I welcome those factories there. That's a very good thing. I don't think it's wise -- I think there's a reason goods and services is highlighted as having a minimum. The whole point of this is to not have sprawl and to have -- not -- you know, to reduce the trip -- you know, the trips and the -- you know, the people leaving the community. The idea is that you can get goods -- actual goods and services where you live. So within the boundaries of this small town, the people are going to be able to have a minimum of goods and services available to them. And what you're doing now -- I don't understand -- how am I missing out that you're basically saying that, "Yeah, we don't really have to have goods and services anymore. We can just build a bunch of factories." MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's not what will happen in the real world, okay? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- September 20, 2024 Page 25 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. Let me finish. And the issue isn't the good will of the applicant. The issue is the law. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The law. And right now I feel like the people in town are going to get shafted, and you have to show me -- in my view, you're -- you have the burden of showing us how the people aren't getting shafted. Because right now they can expect to have 170 square feet of coffee shops and banks and, you know -- and, you know, tutors for their kids and pet grooming and whatever else it is that we all need. And what you're saying is, "Well, not really, because we just built a factory, and we don't have to have that retail space anymore." Now, whether or not it's wise or money-making or, you know, whatever for you as a developer, I refuse to rely on the good will. I want the law to be the law and to force goods and services, because I don't like the idea. And so if you can show me that somehow there's a requirement to have goods and services, and you're -- you know, like, so, oh, well, it used to only be 70, now it's 170. See, we increased it. You know, I don't know if that's what you did, but how is this not you replacing actual goods and services with jobs, with factory jobs? And I really want to see the specific answer to that. I don't want to hear about some, you know, high-minded notion or, you know, some shell game. I want to know a very precise answer because I don't -- I don't feel good about that piece of it. I love the idea of -- you know obviously, I was the one who sort of started the ball rolling with the idea of not having a cap on the size of a town. I don't feel comfortable at all -- and I would need something very specific to convince me to vote in favor of this with that redefinition or, in your case, non-definition. I would like staff -- before you even give me an answer, I'd like September 20, 2024 Page 26 staff to tell me what "goods and services" means in the minds of -- and maybe counsel, what does that mean right now? So for someone to come in compliance, what would they have to have? If Ave Maria, you know, was being evaluated, what counts as goods and services right now for that 170 square feet? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And it's as the applicant said. It's commercial, it's retail, it's the services, whether it be -- whether it be a doctor's office, whether it be a tax accountant, whether -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so right now that's a 170 square feet is the requirement per dwelling unit? MR. BOSI: Yes. And that was -- that was increased during the 2021 amendment to the -- it was increased to 170. So what we're looking -- what the applicant is looking to do is to include the other aspect of the self-sustaining nature of the design of the RLSA. The towns -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But is there any -- so right now there's a requirement for actual goods and services. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As you just defined it? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what you're -- what the applicant and what this petition would do if approved as-is would say, you know what, we might not build any more shops at all, because we're going to build factories instead. It's not what they intend to do. It's what they can do under this once this law is changed. MR. BOSI: I would point out to the Planning Commission that this is a minimum. The market will demand how much goods and services the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So -- but you didn't September 20, 2024 Page 27 answer my question. MR. BOSI: And your question is -- I think you made a point. What was your question? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's -- well, no. I did make a point, and I was asking you a question whether or not I was right in my point as a factual matter that there's -- you know, that you're eliminating the requirement and therefore going forward -- MR. BOSI: The elimination of a requirement. What's being proposed -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. You're eliminating the requirement for it to be goods and services, and now you're allowing it to be a factory, which has never been considered goods and services. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So if they wanted to, they could go ahead and say, "Hey, we don't have to build a single more retail shop." Under the law -- under the law, if they found it to be more profitable, and that's -- and so that's what I think. The law should not be based on the good will of the -- of a developer, because it's not just Ave Maria. It's not just Ave Maria. It's whoever else is building out there can do the same thing. So I think that in this case, unless you have something fairly, you know, surprising that you come up with -- and maybe I'll be surprised. You know, I change my mind on the spot when given information that's -- yes, please. I know I've gone on and on. And you've been very good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. It's killing me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You have not interrupted me. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've been waiting for you to take that breath, so... September 20, 2024 Page 28 I feel like you just took back the kiss, but that's okay. So first of all, Mr. Klucik, I think what you're forgetting is we still have to bring forward the SRA designation document. And if you look at the Ave Maria SRA designation document, it does identify square footage for goods and services in addition to the square footage for these Ave Maria uses. So you're going to -- we're going to have a cap, and we have a cap in the SRA document today for the Arthrex-type uses. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we also -- so we can't go and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is a two-step process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now what we're saying is across the board throughout the RLSA there's no cap on towns, and it really has no impact on Ave Maria because it's just a broad rule -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- that can be applied to specific applicants. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then, number two, you're saying, right -- so I think what you're saying is, if a developer so wanted, they could develop a town and have zero goods and services and only have a factory? MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I understand that that's not likely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, even if -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm asking about what the law would allow under this proposal. MR. YOVANOVICH: The law would allow me to come to you and ask for that, and I would never do it because I think it would September 20, 2024 Page 29 be DOA. I can't imagine that we would come to you with a town that is basically 10,000 residences and a factory. First of all, it would make absolutely no economic sense. We couldn't sell any homes. And you'd even know that in your community, because the Publix that's out there came early before it really had the normal rooftops, because those types of service were critical to selling the homes. So I think what you're going to see is when the SRA comes in, you're going to see a mixture. You're not going to have a town. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would never get it approved. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So if someone -- if you're representing -- let's say it's somebody other than Ave Maria Development. You have a client and you're coming before the Planning Commission and you're going to do an SRA -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- for Hail Mary instead of Ave Maria, Hail Mary town, and they go ahead and you put on there whatever it is, and you have your mix of what your client wants and thinks is commercially viable, you're saying that the approval or not of that SRA is quasi-judicial? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a designation process. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is it quasi-judicial? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe it's quasi-judicial, but it's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but it's a designation process. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it's quasi-judicial. So if it meets the four corners of the rule, we can't really say no to it; is that right? I mean, because that's -- I think that's what you argue a lot as -- on behalf of your clients, so be careful. If -- if an applicant comes and meets the four corners of the rule, then -- and when it's September 20, 2024 Page 30 quasi-judicial, you can't say no. The Planning Commission can't say no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. You're correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So someone could -- I get it, it's unwise and it would be unlikely. So why would we have a law -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Why would we enact a law that says you can do this doofy thing that nobody will ever do that actually probably would be harmful and would benefit nobody? Why would we go ahead and have a rule, a law that binds everybody that says, "That's okay. That's allowable"? And then since it's allowable, it binds -- you know, unless you change the RLSA, it binds the decision-maker since it's a quasi-judicial decision. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think this allows for flexibility, and every one of these SRA documents come in, and they're evaluated for consistency with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Am I right, though, that you could -- if your client wanted to, they could -- they could just decide, you know what, there's this -- it's just crazy. There's this new market -- you know, like, they've developed this new battery that -- you know, that they're the size of a -- you know, of a Walkman, and they can power a car and, you know, the technology -- some Ave Maria University graduate started the technology, and they want to go ahead and, you know, they want to buy up all the rest of the land and just build a huge factory in the rest of Ave Maria because they love Ave Maria, and they make it -- you know, and they're like Elon Musk, they'll spend billions on something even if it doesn't make economic sense because they're so excited about it. September 20, 2024 Page 31 And you could put that before -- once this -- once this is approved, as you're requesting it, no one could say anything about it because you wouldn't -- under the rule, you wouldn't have to have any goods and services. You could just build a factory instead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess, you know, in law school we're taught to give these hypotheticals that probably will never happen in the real world. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So why would we have a law that says you can do it, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because you need -- let me take a step back. I don't know where -- I could tell you -- I don't do every project in Collier County, but I've done a few in the Rural Lands Stewardship. I've got a client right now who's deliberately electing to go with villages instead of a town because we have to do 170 square feet per home of retail and office because there's not that much demand for that number. So I don't even know where the 170 number comes. But there's going to be a natural balance between retail goods and services and these employment opportunities, and what we're simply saying, the program needs employment opportunities. So you will get to see it -- you won't. You'll be gone, but you'll be able to comment on it from the public when we do an SRA designation. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. Okay. So, then, why don't we word it where it makes more sense and protects against -- MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we say "it can't be exclusively"? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right. Right now what you're doing -- and that's what I don't understand. You're proposing something that clearly could be abused and be harmful to any community. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, why don't we take -- because September 20, 2024 Page 32 you're concerned about we're going to become exclusive. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So I get what you're saying now. What you're saying now is, yeah, yeah, we're going to have 170 square feet, but we also -- or we're going to be close to it, and what if we have 150, and, you know -- and that doesn't make any sense to have any more and we -- you know, we have this great use. Arthrex wants to expand or whatever. Why should we have to -- you know, there's this arbitrary number, and every -- you know, everyone is served by the goods and services we have. So -- but you're making this blanket provision that goes way overboard on leeway without any protection. So why don't you, like, switch it and say, "Okay. Goods and services has to be X square feet per dwelling unit, and then this other category"? Or you add it and you say, "Okay. But a minimum of that has to be 120 square feet, and, you know, the rest could be -- could include these factories or whatever"? Because that's the other thing I don't like is you -- Florida Qualified Target Industries. So you sort of piggyback on something that everyone gets excited about, but which, like, totally tramples on the notion that goods and services are really important and were an integral part of why the RLSA plan, you know -- one of the -- the key reasons to even have the RLSA program, which was to make sure actual goods and services are part of these communities that are being developed under the RLSA plan. So I'm not convinced at this point that this -- this is any better, and I don't think it's wise to vote on this. I think somebody should actually -- I think you have a point to make. I think you have a good point to make. We need to consider this goods and services -- we need to consider how the allocation and the minimum requirements are gauged and measured. But I think what you have right now is just hasty and too rough September 20, 2024 Page 33 and allows for -- I don't understand why we would -- why would you expect us to vote on something that allows nonsense when you could fashion something that gets you, your client what you want and isn't nonsensical otherwise, and that's bad lawmaking that's -- in my view. I don't understand how it's not bad lawmaking to allow something dumb but -- change the rule to allow something dumb because it also allows something smart. Do you see what I'm saying? Like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're not limiting it in a way that it ought to be limited. MR. YOVANOVICH: There have been a few times over the last few years that you and I just didn't understand each other, and I think we're going to have one of those experiences here today; not disrespectful. I think the provision is a safe provision for the county commissioners. I think staff agrees it's a safe provision for the county commissioners, and I'm not going to persuade you differently, and that's okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is -- what is the -- I'll ask staff: What is the basis for thinking that a developer, not this developer, could, you know, basically use this rule in a way that is harmful? I mean, first of all, we all realize that some people do use a provision in a harmful way. They take advantage of something that wasn't really envisioned, and then they managed to drive a truck through it. So why are you so certain -- because I would think that you're certain or you wouldn't be saying this is a good idea. Why are you certain that someone can't come along and use this rule unscrupulously and actually make a mess of what's a good program, the RLSA program? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. September 20, 2024 Page 34 And if you look at the screen, that is a highlighted version of the cell that talks about goods and services within Attachment C. And the way that that table works, it's got a cell. It says, "Goods and Services" -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are you talking about the spreadsheet on the right? MR. BOSI: Yes. It says, "Goods and Services." And then the next is -- the next cell to the right of that is what's required within a town. And as it reads, it says, town center -- "town centers and communities" -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which line -- which line are you at? MR. BOSI: Right next -- right next to goods and services, which is -- can you -- that's third down, Rich. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm just trying to read it on my -- MR. BOSI: Then next to goods and services -- so goods and services, that's the group. The very next cell to it is to the right of it. And it's as -- if you look at the screen, you can see. It says, "Town center and community neighborhood goods and services in towns and villages that are a minimum 170 square gross feet building areas per DU." And then it says, "Corporate offices, manufacturing, and light industrial." What staff is looking at this -- it's almost a clarification. Goods and services -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now that's -- corporate office, manufacturing, and light industry is already allowed? MR. BOSI: It's included within goods and services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You've got to give him time to answer your questions. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no. I'm trying to understand -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But please give him time to September 20, 2024 Page 35 answer. You keep on interrupting him. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd like to hear his answer. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I want to make sure -- so the chart that you're referencing is the current rule. MR. BOSI: The current rule. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Okay. So it includes those things. MR. BOSI: What they're -- what they're doing is clarifying that those -- that corporate offices, manufacturing, light industrial are included within there. I would infer that you could make that without the clarification. It's included -- the group is "goods and services," and then it includes the goods and services, which they list out, but they also include manufacturing, light industrial, and corporate offices. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So -- just -- I'm still confused, then. So I see the box, "goods and services," and then under the column "town," "town center with community and neighborhood goods," and then those last three italicized categories. Is that the current rule? MR. BOSI: That's the current rule. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Corporate office, manufacturing, and light industrial is the current rule? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So all we're saying now is that Florida Qualified Target Industries are part of what's already there as manufacturing and light industry? MR. BOSI: What's being proposed is a change where they're adding the term "research," and they're clarifying that the goods and services in towns may include the businesses and industries included in the Florida Target Industries, yes. September 20, 2024 Page 36 COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we don't change the second item, what have we really lost? Why don't we just approve the one that's a no-brainer and -- MR. BOSI: We've lost clarification. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It doesn't sound like we're changing anything with the second, and we're spending a lot of time arguing. MR. BOSI: You lost the clarification. Staff would interpret everything that's included to the right of "goods and services" is included within "goods and services." The clarification is not absolutely needed, but it provides a specific pinpoint that these additional uses count towards that 170. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But the only thing that's being added is Florida Qualified Target Industries? MR. BOSI: No. There is also -- the term "research" is underlined. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where? MR. BOSI: Within their -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is that? MR. BOSI: It's within the RLSA amendment. It was what was amended as part of the 2021 amendment. So what they are doing is providing clarification that goods and services also includes light industrial, manufacturing, those type of industries. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So wait a second. So currently the italicized words on this chart after DU, corporate office, is that currently the rule? Those italicized words are in the current rule? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And once -- if we were to pass what the applicant has asked us to adopt, is the only change that you're -- down below, the five asterisks, that's the only change? MR. BOSI: Yes. The asterisks is the -- September 20, 2024 Page 37 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that's Florida Qualified Targeted Industries? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that is where you're saying that includes research? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And that's really the only change, then? We're just adding -- MR. BOSI: That's the clarification. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Because Florida Qualified Target Industries probably would be seen to meet the current language, which is corporate office, manufacturing, and light industrial. This is just making sure that no one doubts that. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the only thing that you're saying that substantially is different is adding "research." MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Here's what -- here's what -- and then we'll have to correct this before you get to the Board of County Commissioners. So I'm looking at the RLSA, adopted RLSA. When we added -- when we modified, when we moved it to 170, we also had it -- there was a clarification that research was also included within that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. MR. BOSI: -- within the corporate office, manufacturing, research, and light industrial. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this isn't changing the status quo; this is simply clarifying the status quo? MR. BOSI: That's the way staff viewed it. September 20, 2024 Page 38 MR. YOVANOVICH: The confusing thing to me is that silly -- that silly semicolon. You know, we always were of the opinion that it counts towards the goods and services because the category is goods and services. So we thought the 170 did apply to everything in that box. So we're just wanting to make it really clear that the 170 applies to everything in that box. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now if you read this, the goods and services category is a town center with community and neighborhood goods and services, and town -- so town center is a specific designated area within an SRA, and town and village centers are specific categories within an SRA in which certain things can happen and have to happen and have their own rules. And so what it's saying, as I read it is, there's that semicolon, and then another semicolon. So you have to have goods and services, and you have to have -- well, neighborhood goods and services, community and neighborhood goods and services, right? And then minimum of 170 square foot gross building area per DU, which seems to be applying to the broad category of goods and services, and then you have a semicolon and then you list corporate office, manufacturing, and light industrial. I don't understand how that wouldn't be considered, as defined currently, part of the goods and services. So I guess it's not really a change, which I wish had been more clear. I thought that -- I thought the italicized portion was being added, but apparently, it's being clarified. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got four people signaling now who want to be heard, starting with the Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: First of all, a statement was made that you could expand to the east into that pink area. I want to make sure, for clarification, it's just not merely saying Ave Maria can expand to the east without identifying an SRA, and those lands September 20, 2024 Page 39 would -- if they're deemed sensitive lands, it would not become an SRA. I want to make sure that's clear, because Commissioner Klucik basically inferred that Ave Maria could, uninhibited, expand to the east, and that is -- in fact, could not happen unless there was an SRA to do that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and the lands would have to be identified as Receiving Lands. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I understood his statement to be. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I just wanted to clarify that. The second thing is, a lot of discussion, but this is nothing more than adding a footnote to an existing rule, and it's a clarification. It is not a change. There's nothing that has changed. And typical of staff, a strikethrough and underline. There's nothing -- there's not a strikethrough. The only underline on that chart are the asterisks, and the asterisks added the footnote which clarifies the definition. So it's not a change in the rules. It's just a clarification. I don't understand -- there was a lot of discussion that this implying some kind of a change. There is really no change other than what is intended in the chart, that it's a clarification of that statement. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will say that's what I just said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's exactly what I just said. That was my conclusion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I have to confess, my ADD kicked in a little bit, so I didn't listen to everything Robb said, September 20, 2024 Page 40 so -- but -- and I'm going to repeat some of what Joe said. This is very repetitive, but I was taking notes to try to summarize it. So it sounds to me like -- and I apologize if I'm just repeating everything. But Mike Bosi said, pretty much, if we don't make this change, they already interpret it as includes the stuff they want to do, so they're going to be allowed to do it. And one of the thoughts I had is what if we get a -- what if we get a staff that's not as stellar as the staff we have, and all of a sudden, they want to interpret goods and services hyper-technically and hyper-narrowly? You know, then you could end up a town where you're going to not be able to do this. It seems to me that the developer is simply trying to clarify what they're allowed to do already. That's what it seems like to me. So maybe I'm missing something, but I think that's -- I think -- isn't that what you're saying, Mike? MR. BOSI: Correct, essentially, and I think that's what everyone has kind of arrived upon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And I think -- you know, and I sit here and think about this runaway developer if they built another Arthrex out there, they built another glass plant out there. It's probably going to bring a bunch of great jobs, it's probably going to bring some younger people, and then it's probably -- they're going to want a bunch of coffee shops, and they're going to want banks. They're not going to want to be there if it's just a bunch of plants, and their family doesn't have anything to do. So I'm not even sure that runaway -- that your first priority is to see how many -- how much manufacturing -- I mean, manufacturing's different today than it was 50 years ago. We're talking about different kinds of companies. You know, I guess if I were king for a day and I could fix it in five minutes, I'd say, why don't we have two different categories? September 20, 2024 Page 41 Because goods and services does sound pretty narrow to me. And why not just have -- but we can't -- I don't think we can do that on the fly, can we? I mean, can we just create another category? Not that anybody's asked for it, but... MR. BOSI: It would require a growth -- it would require a modification. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And so, I mean, I was voting for it at the beginning. Nothing I've heard changed my mind. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. The cap of the 5,000 acres, like, what stops somebody else from coming in buying excess acreage and then subdividing it per se? So if somebody comes in and buys up 20,000 acres from multiple different people and then has it under one name but then decides that they're going to section it off piece by piece, like, what would -- MR. BOSI: To take advantage of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, you need to create an SRA, and so the SRA would have to be approved by the -- or recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and it would give the roadmap for what you could do or could not do. Currently right now, you've got a 5,000 limitation, so you'd have a 5,000 limitation in that SRA. And then it would have to meet all the requirements of the goods and services and the variety of land use that are provided for. So you could do that -- you could -- the 20,000-acre example, you could do -- you're expressing you could probably do that under the ag zoning district, but you could do that at one to five. You couldn't utilize the SRA provisions to do what you were describing. September 20, 2024 Page 42 You could only do that under ag, and that's outside of this program, so it wouldn't even be applicable to that -- to the question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mike. The second question is, is there a way -- I hear the concerns over this industrial portion. Is there a way to add in wording that says that no town may be 100 percent of that DU for manufacturing and light industrial? MR. BOSI: Well, you could add that as a check and balance. I think the reality is there would not be -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I don't think it would happen, but I'm just saying, like -- as Commissioner Vernon just said, if we moved, you know, 15, 20 years down the road and the staff isn't as stellar as it is now and a manufacturing plant came in here -- and even on the small side said, you know, we're going to build these 200 houses for this plant and -- but that fits the DU per square foot, is there anything you can put in there to say, you know, you just -- it can't be -- you can't use all 100 percent of that DU for ag -- or light industrial for your buildout? MR. BOSI: That most certainly could be a recommendation from the Planning Commission's perspective if you feel that that guardrail would benefit the program. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I just heard the concerns. That's why I was just thinking that would be the easiest thing in my point of view, just add in one word that says no buildout will be 100 percent of industrial. That's all, Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. So I just want to point out that I did ask a very specific question of both Mr. Yovanovich as well as Mr. Bosi as to what "goods and September 20, 2024 Page 43 services" included, and that was that it would not include industrial -- factories. So as much as I understand I got carried away with that, you both fed into it and answered the question in a way that I didn't like and, actually, the answer was, no, no, no. It's we already have -- we already include that. So in fairness to myself, I will point that out. And I'm glad -- as I have always said, I'd love -- I'd much rather be corrected and correct in the end, you know, than be correct -- you know, have a point and just stick with it until the end. I'm glad that this came out because of our discussion. I do think that I would like to recommend -- and I'd like to hear what Mr. Yovanovich or the applicant thinks about saying, you know, no more than 50 percent, you know, for that last category or, you know, something that allows us to have a certainty that there's actually goods and services, even though the category is defined beyond what we think of as goods and services to include. It already includes factories. It seems that since we've had this discussion, it makes sense to make sure that we actually put something in there as a safeguard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not comfortable picking a percent today. We've -- again, I didn't focus on the category that's to the left of this, of the chart, goods and services. You asked me what's the typical definition of goods and services, and I responded accordingly. It's an expansive definition in the RLSA, which does include these. We're just asking to clarify target industries for what's already allowed. I'm afraid to pick a percentage because I don't know if it's right. And I think that's when -- that decision's made at the SRA process. So I mean -- I don't -- we're not comfortable with picking a percentage. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. No, I understand that, and I know I'm putting you on the spot. September 20, 2024 Page 44 I guess what I would ask is -- my fellow commissioners -- it seems to make sense -- well, first of all, I'm not -- I don't object to anything, because right now what's before us, they're just clarifying what the factory language and the industrial language includes. So we're not adding a category. Right now they still could do -- from what I see, they could still just do all factories from now on in Ave Maria, and nothing we can say about it. So there is no change. There is no change, really. There's a clarification on this particular goods and services definition. But how does everyone feel about the idea -- you know, I mean -- and maybe we take it up later. Maybe we task staff with, you know, coming up with something that -- you know, and -- for the future. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, I've got two people signaling who want to speak. And let's see if they can answer that question, and then if you want to ask a specific question of others -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And so I have no objection at this point to approving as it's given, you know, without -- without the buy-in of the applicant on putting a percentage on there, I'm happy to vote in favor of what's before with us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike, just to clarify, Chuck asked a question about somebody going out there and buying 5,000 acres today without establishing an SRA. Could they not develop one unit per five acres? MR. BOSI: They would be entitled by right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Okay. That's what I want to make sure, that you understand that; that to develop it into a town or a village, then you would have to establish an SRA, and you would have to identify the sending lands that would be put in a September 20, 2024 Page 45 protection to develop their home. But, otherwise, I could go out there today if I could amass 5,000 acres, and I could build one unit per five acres under the current zoning. MR. BOSI: By your current zoning, you're entitled to that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I'm ready to vote. I think everybody -- it sounds like -- unless I'm missing something, everybody's going to vote for it as-is. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would ask, though, like, if you could answer my question, how you guys feel about this notion of having a safeguard revisiting that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think it's a great idea, but I think we ought to vote on this first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a comment about the safeguard. If we want to change this language, it requires an amendment that would have to be advertised. I believe it would have to be vetted. And to just do it on the fly, I cannot do that at this time without going -- and in maybe some future amendment we can identify this as a needed requirement, but based on what's proposed and what was advertised, it's nothing more than a clarification. MR. BOSI: And Mike Bosi, Zoning director. I think that you could suggest to the Board of County Commissioners when the RLSA is next revisited within the next couple years, because we'll be coming up on -- we'll be coming up on that seven-year anniversary which we review our overlays to evaluate the -- to evaluate the prospect of putting a cap upon the noncommercial, non-retail uses within the goods and services and provide better clarification in terms of how much needs to be September 20, 2024 Page 46 provided from each category. That could be something that could be suggested to the Board of County Commissioners as an area of focus when the RLSA is next taken up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would -- I would favor that if it's identified as problematic. I don't know if it's problematic. If Ave Maria believes it's an issue, I think they can raise that, or any of the other planned villages or towns. If they think it's problematic, we can identify that as a criteria to look at in an upcoming change to the rules and regulations. But understand, my colleagues, having been here when this was first implemented, the county was under a consent order to mandate rules to develop Eastern Collier County. That's what started all of this. The State of Florida issued a consent order to stop all the unabated growth in Eastern Collier County, and this plan was developed along with the rural fringe but -- to identify rules and criteria to develop what are now towns on Eastern Collier County. So that's what precipitated all of this, and that's -- and, again, there are rules and regulations that were in place. Two years pretty much spent on developing the implementation rules for this, and we've had what, Mike, I think, two amendments since. So if this is deemed to be another issue to address, we can identify it as a future area to be studied and make any recommendations that need to be changed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. I'm in favor of voting in a positive manner on this amendment right now because I personally believe the market will drive what a town or community needs, and as has been stated before, people are not going to live somewhere if they don't have the proper blend of amenities. Those amenities would be goods and services, places to work, places to eat, shop. Let the market drive it and don't become September 20, 2024 Page 47 overpowering with government regulations on percentages. So I'm in favor as-is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify something. After I said, "I think it's a great idea," Joe spoke. What I was trying to say is I agree with everything Joe said. I don't think it's a great idea to try to address it today. I meant it's a great idea to give it to staff, see if staff thinks it's a problem. If they do, how are we going to solve it and bring it back to us to discuss. That's what I meant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Yovanovich, anything further from the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Staff? MR. BOSI: And as contained within the staff report, staff is recommending approval on both -- the Rural Land Stewardship Program. It was based upon two concepts, self-sustaining and internal capture. We believe these changes will effectuate a better ability for these towns to be able to offer that wide range of activities that are needed to sustain that self-sustaining aspect and that internal capture, only making these towns more able to fulfill the long-term vision of the RLSA. So with that, staff is supporting. And I will say on my one-on-one, I apologize. I should have been more clear with Commissioner Klucik, and maybe we could have eliminated about half hour of that in terms of what the change was in relationship to what was existing and what was being clarified. So that's on staff for not being as explicit with the commissioner as we should have been. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik, you're signaling. September 20, 2024 Page 48 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I'd like to go ahead and move that we pass PL20240004018. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can do that, but we still need to hear from public, if there is any. Do you want to suspend your motion, or do you want to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. I'll suspend it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So you've made -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will go ahead with that motion as stated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second the motion as presented. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment that is here on transmittal, so it's coming back in any event, and it's been moved and seconded to approve the Growth Management Plan amendment as submitted. 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 very much. All right. We are -- two things here. We're very close to what September 20, 2024 Page 49 would be our midmorning break. So I think -- I think we will take that now, but I also -- my vocal condition is not getting any better. I'm completely asymptomatic except I'm starting to cough, and I don't want to do that up here. So I think I'm going to step out and save everybody the risk of coughing like I do. So thank you very much, all, and Vice Chairman will continue chairing the meeting. And with that, we'll take a 10-minute recess. We'll be in recess until 10:26. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 10:16 a.m. to 10:28 a.m.) (Chairman Fryer is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Let's return to our seats. Let's get started again. I don't know, Mr. Klucik, if he's available -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yep. There he is. He's coming. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, here he comes. Here comes Robb. All right. These next two items are companion items. PL20230007876, Tollgate Housing Subdistrict, and a companion item, PL2020230007874, Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the next one is also. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, and the third one. COMMISSIONER SHEA: DRI. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. There's all three. And then the third is the amendment to the accompanying DRI. Thank you. All three we can vote at the same time, and let's -- any disclosures first. Start, Chris. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich pertaining to all three of these items. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just staff meeting. September 20, 2024 Page 50 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No disclosure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Petitioner, go ahead. Oh, swear in? Thank you. 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 SCHMITT: I'll ask the petitioner, Mr. Yovanovich, do you have any different -- you want to handle each one separately, or would you like to present the facts, and we'll discern? Because all three of them are related. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would like to present all three at the same time like we have historically done, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant, K2 Housing Naples, LLC. Gem Frantz is the professional planner on this matter and will be presenting along with me, and Jim Banks is our transportation consultant and is here to answer any questions you may have. This project is -- I actually started working this project prior to the hotel conversion we did at the Golden Gate Golf Course, but that one jumped in first and got approved first. But this is basically a -- it's a conversion of an existing hotel to an income-restricted project. K2 Housing Naples, LLC, has done a few of these throughout the country, Colorado and resort areas where they're also experiencing a housing crisis or pricing to where employees can't work. So this is basically, as the petition was going through, was identical to the golf course conversion or on the hotel at the Golden September 20, 2024 Page 51 Gate Golf Course, including the same commitments to income-restricted units. Since then, there have been several other projects that have gone through, and staff has requested that we go from the 22.8 percent income-restricted units to 30 percent income-restricted units in their staff recommendation. I've spoken to Mr. Bosi, and we -- that will require eight additional units. We can go to the 30 percent, but we're going to ask that the eight additional units be in the 100 percent and below income category instead of split between the 80 percent and below and the 100 percent and below. These projects are a little bit different. We're not really adding a lot of -- we're adding six units from what's there today, so we're not increasing the density a lot. But you pay top dollar for the dirt, and you pay top dollar to renovate, so the economics will allow us to go to the 30 percent, but we're asking that those additional units be at the 100 percent and below category. And like the other project, the remaining units are rent restricted, but they're not income restricted. One of the primary companies that's involved in this project is Moorings Park. Moorings Park is very interested in seeing this project go forward, and Moorings Park was integral in our meeting with the property owners' association that's out there for this Tollgate center. And Tollgate, currently right now, is basically a commercial/light industrial PUD. And what we're doing is we're doing three petitions. We're adding residential as an allowed use only on the property owned by my client, so that's why you have the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to make it clear that residential can only be on that piece. We're amending the PUD to allow for residential to only be on that piece owned by my client, and we're amending the DRI to do the same. So basically the three September 20, 2024 Page 52 petitions accomplish the same things. It was important to the property owners' association that this not be allowed to proliferate through the entirety of the PUD without each specific project having to go through the PUD amendment process and GMP amendment process. There is a -- there is a deed restriction on the property that gives the POA the ability to approve. These projects, normally you don't enforce those, but to commit to them that it would be a limited application. That's why you see the PUD like this, and that's why you see a little unusual -- and the Chairman's gone, but he raised the issue of why are we referring to Moorings, Inc., in the category of people who could be initially approached about occupying these units? And that's because Moorings Park is an investor in this project, and it's also there because that's what we committed to the POA, because they're very interested in Moorings Park being an integral part of this project, because, obviously, Moorings Park is a premiere community. They can be certain about the quality of the renovations that we're making to the hotel. So we have that provision in there, and also we have that in there because since Moorings Park is a significant investor in this, they want to make sure that all of their employees would be eligible, if they meet the income categories, to reside on these premises. Because not every Moorings Park employee is a nurse. Not every Moorings Park employee would meet our typical definition of essential service personnel. So that's why we included that in there and didn't limit it to just your standard essential service personnel commitment for income-restricted units. And there's been discussion on this board about whether or not you should be doing those types of restrictions anyway for essential service personnel. But that was very intentional on our application, and we believe there's good reasons September 20, 2024 Page 53 for this -- this change. I got a little ahead of myself. The location of the property is -- this is the Tollgate center at the -- you know I'm directionally challenged -- the southeast quadrant of I-75 and Collier Boulevard. The yellow piece is the parcel we're specifically talking about for purposes of all three petitions. It's about five acres. It's Parcel 11. It's previously the Super 8 Motel. I think most people were very happy when my clients bought the property because, if you look at the police records, it was probably not the best use of that property -- or wasn't properly operated. So my client has taken over and has been very involved in upgrading the property and providing assistance when -- the recent hurricanes, we've actually opened up the hotel for people to stay there, workers and others. We have -- Naples Community Hospital staff, or NCH staff is residing there. Moorings Park employees are residing there. We're going to have long-term leases with employers, and then we'll make sure that their employees meet the income categories. As you can see, this is the current property. We have the hotel, obviously, here. And then we have semi parking in the back for the hotel. That parking is going to -- it stays, and it's part of our parking calculation, although we think most people will park closer to the units, but that is part of that, and that will be addressed by Gem a little later about the staff-requested changes. By the way, we're in agreement with staff's request to increase the affordable housing to the 30 percent and to address their comments to the landscaping buffers. So we're in agreement with staff with a slight modification that Gem will go over, and I think Mike is comfortable with the modification that we want to make to one of their recommendations. September 20, 2024 Page 54 One of the reasons we want to do this is today we can operate an extended-stay hotel, so we can essentially do what we're doing, but people want to live in a multifamily unit when they're employed. They don't want to be living in a hotel. So we want this to be a multifamily project and not an extended-stay hotel. And the employers are telling us their people prefer that than living in a hotel. We're reusing the existing building. They'll be permanent, you know, multifamily dwelling units. There'll be significant renovations to the rooms. We think this is a creative opportunity to address affordable housing. They're small units. They're not intended to be occupied by families. It's capped at two people that can be in a unit, and 250 square feet is the minimum size, and that's pursuant to a recent change to the Land Development Code as well as the Code of Ordinances that would allow the Board to approve this size unit like they did for the Golden Gate Golf Course conversion. Again, what I've said is, everything we're requesting applies only to Parcel 11 only, and I explained why, to make sure it's a limited application. And I went over the income restrictions that we previously agreed to, and we'll be modifying. We're in an interchange activity center, which in this particular case meant it had additional landscaping standards that we have to meet, and that's what we're bringing the project up to, as indicated in your staff report. The DRI, simple changes to what's called Map H and adding these 110 units that we're requesting and updating the buildout date for the DRI to 2030 when we should be more than done with these renovations. I've already highlighted what the PUD amendment pertains to and the unit size. We'll have 25 units that are income restricted. Is that the right number? I thought so. My mistake for not updating September 20, 2024 Page 55 this slide. It's 33 income-restricted units to accommodate staff's request. And with that, we could go into a more detailed presentation over the existing Future Land Use Element in more details, or let me -- I'm going to have -- I'm going to skip over a lot of these slides, and then I'm going to have Gem go over the deviations and the modifications we've agreed to, and then we'll be done with our presentation but available to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: While you're on the topic explaining it, you'll be at 33 affordable housings, but the rent restrictions will be to 120 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're technically providing 120 percent or, excuse me, 100 percent affordable housing in the definition of 120 percent below being affordable. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, but only 30 percent of those units are income-restricted. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So yes, we've agreed to rent-restrict in the affordable -- within the affordable guidelines. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're right. It's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're underselling is my point. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've agreed to -- if the -- if market gets above whatever the affordable units are, we're agreeing to a cap in the market. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let me turn it over to Gem and then -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Schumacher, do you September 20, 2024 Page 56 have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll hold my question until after Gem does her presentation. MS. FRANTZ: Good morning. Gem Frantz with RVI Planning. I'll skip through a few slides. So here you see the language on the screen that Rich has already talked about. I won't belabor that, but you can see the breakdown of the 33 additional units and then the remaining uses being rent-restricted. The highlighted portions are those changes that we've made in discussion with staff. You can see the income restrictions here and then not for those rent-restricted units on the right side. We requested two deviations. The first deviation is related to buffering. The initial intention was to utilize the existing approvals, the existing landscaping as much as possible; however, staff has made some modifications, which we'll see on the next slide. And the image there identifies the staff-recommended changes, which we're agreeing to. So on the north property line where we're adjacent to I-75, there will be a modified Type B buffer. On the west side of the property, there will be a Type B buffer, and I think I might have mislabeled that as a 5-foot Type B, but the language on the next slide will identify that. On the south side of the property line, a 5-foot Type A buffer, and then on the east side of the property, we have kind of a unique scenario. Rich already mentioned that there is the semi parking there. You can see where our property line is located, this second red line to the right of the screen. That's the end of our property line. We're pretty limited in terms of space for constructing a new buffer there, and at the same time we have this median between those two parking areas that has some existing landscaping that's really well established September 20, 2024 Page 57 by this point. On the eastern side of the property is that Amazon parking lot, which also has its own buffer. It's covered by that label now. So the deviation requested was to allow for our buffer to actually be located within the median -- the parking median there. We would add some additional plantings to bring that buffer up to the standards of a Type B buffer while also utilizing those existing plants -- existing trees that are there already. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you still plan to use the parking space -- MS. FRANTZ: So I'll talk more on that on the next slide, but we do plan to use those parking spaces for our minimum parking requirements as we go through those building permits and SDPs in the future, but I'm going to go to another image so we can see it a little bit better. Sorry for the quick scrolling. Maybe faintly you can see that at those two entrances to that semi parking, it's actually already blocked off now, and we don't use those spaces. The required parking, including not only parking for the residents but also guest parking, we think this is really overparked. Our minimum required parking spaces is 165 for those dwelling units, and we are currently utilizing the building for long-term leases, and so we just don't see that that parking area is really needed to be used. However, if we agree to the language that staff has proposed, we would be short those 13 spaces in our parking calculations. So I'm going to skip again quickly. In A, the staff proposed language stated that the land encumbered by the familiar easement would remain undeveloped and not used for parking. We're requesting that we modify that slightly to continue to state that that area will remain undeveloped but only be limited to those 13 parking September 20, 2024 Page 58 spaces there. So, again, it's kind of a unique development scenario. It's a unique approach to affordable housing, and this buffer request is intended to allow us to reuse that building rather than completely modifying the site. I had a brief chat with staff about that, and I'll let them weigh in on that modified language, but we think that staff is agreeable. The second deviation is related to the parking requirements for amenity, recreation, common facilities on the property. And as you know, when you visit a hotel site, you don't frequently drive from the unit to those amenities. And any point of the building is approximately 300 feet or less from another point of the building, and so we don't believe that additional parking is required -- would be needed for those recreation and common facilities, so that deviation is just limiting us to the required parking for the units, that 165 that I mentioned previously. That's all of our deviation presentation, so I'll open up to more questions from y'all. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Yeah, two questions. Mr. Bosi, any issues with the parking spaces? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And, no. This is a -- what we would classify from a planning perspective as adaptive reuse, and with the, you know, understanding of the shortfall that we have within affordable housing units, we think that adaptive reuse needs a little bit more flexibility in terms of how we go about and allow for that -- the project to transition from that hotel to a multifamily structure. We recognize that that flexibility requires us to be a little bit more open-minded, and based upon their -- the presentation, we think September 20, 2024 Page 59 it could be accommodated with those 13 additional spaces without a detriment to the overall project's success. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Second question is going to be for Rich. Mr. Yovanovich, on the income-restricted units -- so I understand Moorings Park is a partner in this, and your lease agreements with other employers, outside of those lease agreements, how much of a percentage of this would be available to the open public, or is it completely leased out? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not -- honestly, it's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do you not know yet? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is it's not totally leased out yet. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I think the -- so there may be some units open to the general public, but there may not be because there are enough employers that are, as you are aware, looking for places for their employees. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. That's my questions. Thank you, Vice Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Randy? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Quick question. The previous use allowed that parking area on the east side to be semi-trailer parking? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: You are -- under no circumstances are you doing that or continuing to do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think any of the people who are going to live there are going to be driving semis. So I think we're -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't overflow from the Choice hotel or anything like that. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, it's not. It's purely for -- September 20, 2024 Page 60 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for our client's project, not for anybody else's. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And this may be a question for both staff and Mr. Yovanovich. The 13 spaces that you're asking for in that eastern kind of unmarked parking area right now, that's if you're using the maximum amount of spaces needed at 165, is it, without hitting that maximum, there's really no need for that 13 additional. So this is only a safety net, or if you ever needed to get to that maximum number? Am I correct, the 165? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. We have to have those numbers. We don't anticipate they'll ever be used. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It ever being truly needed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I'll ask the questions. Just for my colleagues, the questions I was concerned about when I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, one is 250-square-feet minimum is small. And the question I related to that is these are -- you used the term "long-term stays," but Super 8 is really not a long-term stay. They might have a microwave in it, but I ask specifically all these units would have to come up to code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And if they're going to be full kitchens, it would have to come up to code based on the -- on the building code for all the fire suppression and everything else that had to be included. And so the plan was each of those units will have a full kitchen? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they'll have kitchenettes. I mean -- September 20, 2024 Page 61 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Kitchenettes? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not going to be a huge kitchen, no. But they'll be able to cook there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They'll be able to cook there. And the only other concern I have is people have stuff, and if they move -- I asked specifically would there be storage, and your comment was they're going to have to store off site somewhere. MR. YOVANOVICH: If they can't fit what they have, they'll get a storage unit like the rest of us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to point the finger at Jamie, because there's standing code violations out there. This will mitigate all of the existing code violations? MR. YOVANOVICH: There are actually permits that are currently outstanding to repair parts of the dilapidated building, and that's what you're -- we're talking about. We're waiting for -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only other concern I have is, of course, they're long-term -- long-term rentals now, and people bring stuff, as they call it. I just don't want to create future code problems, especially in the adjacent parking lot, campers and other type of things that people may want to put in there. I guess if somebody wanted to park a camper there, that's fine. But living in it is going to be a different issue, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: These are -- these are multifamily units. These are going to be operated and policed and managed as multifamily units. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many of the units are going to be at the minimum; do you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: The minimum? I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You said 250 is the minimum, 250 square feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Square feet? Probably most if not -- September 20, 2024 Page 62 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Most will be? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. This is -- this is -- you know, could someone stay there forever, sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we anticipate it's for people who will be coming and staying and probably at some point moving on to something larger. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only other concern I have is, of course -- and I told you on the phone is the -- this is the site of a major expansion of the interchange, I-75 interchange right there at Tollgate. So the developer fully knows and understands. We -- you know, next thing -- he's buying that property knowing full well and understanding that? MR. YOVANOVICH: They own the property. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're -- they own it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They're going to be impacted by that. Whether they now scream for a sound wall or whatever, that's not my concern. I mean, that's between the owner -- the owner purchased that property knows and understands exactly what's going on in regards to the interchange? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? The property will have a property manager on site or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and be managed, in control. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that we committed to an on-site property manager, because it's small, but we have committed to, obviously, having someone on call 24/7. But we just -- I don't think we're having -- we've committed to have a unit occupied by an on-site manager. September 20, 2024 Page 63 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And how many units? MR. YOVANOVICH: 110. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 110, okay. That's all I have. Staff? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just had one. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: One general comment that, you know, I remember -- I don't know, probably two or three years ago, one of my most frustrating moments on this board was when somebody said, or maybe more than one people, said, you know, there's a certain size you have to have a unit, or it will never work in Naples. And I'm like, "Why?" And, you know, well, just -- there was no valid reason other than the powers that be. And I've thought, from not being an expert on affordable housing but learned an awful lot about it, I think -- over the last four years, I think it has -- housing has to be affordable, but there's also going to take a lot of creativity, and it seems to me that this hits that button. So I really like it. I think it's a little troubling to me that a lot of our best employers are having to buy property, build buildings, or rehab buildings just so they can get people to work here. But this sounds like a solution to that problem, so I think it's great. So I like the concept of it. I do want to hear what staff has to say. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff's reviewed all three of the petitions, and we are recommending approval as contained in the staff reports. We are agreeable to the two modifications with the increase to 30 percent and the additional units being allocated to the 100 percent as well as the utilization of that easternmost parking section. We agree. We think it's a testament to the realities that -- that affordable housing and the lack of affordable housing in this county, September 20, 2024 Page 64 not only this petition, to reuse a motel/hotel for multifamily long -- and commitments to individual employers and the petitions you're going to hear afterwards associated with the same concept to be able to retain or attract employees only kind of highlights the absolute need and the steps that our employers are going to be able to secure housing for their employment. So with that, staff is supporting it. And we do agree with you, Commissioner Vernon, creativity is needed. And 250 square feet is a smaller unit. I know when I first got out of grad school, I was moving -- I lived in an efficiency. It was about 300 square feet. It was enough; all that I needed for myself. It's -- you can live -- you most certainly can live there. You can function. But if you want to expand, you'll have to find more opportunities. And hopefully as we continue to try to address the supply-and-demand imbalance that we have related to the number of units that are available, we'll be able to make better inroads, and they'll be able to graduate from these smaller units to something a little bit bigger if that's where that individual decides that they need to go. So for that, staff is supporting the project with the modifications that's been agreed to. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So just for clarification, your recommendation has now changed that you're fully recommending approval based on the agreements made by the petitioner -- MR. BOSI: Yes, based upon the agreement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- about the affordable housing? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Comments from the public? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have one registered speaker through Zoom, Mr. James Parish. September 20, 2024 Page 65 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Parish, are you online? Mr. Parish? Is he still showing as participating? MR. JOHNSON: He's still showing as participating. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You have to take your mic off of mute, Mr. Parish. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Parish? MR. MILLER: Joe, let me check something real quick. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MILLER: We're good here. It should be good. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Parish? MR. JOHNSON: He's unmuted, so he has the ability to speak from our perspective. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. We'll try one more time. Mr. Parish, are you online? Are you available to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well -- any other public speakers? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, my board members -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- I turn to you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was going to say, maybe to speak for Mr. Parish, what do you -- I know you like the project, Mike, or approve. What's the biggest concern? I'll tell you what I think it is, and you tell me what -- your thoughts. It's residential, and it's not a residential area. And what -- why is that a concern or -- if it is? MR. BOSI: The concern would be if there were uses of the nonresidential nature that were in an immediate adjacentness to this September 20, 2024 Page 66 parcel that would provide noise, vibration, odor, disruptions to, you know, a residential area, and we think the uses that are surrounding this are compatible with residential use. The transit lodging existed there for a long period of time without a -- without an imbalance in terms of the ranging land uses that currently exist. And we think a multifamily project based upon those surrounding land uses are not incompatible. And it's not unheard of. If you remember, we amended our Growth Management Plan to adopt an overlay within the GMP and the density rating system related to strategic opportunity sites, and those strategic opportunity sites thought about the Arthrex community -- or the Arthrex industrial commercial plant area as areas that would be appropriate for multifamily -- high-density multifamily, and this is -- this is a -- an addition similar to that amendment that was adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Planning Commission, so I think it really has to do with the number -- the type of uses that are within the close proximity are not those that staff would find that were completely incompatible with long-term residential uses. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, do you have another comment? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I was going to make a motion to approve as presented. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's for all three, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Make a motion -- motion's on the floor to approve all three. Any other comments? (No response.) September 20, 2024 Page 67 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That was way too easy. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm looking at Robb waiting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're speechless. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did you get the kiss back? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Take a breath. All right. We'll move on to the next item. I don't know what we're going to do about the speaker that tried to speak. But next item, we have two items, companion items, PL20230011318. That's the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict and a companion PUD corporate -- PUD item. MR. BOSI: Joe, I would say -- Mike Bosi -- that -- to the speaker, if he could still hear us, this is tentatively scheduled for the November 12th Board of County Commissioners' hearing, so if he does want to be able to provide commentary there, it will be the November 12th hearing. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: November 12th, okay. Hopefully he heard that. MS. PADRON: He signed out. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All those -- please stand, September 20, 2024 Page 68 those who would like to testify. 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 SCHMITT: Mr. Yovanovich, all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant, which is Palm River Accommodations, LLC. Trent Lewis is here on behalf of Arthrex, Inc.; Mr. Arnold is our professional planner; Jim Carr is our professional engineer; Brent was our landscape architect; Mr. Banks is our traffic consultant, and Kaylee Delhagen is our architect. I would say this is Petition No. 2 for creative solutions for employers finding housing for their employees. This is a parcel of property in the Palm River community that is currently zoned RMF-16. What we're proposing is something unique. It's the first attempt at this type of petition, and it's for a -- it's for a specific employer but not limited to that specific employer's need to have transitional housing for potential employees to become actual employees to want to relocate to Collier County and then find a permanent residence. Arthrex and other employers, candidly, are struggling in getting employees -- or people to relocate to Collier County to come here and work. One of the reasons is the sticker shock of what it costs to either rent or buy a unit. And they believe, and other employers believe, that if they could offer this transitional housing opportunity, people will come, they'll work here, and then they'll find a place where they wish to live and reside in Collier County. Wayne's going to take you through the master plan in some substantial detail to address staff comments regarding setbacks September 20, 2024 Page 69 pertaining to this particular piece of property. But as you can see, it's an odd-shaped piece of property that we had to work with the owner of the LaPlaya golf course to recirculate the golf cart path to make the property work. So Wayne will take you through that and how we've -- the architecture uniquely addresses some of the concerns raised by staff. But we're here to do two things. We're here to amend the Growth Management Plan, again, because, again, anytime you do anything unique, you end up having to amend the Growth Management Plan. And in this particular case, the zoning is RMF-16, which would allow us 33 units on the two acres, and we want to do 41 units on the two acres. And we have to amend the Growth Management Plan and obviously amend the zoning to accomplish that. One of the things I wanted to -- and this is the proposed text amendment that would apply to the property. And there is a comment in the staff report that they want 30 percent of the units right from the get-go to be income-restricted. Well, this is not a permanent housing project, and we're only asking for eight additional units. And if we did the 30 additional units -- 30 percent at the beginning, we'd actually go backwards. We would have 12 units that would be income-restricted when we're only asking for eight additional units, so we lost four of our market-rate units. That math doesn't really make any sense. We're not asking for a large density bonus, and we're not even asking for a density bonus. This is transitional housing. And I talked to Joe Schmitt yesterday about it, and, you know, he has his military experience, and I'm sure he's going to explain it to you. That's not unusual to have transitional housing. When people come to a new location, they reside there temporarily, and temporarily could be several months, but it's not permanent, and then they move September 20, 2024 Page 70 on to their permanent housing. That's what we're trying to do here. And we have a commitment that if 100 percent of these units are not serving as transitional housing, all eight of the bonus units become income-restricted, all eight. We think that is an appropriate safeguard that assures that we're going to use this as transitional housing. We've also received comments that "all you're really doing, Rich, is you're providing housing for people who work in Collier County," and I go, "Yeah. So?" We are providing a transitional place for employers to have -- to entice their people to come work here until they can find permanent housing. What's wrong with that? We have a problem. We've all acknowledged we have a problem finding employees to want to come relocate to Collier County. Here's the private sector, just like the previous petition, looking for creative ways to address this situation. I know it's unusual, I know it's the first one, but this is a problem, and there are appropriate safeguards to address this. So we are sticking with the language as we've proposed it. The units will become income-restricted if we're no longer using it as transitional employee housing. We think it's a necessary change to the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Robb. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If I might ask, what's the -- how is that gauged? You know, so, obviously, you're saying there's a trigger. So what trips the trigger? MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, if we start using it as permanent housing, just one unit as permanent housing, the other eight units become -- September 20, 2024 Page 71 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: How would anybody know if that's the case? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have to do PUD monitoring reports to show how the units are being occupied. If the county wants to audit, the county can come audit. But, no, we provide PUD monitoring reports stating -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And how often is the PUD monitoring? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an annual report. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Annual report, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an annual report. So there are safeguards. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- say, "Hey, there's someone who's been in there" -- I mean, does your report say, "We've had 17" -- you know, we have -- how many units are you going to have? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's 41 units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- 41 units, and all 41 of them have currently over the last 12 months -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll report -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- have been in there -- the occupants have been in there less than 12 months? Or, like, what is -- what is the definition of that time where it becomes permanent? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and that's actually a very good question, and we have -- I think people maybe have stayed up to nine months. I'm looking at a number. Is that right, about nine months? Oh, Trent left. So I think nine months has kind of been the upside for how long people have stayed. We don't have a specific number in there. Because, you know, let's just say you relocate here, and you decide to build a house, and it takes 14 months to build the house, we intentionally did not, you know, put that number in there, September 20, 2024 Page 72 but we'll report it and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So how would -- how would anyone -- you know, how would the county enforce that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we will report to them the circumstances. If someone's staying there and they're going to be there for 14 months, we'll say, "They bought a house. It's being built. That's the anticipated delivery date of the house." And, you know, we'll report that to staff through the report. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That all sounds reasonable. I guess what I'm saying, without there being some definition, what ends up happening is, you know, there you are making this argument that, well, it took them six months to decide where they wanted to build their house and, you know, another year, and they're in the process of building it, and of course this is nonpermanent. You know, they're under contract for a house and, meanwhile, you know, it's -- the county has decided, yeah, guess what, we need this as affordable housing. Too bad. You went over. Your basis to -- I mean, so I'm saying that it doesn't -- it's not fair to anybody because the county has no idea, then, how to enforce it, and then you have no idea to know whether you're in compliance. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they're going to take me to a code enforcement case, and I'm going to go in front of the Code Enforcement, either the magistrate or the board, and I'm going to show, "Rich got hired by Arthrex. He signed a contract on X date to build his house. I'm not going to kick him out and make him go to a hotel while he's building his house." And if the Code Enforcement Board decides to find it's in violation, I'm sure we'll move up the chain of the appeal, but we will deal with those odd situations as they occur. I think staff, in my experience, once I show them that the person's got a contract to build a home, isn't going to take a hardline September 20, 2024 Page 73 approach. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Does our attorney think that that's enforceable? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Heidi, I know you highlighted, so go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What Mr. Yovanovich is selling the project as is different than how it's written in the PUD, okay. In the PUD, this is a traditional apartment complex except the tenant has to be employed in Collier County. They can work at a Subway. You know, they can work at any business in Collier County as long as they're employed. The affordable housing gets triggered if they rent to two retirees, you know, the people that are renting are retirees they're not working, or somebody works in Lee County. So otherwise, that's the only thing that triggers it in the PUD. Those two -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you're saying as long as someone is working, employed in Collier County, they could live there for five years? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So there we have -- obviously, we have a -- you know, a very specific disagreement as to what it is that we would be passing. So, obviously, that needs to be fleshed out during this -- it seems, during this proceeding. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, they have to be working -- let me just clarify that with they'd have to be working during those five years; otherwise, they would disqualify. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that seems to be not what Mr. Yovanovich thinks that he's proposing. September 20, 2024 Page 74 MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I have the visualizer, please. This is -- the trigger to go to affordable is 5A. In the event the property is no longer utilized entirely for transitional corporate housing, eight dwelling units shall be required to become income-restricted to individuals of families having incomes at 100 percent of the median income. And then we have the same definition of what is transitional corporate housing. No less than 30 days with a furnished apartment to employees working in Collier County. We don't have, as you pointed out, Mr. Klucik, how long they can live there, but it is for a transition. And if you want to better define what that transition is, we're fine. But we are not allowed to have someone live there for five years, and then they can -- we're no longer in violation. If you want to put a cap in there "except for extenuating circumstances because they're building a house," it becomes -- it becomes a little bit cumbersome to address every specific situation for when you have an employee. It says transitional. That does not mean permanent. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So when you're doing your monitoring report -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. No, please. Keep on asking. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you're doing your monitoring report, and everyone's in compliance, these people, in your mind, are, you know -- it's not permanent. It's -- what are you reporting so that someone would know, well, you know, it's -- well, it's not permanent. You know, four of the people are -- you know, are -- you know, have been in there 18 months, and there's various extenuating circumstances. So do you -- are you obligated to say how many months each person has been in there or -- September 20, 2024 Page 75 MR. YOVANOVICH: I would envision we would report on an annual basis, Unit 1 was occupied by someone from A to B. It may be vacant at the time we're doing the annual monitoring report, maybe, and then someone else came into that same unit on X date, and we would do that for all 41 units, and we would explain how they were occupied and by -- how long each individual person that was in there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Robb, that's a good question. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a great question. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I -- I think we -- in the monitoring -- typically, the monitoring report only includes number of units. A PUD monitoring report only includes how many units have been built over -- let's say a large development. How many units are authorized? How many have been built? How many are single-family? How many are multifamily? I don't ever recall any monitoring units getting into specifics of how long. I think, since this is transition housing, we probably are going to have to define criteria -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- that would have to be included in the monitored unit. Those are great questions. From the standpoint of knowing and understanding that -- otherwise, it becomes Jaime's problem. She all of a sudden has a code case. But the only -- only way you have a code case is either, one, Code Enforcement stops by to look and evaluate or, two, there's a complaint. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Look, I think we are obviously the first one doing this, so there's going to be growing pains. If we need to come up with a PUD monitoring report, a form, we can come up with a form with staff to assure we're all fully understanding what we have to report so they're comfortable that this is not permanent housing. September 20, 2024 Page 76 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let me ask: Is this something, Cormac, you monitor, you would monitor? I'm going to ask Cormac to come up. Because I think somehow this would have to be clarified in a monitoring report. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning. For the record, Cormac Giblin, your director of Economic Development and Housing Policy. In Growth Management, in our division, in our department, all we do is write the language in the regulating ordinances. Once a project is built and occupied, the monitoring function switches over to the county's Community and Human Services division. But I echo the Planning Commission's concerns that we and they need the -- as much specificity written into the ordinance so that they have something meaningful to monitor to. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, let me -- just because I spoke to Rich about this -- and, gosh, I spent 30 years in the military, I think, 15 moves in 30 years, so I've had my experience in temporary housing. Typically, especially when you go overseas, you go into temporary living housing, temporary quarters or whatever, and normally they're segregated only by "enlisted" and "officer." But it's -- for maybe no more than -- it's usually 90 days, 60, 90 days, but typically no more than six months, because all you're waiting for is a set of -- if you're going to go into the government quarters or you're going to rent or buy off the installation, but it's a limited time that you're in temporary housing. I commend Arthrex. This is a very innovative approach to solving a problem, especially in regards to a family coming down here to Collier County where they're going to -- this will offer them an opportunity to bring the family down or maybe live -- the family comes -- you know, the employee comes down separately, but it does give time for the prospective employee to find suitable housing. September 20, 2024 Page 77 I would suspect -- again, this is just my -- I suspect, if they're going to be in a house -- they're waiting for delivery of a house for 24 months, I don't see them staying in these -- this for that long. They're probably going to go out and buy a -- go to a rental before they move into their permanent house. So I think it's pretty rare. But, again, I need to -- we probably need to nail this down in some kind of language, because it is a temporary living facility, and so we're -- the real issue, Robb, is define the term "temporary." COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. As an example, I mean, you might -- Arthrex might -- well, is it Arthrex? Is that who we're talking about? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, Arthrex. It could be any employer. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But whoever it is, so they bring somebody in, and everybody knows, the employee, the employer knows, whoever is owning this house knows -- owning these buildings knows that, hey, this is -- this guy's only going to be here two years, and, you know, his family -- his wife is going to visit sometimes but she's a doctor back in so-and-so. So they only need it for two years. He's going to -- the job is temporary. So then you've got somebody who's in there for two years. And you can make the argument that it's temporary, and that's fine. Is that what we're passing? So that -- so that, you know, Arthrex could offer a unit to someone that they know is on a temporary basis. They're going to be flying in and out, and this is a nice alternate to a hotel. They can -- you know, they're going to be there three days a week or whatever for a couple years. For four years? You know -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Can I make a statement -- excuse me, Rich -- before you start, if I may, Vice Chairman. September 20, 2024 Page 78 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Once again, I believe the market is going to push this system in the correct direction, and I believe Arthrex, or whoever may own this, is going to want to cycle these buildings, or these temporary housing units, cycle them through so that they can continually bring in new employees. Maybe they need to be there 60, 90, 120, 150 days to find where they want to live. I won't say push them out, but encourage them to go get their home, their apartment, their condo, whatever, and, hey, next month we have four new no folks coming in from MIT that are joining us. We're going to set them up for 60, 90, 120 days and get them, again, to find the proper location. I don't think -- just my personal opinion, I don't think Arthrex is looking to utilize one of these units for a long-term, even temporary housing for one of their employees when they have more employees always trying to come into the Naples area, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: They're trying -- they're currently trying to fill 300 vacancies, 300 vacancies, and they've got 41 units if these get approved. So there's -- there's a significant shortfall. I -- look, we could stay here all day and probably write a 20-page what-if scenario for what is temporary, is not temporary. And I know, based upon the first item, the "trust me" answer is not a sufficient -- "trust me" is not a sufficient answer. I know that. This -- you know, if we start running into code enforcement issues on this, you know, shame on us. I don't think you're going to run into code enforcement issues on this. This is the first one. It's transitional housing for a minimum of 30 days. It's not permanent housing. If you want to say it cannot be permanent housing and then -- the problem I have with -- and I agree with what you're saying, Joe, typically you'd be there four to five months. But you know what, these are going to be nice. So if I sign -- if I'm eight September 20, 2024 Page 79 months to get my house finished, I'm not going to sign a month -- a one-year lease in an apartment complex, because most of these apartment complexes, you guys have made us commit to their -- minimum one-year rental periods. You know, there's -- we've got to try to figure this out, and -- you know, we're not going to make it perfect. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Mr. Chair, I've got a few questions. So what is Arthrex doing right now for their transitional housing? Obviously, they're bringing people in. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're struggling. They're not -- they're not solving their problem. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: They're not getting transitional housing now. MR. YOVANOVICH: They are buying places, and they're putting people in them, but they need more. They're way short. They're trying to find locations for people. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Rich, I am not fighting that at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What I'm trying to figure out is -- obviously Arthrex, with their employee agreement -- or employment agreement with somebody they're bringing in has a stipulation in there that they will provide transitional housing for X date. So how about you just take that page from the employment agreement and use that for your PUD reporting? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it's fluid. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Every single unit's going to be different, I'm sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: But what I'm saying is it could -- it September 20, 2024 Page 80 could be -- and they may -- it may not -- I don't know what their employment contract says. I don't know if it says, "You're getting nine months, and then you're out." It may be, "Okay, you know, we're going to give it to you for six months and then we'll reevaluate." Who knows? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The other side of it is this is Arthrex's housing, so that's what I would envision it being for them as being described as transitional, then that's transitional. That's going to be between them and their employee that they're bringing in. I don't think they're using it -- because what's the square footage of these units? They're not very big. Like, it's not -- 650? MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum of 650, but there may be some a little larger. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It might be a little bit larger, but I don't see a husband and wife and two kids in a 750-square-foot unit -- MR. YOVANOVICH: For a long time. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- for three years. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: This is transitional. I attended the NIM for this, and really the only questions that I heard from the audience was with regard to the renderings and the building height, because that wasn't available at that point in time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I didn't hear any concerns about what type of tenants would be occupying, because those units had somewhat been of an issue before. So, I thought from what I got at that NIM with the residents and their questions, it was more focused on height and the layout, and then Palm River had some concerns with an easement they had -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. September 20, 2024 Page 81 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- through one side of the property. The only thing I -- question I have is Arthrex gets to a point where they no longer need this and they decide to sell it, does the affordable housing kick in on that aspect to the next owner of the property? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, unless -- for instance -- first of all, it may not be 100 percent Arthrex. As we talked about, Arthrex wants to have the flexibility that if -- let's say NCH has got a doctor they want to attract, and they've got a unit available, and NCH says, "Hey, can we use this to bring a doctor in?" While they're finding their place, they want that flexibility. They think they're going to take it themselves, but they also want to be a good corporate, you know, partner. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Partner, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I lost my train of thought. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Transitioning -- if Arthrex sells it, it transitions to another -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's still used -- let's say NCH buys it and they now want to use it as, you know, transient -- or -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- transitional, sorry -- transitional, then, no, as long as it's continued to operate that way when it stops operating like that, it triggers the affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I've got, before Mike, Chris. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. Yeah. My view -- and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but I'm not really -- I don't really think there's a -- to me, there's a real affordable housing component to this. September 20, 2024 Page 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: I never said it was. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just saying what I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's not the way I'm looking at it. The way I'm looking at it is, you know, we're trying to solve the housing problem. It's not necessarily just an affordable housing problem. So I'm not -- I'm saying I don't think the affordable housing is -- I think it's a little bit of an illusion, in my mind, but it doesn't matter because that's really not how I'm looking at it. I'm looking at one of -- frankly, just -- you know, I think -- I can't go into a meeting about making the community better without somebody talking about Arthrex in a good way. So you've got probably, you know, our attractor employer here in town, and they're going to spend a boatload of money to build a building to put people in. So I guess -- I guess I'm kind of wondering -- and maybe I'm missing something, but what's the boogeyman if somebody happens to stay there for two years? I don't understand what -- how's that -- how's -- what's the danger in that? I'm not really asking you. I'm just sort of asking if I'm missing something, and my fellow board members -- I don't -- I'm -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- not that worried about it, I guess. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I agree with you, and I agree in regards to I don't consider this an affordable housing issue. I consider it to be a temporary living facility, a bridge between moving from Philadelphia to Naples to work for Arthrex or NCH or whomever, so -- and I don't consider this to be affordable housing. And, in fact, I would have to say the compensation level for most of the employees probably far exceeds the affordable housing trigger. Then if we have an affordable housing criteria component on this, it September 20, 2024 Page 83 defeats the purpose of what it is. But, Mike, go ahead. You have something you wanted to say before, then I want to go to Robb. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry. I have one more question, and I think I know the answer, but I'm just asking you. Why not just restrict it to just Arthrex? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the reason I just told you. They have -- let's just say for whatever reason there's three units empty, and NCH comes to Arthrex and says, "Hey, I've got this great doctor or nurse, or whoever, I want to relocate here. Do you have any units I could put them up on a temporary basis?" He doesn't want to sit there and say no. It's good for the entire community. Say you want to bring in, you know, a law graduate, and you want to have an associate, and you pay them too much money, which you probably do, and you want -- you call and say, "Hey, you know what, you got a place I could put my young associate for a few months while they find a place to live?" It's -- remember, we want to encourage employers to hire people. We want employers to stay. We want them to recruit people here. It's a -- it's a good type of housing for employers to avail of themselves while they -- for people they pay too much money to qualify for an affordable housing unit. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I got that. And I think it's -- additionally, it's almost too much to ask for an employer even as big as Arthrex to commit to saying, "What if I only have 30 people I need to bring in then?" Then I'm going to be eating 11 units if I can't rent them to anybody else. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So I think that I'm making an argument for you. I think that's another reason for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike. September 20, 2024 Page 84 MR. BOSI: Thank you. And staff -- before you got to the portion where you asked for staff's -- staff report, I wanted to be able to highlight something within the PUD that is a gap, and it's a gap that the County Attorney's Office identified first and pointed it out to staff. And it's a gap within the actual PUD, and it's the reason why staff asked for -- it's the reason why staff asked for a commitment for affordable housing related to the additional density that they're going to be receiving above what they would be allowed by the GMP. Board of County Commissioners established a policy, if you ask for more density than what you're allowed by the GMP, you provide affordable housing. Staff says, that's what we're moving forward with, and that's why we reacted to it. The way that the PUD is set up and established -- and let me get to that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this is being treated as affordable housing, then, from your recommendation purposes? MR. BOSI: The recommendation that we are requesting is for affordable housing specifically because of the Board policy. They're asking for more density than what they're entitled to by the GMP. And let me get this. All right. So this is the proposed PUD document, and the first part -- the first two pages is for the Board of County Commissioners. Look, so you -- Exhibit A, list of permitted uses. And if you read through that, regulations in development of -- should be governed in accordance with section -- of GMP. And it says a maximum of 41 multifamily rental units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building structure or part shall be altered other than the following. Principal uses: Multifamily rental dwelling units or any other principal use that's contained. So the only permitted use is multifamily dwelling units. It doesn't say anything about transitional September 20, 2024 Page 85 housing. It says 41 dwelling units. That's 41 dwelling units, eight units above what the GMP would allow for. So we're saying there's no commitment for transitional housing in this PUD. The only time that transitional housing applies -- you go through your development standards, and you'll see there's nothing about transitional housing in here. Here is your -- your master plan. More notes on your master -- your master plan. There is nothing related to transitional housing here. Here's your legal description. Obviously, there wouldn't be anything in that regard, your deviations, and they have nothing related to affordable housing. And staff is supporting the deviations. We recognize this flexibility, adaptive reuse. And then we get to the development commitments, and you've got your commitments related to general. You've got your transportation, your environmental. Affordable housing, that's when they talk about "in the event the property is no longer utilized entirely for transitional corporate housing." But remember the permitted uses just say "multifamily." There's no connection to -- they don't link the transitional corporate housing to any requirement other than defining what transitional corporate is in a very broad way. So what we're saying -- you're not giving -- we support Arthrex, and we understand their need to bring in in this transitional housing. If this was committed towards transitional housing as that's the permitted use, multifamily relegated or obligated to only transitional housing, which is X through Y, then maybe staff would not have suggested, "If you really want the additional density, you have to give us the affordable housing." If this is committed towards transitional housing, staff could back off from that requirement and recognize that this is -- what is committed is transitional housing, because what's permitted by the PUD is multifamily, and then at the very end September 20, 2024 Page 86 of the PUD it says, for the purpose of this PUD, transitional corporate housing is defined as temporary rental for no less than 30 days on a finished apartment or condominium to employees working in Collier County for companies located in Collier County. That's great, but that's not tied into anything other than we're going to define it, but it's not obligating anything in this PUD to have to follow what transitional corporate housing is without any specificity. And that's the gap that we've struggled with, and that's why we imposed the request or the additional condition that they provide for that 30 percent, because they're asking for more density when they're only -- in their PUD they're saying, "If we get the extra density, we've got multifamily," and that's it. The only hook for that multifamily is that it's multifamily. And that's -- that's the gap that we're trying to close. And we're amenable to -- we think -- we think the world of Arthrex. We understand their mission, and we understand the need for corporate housing. But make it obligated to corporate housing, make it obligated within your permitted uses, and then define what those are so we can enforce those, we can monitor what those are. That's staff's perspective. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Robb. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Bosi. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I make it real easy? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Bosi, if you would -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I have Robb standing for a question first, Rich. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what's really -- I think what you just highlighted is they're getting a density bonus that's reserved for -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's based on policy of the Board. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Based on a policy that says if September 20, 2024 Page 87 we're going to have some affordable housing, then you get density bonus. And actually, if the applicant does what they say they're going to do, there is no affordable housing. So as long as you just use it -- like, you don't even actually -- you use it as multifamily. In theory, if you violate and it's not temporary, or whatever that definition is which is not very easily defined, and there's not really much of a monitoring trigger, then there is no benefit. The only benefit -- and that's what -- I think that makes sense. Why are we giving a density bonus as if there's affordable housing when there isn't? There's no affordable housing. There's zero affordable housing in this plan, zero, if your client uses it the way they intend to use it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it's not an affordable housing density bonus. It's a density per the Board's policy. If we increased the density -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So you're getting -- you're getting a deviation from -- you're getting, you know, an increased density based on policy, but the policy isn't really triggered because there is no affordable housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I say something? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that was to Mr. Bosi. Is that really what you're saying? MR. BOSI: It sums it up. We're not -- there's no addition -- there's no -- there's no restriction to income -- income levels in the PUD, which we're -- we recognize that's triggered if they stop using it for corporate housing, but there's no obligation that it has to be utilized for corporate housing as it's written today. It just says multifamily units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I explain that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know it's going to surprise you, but I September 20, 2024 Page 88 think our very first draft of the PUD that we submitted said we were going to provide, as the permitted use, transitional corporate housing, and people said, "We don't know what that is." So -- "we know what multifamily is," so we went to multifamily, and we dealt with it in the affordable housing. I am perfectly fine -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Wait, wait. But do you understand my concern? My concern is you're taking advantage of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't taking advantage of that. We submitted as transitional corporate housing. Staff says, "If you want to go above 33, you have to do affordable housing." COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So if you -- right. So if you want the bonus, if you want the additional units, which -- did you ask for the additional units? MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- our original request was 41 transitional corporate housing units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And is that something that you have the right to do? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That's why I'm doing a Growth Management Plan amendment to create the solution. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So you needed those eight additional units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the idea is, by policy, you only get those if you actually give affordable housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand staff's approach. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So we're not -- no, this has nothing to do with staff. This is a clear assessment of what's before us is you're getting eight extra units which are normally, by policy, September 20, 2024 Page 89 only if you're actually giving affordable housing. You're not -- your proposal is not to actually give affordable housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I never said it was. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I know. I'm just clarifying -- exactly. Exactly. MR. YOVANOVICH: I never said it was. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You never said it was, but anyone reading it would sort of be like, "Oh, wow, look at this." We get it. And now we've all kind of decided that there is no affordable housing here, and so in my mind, if there is no affordable housing here unless you use it in some way that you have no intention of using it, then why are you getting the extra units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because we have an employer, and -- employers that can't get people to relocate to Collier County. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's not the reason why. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're thinking outside the box. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Robb, the ratification, the reason why is they have every right to come in and ask to amend the Growth Management Plan to identify the additional density. What I think needs to be clear in this is you're asking for an exception to policy of the Board's criteria that says, "If you're getting the extra density, you have to provide affordable housing." MR. YOVANOVICH: That's exactly what we're doing. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So I think it has to be clear that this is -- you're asking for an exemption of the policies -- the Board's policy. There's nothing written other than the Board's policy. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's not in the LDC. There's nothing that says you have to provide the housing other than a statement from the Board for affordable housing. But I think to make it clear going to the Board, you're asking for an exemption of the policy, but you September 20, 2024 Page 90 still have every right to come in under the Growth Management Plan amendment and identify the additional density for -- under the Growth Management Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was exactly what we're saying is, "I understand where staff is coming from." They believe the Board policy says if we go from 33 units on that property to 41 units on that property, we have to provide affordable housing because we're above 33. What we're saying is this is a different animal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're asking from a policy perspective, let a big employer, an economic driver in this community, come in with a creative solution to help attract employees to come in Collier County. We'll make that policy argument to them like we're making to you. We've made it to staff. Staff has their constraints because they represent what the Board says. This is for you to say to the Board, "Do you agree that we should deviate from the affordable housing requirement for this type of housing?" We can add to the PUD -- I put it on the visualizer. You probably can't read my handwriting. We'll add "or transitional corporate housing," and then we'll say, if we provide -- we'll change the affordable housing commitment later that says, "If we go straight multifamily, the eight additional units will be income-restricted." So you'll have the either/or option. So we're committing to transitional. It will be either/or. If we ever get to where we're no longer transitional, the affordable housing commitment will kick in, and then hopefully we've addressed what Mike's concern was. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would prefer that it says "transitional corporate housing" and then the definition of what transitional -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already -- September 20, 2024 Page 91 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Transitional corporate housing, I want the definition in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll move it to that section of the PUD. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I also want in there an annual reporting criteria. Just -- staff is going to have to determine -- I'm not going to restrict that somebody can stay in there two years. I just want it to be recorded annually, some kind of report, how many units are occupied and for how long on an annual basis. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll work with staff on a PUD monitoring report. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. County Attorney. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: "Transitional corporate housing" is very vague. We had discussed with Rich trying to nail down language that we could enforce, something like that they -- if you want to say "transitional corporate housing leasing to a certain percentage of employees in targeted qualified industries." We just asked for something to tie it to Arthrex; otherwise, it's a separate not-for-profit corporation running an apartment complex. And staff's policy, if Mike doesn't mind me saying so, is that if you're going to get more density, then provide a public purpose, you know, or public benefit, not just affordable housing. So I mean, staff's already said they support the concept. We just want something we can administer. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we are not going to say it can only be for Arthrex or percentages for Arthrex, because what if -- what if NCH comes and says, "You know what, we've got 15 doctors that we want to bring in. Do you have 15 units?" And they say, "Yeah. Temporary, you've got them." Or some other employer comes in and says, "I need five. Have you got five? Because I've got these September 20, 2024 Page 92 five great lawyers." Who cares? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't think that's what she said. MR. YOVANOVICH: She said I had to commit to a percentage. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Say it again. I don't think you said that. MR. YOVANOVICH: She did say that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. No. A percentage, a minimum, but you could do Qualified Target Industries. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Qualified Target Industries. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just say -- why does it have to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You could do healthcare. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why are we doing that? Why can't Chris Vernon -- because I don't think -- we're lawyers. I don't think we're Qualified Target Industries. If we have a lawyer that we want to bring here, and Arthrex has a place that I can attract a lawyer that I'm going to pay good money to live here, spend money here, and become a good corporate citizen in Collier County, why are you telling me I can't use one of those spaces? I'm not a target industry. Why are we getting into such level of detail when this is a universal problem for pretty much all employers in Collier County? Why? That's the public benefit. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because you're asking for density beyond what our Growth Management Plan allows. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. That's a policy decision to the Board, and we're saying we don't think we need to do that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wait a minute. You're saying the Growth Management Plan doesn't allow it. It does allow it. It's a -- there's a policy from the Board that's an express policy, but that is not in the Growth Management Plan. That's -- September 20, 2024 Page 93 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. What I meant is they have a proposed GMP amendment to get them to the density that they're seeking today. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And so, you know, they just want it without restriction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Understood. Chris? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I feel a little bit, Rich -- I've got several things to say, but just initially, I feel a little bit, Rich, like, I think what in various ways most people who have spoken are trying to figure out a way to not get in your way but pave the way in a way that fits within the rules we're trying to follow. So that's just -- I'm saying I think that's what's going on here. So don't -- at least that's what I'm hearing. In some senses, we're all on the same team here because of who we're dealing with and where we're trying to get to. So I think whether we -- you know, Joe suggested it needs to be an exception. I almost got the feeling you said that it should be an exception -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Exception. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- to our current rules that this is an exception where you're going to present to the -- we're approving it as an exception. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I think you kind of nodded "yes." And I think a broad view of a public purpose -- I think maybe we can get through that, too. And so it's an exception for a public purpose. And I feel like -- and we're quasi-judicial. And you always hear, you know, judges who don't follow the law, right, you know, September 20, 2024 Page 94 going AWOL? And there's a -- to me there's a massive difference between acting contrary to the law as a member of the judiciary. That's one thing. Like, I don't like this law. I'm a judge. I'm going to do what I think's best. That's a judge gone rogue. But I think the reason we have all these court cases that don't deal with an actual statute or rule is because we're dealing with something that the rule-maker didn't think of. And in my opinion -- it's just my opinion, I think that the rules we're looking at were designed to solve the housing problem, and I think the first evolution of the housing problem is affordable housing. I feel like a year from now, these -- there's going to be another set of rules that are going to deal with this exact situation to promote it. And so to me, I would like to find a way to get this approved and give it in a way that the County Commissioners feel comfortable with it, because I do think it's very consistent with what we're trying to do as a community, and it just so happens we didn't write it perfectly because we didn't think about this next-level stuff. So if we've got a -- you know, I just don't think we're going rogue. I think this is a next-evolution issue. And it's just a matter how we get there, and I think, if you can, try to be a little more collaborative, and these people are saying, "Why don't we try this? Why don't we try this?" MR. YOVANOVICH: We've had -- Commissioner Vernon, first of all, what we're asking you to do partly is legislative. Changing the Growth Management Plan is a legislative decision. It's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Which gives us more -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Which then gives us the -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- discretion. No, no. I'm sorry to interrupt. But gives me more discretion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So you decide policy, and then September 20, 2024 Page 95 my PUD implements your policy decision. Okay. So let's -- the policy decision we're asking you to make is let us be the first one to try to do corporate transitional housing. Let us try to do that on this particular piece of property. It's not global. It's 41 units. If we somehow mess this up on 41 units, it's not a catastrophic mess-up, if you ask me. So, yes, transitional corporate housing, that's a good policy decision. The public benefit is employers can now have an opportunity to bring employees here, which is also stated as a policy in our Growth Management Plan, is to make sure we have a diverse economy with employment. So we want to have -- give employers an opportunity to bring employees here, live somewhere temporarily, move here permanently in a different residence. That's the policy decision. Different than affordable housing. I never said it was affordable housing. Affordable housing came in here because staff says the policy decision has always been if you go above what you could do under the GMP, you have to have affordable housing. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I understand you were trying to make -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's the policy. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- it compliant. But I don't want to get caught up in -- you said public policy. That's productive. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've got that. And we -- now we're talking about how are we going to define who, which employers, and that's where my client's been pushing back, and he says, wait a minute, I'm doing this pretty much for me, but I recognize there may be times that I've got units available that may benefit a different employer. And I think what I'm doing in providing this is a good thing for the community. Why would you limit me as to who, which employers I say, "You know what, I can help out." COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I think -- and maybe I'm September 20, 2024 Page 96 misreading other people. Okay. So maybe I'm wrong, but I think they're getting at that because they're trying to find a way to feel comfortable approving it, and I don't think they have a problem with the concept of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. What I'm saying is -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I tried to draw it out from you. I gave you a second reason, because I agree. If I'm Arthrex, and I'm ponying it up -- I don't know how much paying for it and rehabbing it. I mean, it's got to be an enormous amount of money. I know I've driven by that place many times. I know exactly where it is. It's a lot of money they're going to spend on this, so I want to give them the leeway, but I think that's what we're trying to do conceptually. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's all he's asking is, "Listen, I need the leeway." That's why I'm pushing back on coming up with finite percentages of which types of employees he can help. We've had every one of these conversations with our client, every one of them. Trust me. And all these concepts have come our way, and we've talked to them, and they've said, "No. We think it's important to have this type of housing for all employers of Collier County. All. We don't want to make the value judgment as to you're not that important." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I mean, I've said what I have to say. I'm conceptually very supportive of it, but I'm hoping that you can get everybody comfortable here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike, why do we have to have multifamily rental dwelling units? Why can't we just say the principal use is transitional? MR. BOSI: I was going to point out I don't think that that addition really changes anything. It's either/or. There's no September 20, 2024 Page 97 commitment. The way that I would phrase it is, the permitted use is transitional corporate housing. If no longer utilized for transitional corporate housing, then multifamily with an additional eight units that are income-restricted. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's wrong with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's what I -- that's exactly what this -- if I came to you today and I said I want to do 41 standard multifamily units, I want eight bonus units, and I'll give you 100 percent of the eight bonus units as income-restricted, would you guys say to me, "no"? You'd probably say "yeah." Why wouldn't you? A hundred percent of the units are affordable housing bonus units. I'm not asking for a single -- a single market-rate unit if I went that way. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So are you okay with what Mike just said? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what my language said, because it's going to say if I do multifamily -- if I do multifamily, I have to do the affordable housing. If I do transitional corporate housing, I don't have to do affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But let's wordsmith it in a way that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I was going to recommend, do we -- can we take a 15-minute break? Because I think we're close to resolving this and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We've got other issues. Can we finish talking about the other stuff -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because I need to get Wayne up here to talk about the setbacks and -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we're going to be coming up on a hard break here soon, anyway. September 20, 2024 Page 98 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, okay. But if Wayne could get up here and talk about that, then we can take whatever time to deal with that, because I don't want to -- I don't want to resolve that and then I've got to take another break. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Terri, we're close to an hour and a half. Do you want to -- THE COURT REPORTER: He can go. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go with Wayne. Go ahead, Wayne. This will be -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go, Wayne, go. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go, Wayne, go. MR. ARNOLD: All right. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates here. I wanted to walk you through the site plan elements. So this is the proposed master plan on the screen that we have for the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike, can you go to the presidential -- presentation phase of this. Down on the bottom there, hit the screen, because this is the added phase. Down in there -- right -- there you go. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: So just to orient you to the site, Palm River Boulevard runs along the western portion of the property. We have two access points to Palm River Boulevard. The site currently has two existing points of ingress and egress. We have a golf cart path that was relocated for the LaPlaya Golf Club that cuts through the property, and there's an easement that will be reserved for LaPlaya's use across the site. So part of the site planning on this site dealt with making sure that the playability for LaPlaya was maintained. So that was one of the drivers. We also have a large Collier County drainage canal to our south. The property takes a unique bend, and it was another site challenge for the site. September 20, 2024 Page 99 So MHK Architecture and Arthrex have come up with an L-shape building in this location. It orients it down in the southeast corner of the site, so it pushes it farther away from the single-family here because we're separated by a canal and landscape buffer. This portion immediately adjacent to us is LaPlaya Golf Course and one of their irrigation ponds, and then we have the Palm Royal condominium complex located in this area. And so the site was arranged this way. And one of -- the reason I'm pointing some of this out, we've asked for two deviations that are unrelated exactly to where staff was going, but they've said if you approve this, we want affordable housing, which we've obviously just had that long conversation, and they also said we want you to design this using RMF-16 zoning development standards, which would change the setbacks that we've proposed for this building. So the setbacks for RMF-16, which the site is zoned today, it allows you to go 75 feet as a zoned height. We're asking for a zoned height of 65 feet. So we've already asked for a height significantly less than what we could build today. So sort of building on what we said with the bonus units, today I can scrape the building that's been scraped, I can go up to 75 feet zoned height, which means my actual height will be higher than that, and I can put a building that can meet RMF-16 setbacks, or we can build a building that functions very well for Arthrex, keeps it in a fairly compact footprint, allows us to build it at lesser height, but encroaches on what would otherwise be an RMF-16 setback. And I've got a site plan that I can show you. But while I'm here, let me just talk about the two deviations. One is from open space, and I think this is the third open-space deviation you-all have seen fairly recently. You approved another one that Rich and I worked on for a project called Mattson, which was on Vanderbilt Beach Road just east of Livingston. And your September 20, 2024 Page 100 Land Development Code requires a stand-alone residential project to have 60 percent usable open space. And we do this for a living, and our engineers design sites for a living, and I'm telling you, on a 2-acre site and a 7-acre site and maybe up to a 10-acre site, it's nearly impossible to build a site that has 60 percent open space in it if you're going to respect the heights of surrounding properties. If you're going to let me build a Space Needle in the middle of the site, I can make that open-space number work, but you can't make it work on stand-alone parcels. And it's odd, we don't have any distinction of acreage for residential, but you do for commercial. So your commercial standard doesn't apply to sites less than I think it's five acres. But if I'm one acre, 10 acres, 200 acres, 60 percent is my number, and for years that hasn't been an issue because we've been so dominated by golf course community that you automatically don't even have to think about how much open space you have because that's such a dominant feature. But this is why -- and I've had this conversation with staff, and it's not the same issue at hand. But when you try to apply the Live Local to a commercial site that was approved with either no open space or 15 percent open-space requirement, now you've got to go to 60 percent, and that doesn't work on most infill sites. So to apply Live Local, you've got to abide by RMF-16 zoning requirements. So you're not going to see very many small commercial infill sites converted to a residential project because they can't meet the open-space requirements. So that's a side issue, but it goes toward why we need this deviation. And staff is supporting it subject to the affordable housing component, which we'll let you-all sort that out. But there is a reason why we need the deviation from 60 down to 50. September 20, 2024 Page 101 The other one applies to a parking standard. So your code for multifamily projects requires us to have parking that's calculated separately for the residential amenity. Well, our residential amenity is right outside the entrance to the building, and it faces Palm River Boulevard, and it's essentially a pool and a workout room and things. But we have one building, so everybody has equal access to those facilities. It's not like you're going to get in your car and drive to the pool. You're in the same building where the pool's located. So we and staff agree that separate parking is not required for amenity. So this is our conceptual site rendering, and I apologize, but north is to your left. So the canal that's featured here in blue is on our southern property line. But this is more detail of the building, and the reason that it's problematic to meet what would be -- based on our zoned height, staff says our minimum setbacks should be 32 and a half feet from all property lines. Well, it's not an issue from the south. We far exceed that. It's not an issue from the north. We're at 30 feet for the front of the building, and there's a line here. It's hard to see. But Jim Carr's group, who are engineering the site, drew the line across it. We have an encroachment that's about two and a half feet into the 32 and a half feet. So that column and a corner of the building is at 30 feet, because that was the PUD standard we set. We wanted a 30-foot front yard setback. So that's the -- what we established, and that's what Jim has designed to. But we think when you see that minor, minor encroachment, it's insignificant on the project. Now, if I go to the east, this is different. We provided ourselves a rear setback of 15 feet. So we have varying numbers. The site has its narrowest setback adjacent to the golf course. And as we go north toward the Palm Royal community, it goes up to about 26 feet. The building isn't exactly straight. There are overhangs and balconies on the second and third levels, so it's a little unique, September 20, 2024 Page 102 but -- so we're not meeting that standard. Could we meet that standard? We could redesign the site and grab another five feet or so, which is what we would be required to do in this area, but it would require a redesign. We think that we've got a very nice building and one that functions for the site. Here's a color image of the site. We're well buffered from our neighbors. You can see our relationship here to the golf course irrigation facility. This is the Palm Royal community, and here they have their pool and some amenities that are in closer proximity, so their buildings are not close by. Here's a rendering that MHK has prepared for the site, and we have Kaylee here from MHK who can come and talk to you about some of the other design components, but you can see in the back -- and I apologize for not having a rendering of every part of it, but this is on the east side. You can see that there are lower staggered elements to the building facing to the east. And what they've prepared are conceptual elevations for all sides, north and south. As I mentioned, we far exceed those setbacks to the east and west, which we've shown here. You can see that there are certain design elements. There are staggered building heights. So it's not as if you've got a monolithic building that's just towering over the neighbors. And here's our east elevation, and you can see that it's three-story-over-parking element here, and it goes up to four stories over parking as you move away from the property line. So we think that's a very functional site plan, and we think it's respective of the neighbors. And I don't know if anybody -- there's a couple people in the audience I don't recognize, but I don't think there was major concerns over what we're proposing in terms of height and setbacks from the community. Here's another image showing you kind of the line of sight. Here's -- clearly, you see the golf hole and playability and, obviously, September 20, 2024 Page 103 the La Playa folks who we've coordinated with are okay with that. We have a nice distance separation from the golf course, and then the golf cart path, as you can see, goes through the site. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Wayne -- Wayne, can I ask a question real quick? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What's the next highest elevation to this building within proximity? Do you know offhand? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know offhand, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Because you've got NCH that's extremely close, a couple miles away, and then -- I'm just trying to -- line of sight, if you could say this building's X height versus -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, the hospital facility, I believe, is a little over 100 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: We got a little over 100 feet approved at Arthrex for their corporate building. We had a hotel -- or apartment complex approved at Arthrex -- or at Creekside, I should say, that was over 100 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So it's not -- it's not -- exactly. There's taller buildings within a mile, mile-and-a-half radius? MR. ARNOLD: There are. And I would point out, Mr. Schumacher, that all of this area to our east over here, that's also zoned RMF-16. So if there's a redevelopment effort, they're allowed to go to 75 feet by right. So we prepared line-of-sight drawings. This is from the River Royal. I apologize, I think I called it Palm Royal, but the River Royal. And this shows you from a line of sight on separation. So at our location closest to them, we're around 26 and a half feet. September 20, 2024 Page 104 They've got their recreation area, they've got a grass area, they've got a parking area, and that's before you ever get to their condominiums. So we're talking separation of 150 feet. I'm not sure that another five feet is going to be a perceptible difference if we had to shift that building. So we don't believe that it's necessary to make that shift. This one shows the retention pond for the irrigation. I don't think that's an issue at hand. But walking you through the issue, I think we can hopefully take a break, we can write some language that you-all can agree to with regard to this transitional corporate housing and how that's going to be applied. I think conceptually we're all in agreement. I think we can make that change. And I'll answer any other questions if I didn't touch on some of the other aspects I need to talk about. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody have any questions of Wayne? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let me ask my colleagues here -- we're going to take at least a 15-minute break. Terri needs a rest. And I would ask if the petitioner could work with staff. Do we need more time for the -- 15 minutes enough? MR. YOVANOVICH: It should be. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How about -- colleagues, do you want a break for lunch, or is 15 minutes -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm good with 15. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We're taking a 15-minute break so staff can -- thank you. (A brief recess was had from 12:07 p.m. to 12:21 p.m.) MR. BOSI: You have a live mic, Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We'll wait till Terri's ready and gives me the signal. She's all set. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here is kind of where -- September 20, 2024 Page 105 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We're at a point you're going to propose some language. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me deal first with -- I think -- I think now Mr. Bosi is comfortable with our PUD established setbacks understanding better how everything is laid out, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And now here's the definition. What we're going to do is we're going to have two permitted uses, regular old multifamily -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- subject to the affordable housing requirements, and we'll cross-reference the requirements that are later in the PUD, or transitional corporate housing. And the definition that we'll have under that section of permitted uses for transitional corporate housing is as follows -- and I'll try to read slowly -- "Transitional corporate housing is defined as short-term housing no less than a 30-day rental of a furnished apartment or condominium to professional employees who are relocating for work or on assignment or training in Collier County for companies located in Collier County. Short-term housing is 12 months or less but can be extended with evidence of a permanent housing contract or permanent lease." So that would allow, I come to the end of my 12 months and my house isn't quite yet finished, I don't have to move out. I can extend, but I have to provide proof to the county that I have a contract to buy a house or a contract to lease a residence. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. That all sounds pretty reasonable, and I clearly understand the definition. I have two questions before I turn it over to any of my colleagues, if they have any questions. Where is Chris and my other guys? September 20, 2024 Page 106 MR. YOVANOVICH: Chris is right there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There he is. MR. YOVANOVICH: They stop selling beer at the third quarter. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The managing entity for this property will be somebody under contract to Arthrex, or will it be a separate -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- entity? You don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. Joe, I don't know. My guess is is they'll self-manage, but they may not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But Arthrex right now is the applicant. They're the ones that are actually going to develop and construct it? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an entity right now affiliated with Arthrex, okay. It's not Arthrex. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I'm just trying to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But keep in mind, it could get sold to someone else, I mean... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. The only other thing is -- I'll use NCH for an example. A lot of times they have in-transit nurses who come in for six months and, for various reasons during season or whatever, because it's an uptick in -- this will be open to them as well, that type of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the way it's written. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The language you used brought to mind that it would be a temporary living -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- option. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I'm not going to get into the September 20, 2024 Page 107 cost, because that's between the employee and the employer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And whether -- you know, just like I talked to you, when I -- when I used to move and we used to get what we call temporary living allowance, TLA. And, of course, the government looked at that as they wanted to reduce that time that they're paying us to live somewhere temporarily so we get some place permanently. But, God, that was so long ago I forgot. Many years ago. Anyways. Any questions from my colleagues on the proposed change -- or proposed language? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I was in the restroom, so I didn't hear it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to read it again? I thought there was a speaker in there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: There's a speaker in there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It wasn't -- it didn't go off. Somebody turned it off. Usually I can hear in there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can you read that again, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll read it again. "Transitional corporate housing is defined as short-term housing no less than a 30-day rental of a furnished apartment or a condominium to professional employees who are relocating for work or assignment or training in Collier County for companies located in Collier County. Short-term housing is 12 months or less but can be extended with evidence of a permanent housing contract or permanent lease." MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner Shea, let me point out the permitted uses have been modified as well. The first will be a multifamily, and it will be subject to the affordable housing provision within the PUD. That's one option. So we will get affordable September 20, 2024 Page 108 housing for the additional density if they want to just go straight multifamily. If they're going to utilize it for corporate housing, it's got that definition that he said. So it's an either/or. And so we're either going to get the additional units that we request -- that we would request for a GMP, or we're going to get the corporate housing that has the benefit that we all know that is a unique commodity we think is the public benefit that justifies the Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's still subject to that one deviation trigger? MR. YOVANOVICH: Open space, yes. Staff is -- I think we're in agreement now on all development standards with staff. They're agreeable. They're agreeing with our request. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm talking about the trigger for the eight units becoming -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. If we do a plain old multifamily project at 41 units, we provide eight income-restricted units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. But if you do -- I thought the proposal was that if you do the work -- the transitional housing, that if you stopped using even one of those units as transitional housing, then eight of the units -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Then it would no longer be transitional housing. It would be multifamily. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Trigger -- that's the trigger. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Got it. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So the -- okay. The trigger is just one unit being used in a different -- not as transitional. MR. YOVANOVICH: Either going to be transitional -- 100 percent transitional, or it's going to be multifamily. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. September 20, 2024 Page 109 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And there's that reporting requirement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Randy? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is it eight if it goes -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- to affordable housing kicking in, or is it -- is it 30 percent or 20 percent? MR. BOSI: It's eight. It's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's 20 percent? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever eight of 41 is. MR. BOSI: It's 23 percent, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's only the bonus units because, remember, I'm getting no additional market-rate units. Why would you get eight and then give up four that you already have a right to? So... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Randy. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just clarifying. As transitional housing, we believe the statements and the wording that's being put together will not be objected by the Board of County Commissioners even though we are granting him eight more units over RMF-16? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll know when we actually get in front of them. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. But that's the goal, correct? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Clearly, staff needs to point that out in the staff report that the applicant is fully aware of the Board's policy. This is -- to use the term -- an exception to policy because it's something we've never done before, and this item called transitional workforce -- or transitional housing. September 20, 2024 Page 110 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. And my reason for making that statement is let's make sure as a great working party here -- for, sad to say, the last time as we're losing two of you -- that we're doing everything we can to make the wording and the proposition, the amendment going before the BCC, approvable because we have a creative body here to do it. And I believe all of us are in favor of this wholeheartedly. Let's make sure we put our minds in getting this written so that it should be approved without any objections from the Board. MR. BOSI: Within our staff -- or executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners, that will be our focus, to let them know that this is a unique commodity. This is transitional corporate housing which we've done, we feel, an adequate job of defining and being able to enforce but also that we recognize that there has to be somewhat of an adjustment to the Board's policy, and based upon that staff is supporting as well as fully endorsed by the planning commissioner -- or anticipated to be endorsed by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff, your report, then. Anything further? MR. BOSI: I think you understand staff's position. We're now supporting the petition as it's modified through the -- you know, through the direction of the Planning Commission, and we are recommending approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any public -- members of the public like to speak? Go ahead. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, you do have one registered public speaker by Zoom. It's Tim Connor. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Tim? September 20, 2024 Page 111 MR. JOHNSON: Sorry. MR. CANNON: Tim Cannon. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Cannon, please go ahead. MR. CANNON: Thank you. I am a resident of the River Royal building that is the closest building to this project. Our swimming pool is right across our front door. Our family's owned that unit since 1982. I practiced law in Ohio for 27 years and became a judge for the next 14, and I'm a little familiar -- I represented a couple communities, and I am pretty familiar with the zoning issues and zoning language. And I would hope the Commission, before they really pass on this, would pay attention to how the surrounding area has developed -- has actually developed. I know, Commissioner Vernon, you said you passed by that way all the time. You know there's no building near this that is anywhere near that height. The current zoning, I appreciate, can be used for 33 units, but 33 units in a density on that irregularly shaped parcel like that is not a good use or good planning. It doesn't even fit with the Comprehensive Plan based on the way the area has developed. The other two parcels that are zoned the same as this have developed with two-story lower-density condominiums. So if somebody wanted to change the zoning to what it currently is and stick 33 units in there, I think a good -- any planner would say that's just not an appropriate plan. So we're asking to amend the Comprehensive Plan to make what is probably a bad situation worse. And what is the theory there? I haven't heard anything. I went to the public meeting at Arthrex. I haven't heard yet why they need 41 units instead of 33, and now I'm hearing Mr. Yovanovich say, "Well, we're not sure we're going to be able to rent them all, so we want to rent them to other people." That tells September 20, 2024 Page 112 me they don't know that they need 41 units. What ought to happen is they ought to develop the property just the way it's zoned under the current zoning. There is no -- he has acknowledged today that there's no density bonus. He is asking you to make a lot of modifications so that they could have flexibility. And I've got a solution for that: Just leave it zoned the way it is, and you could be as flexible as you want. You could rent it to hospital people or anybody you want. And it's just a matter of Arthrex really trying to maximize what they ended up paying for this property. The -- I agree, too, with what Mr. Klucik said earlier, that the good will of the applicant isn't the issue. The hospital -- there's two buildings there now, and I believe there's 12 units there. The hospital built those originally for a place for their nurses and orderlies and maintenance folks to stay. It didn't work out for the hospital. It turned into a nightmare for us because there were -- the sheriff's department will tell you there's also noise complaints, domestic complaints and there was even a murder in those little apartments there. Those are 900-square-foot apartments. So Arthrex, I think, Mr. -- we just heard that, you know, they aren't necessarily going to own it forever, and so we basically will have had a five-story hotel just plunked in the middle of a pretty quiet residential neighborhood. And I'm just surprised that we've abandoned the notion that this property is zoned in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and I haven't heard anything that would suggest that we need to deviate from that plan if there is no component that will ever be required. If they use it the way they want to use it, it will never be required to be used for affordable housing. And, to me, in the neighborhood, if you've driven by, you know that 33 units is a lot of units on that small piece of property. So I September 20, 2024 Page 113 think there should be some consideration to just leaving it zoned the way it is for the protection of the residents in the surrounding area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. I'm going to turn to Mr. Yovanovich if he has any closing comments. But, Mr. Arnold, you did make a statement that the neighboring -- the height for the neighboring properties are in that area? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're RMF-16 zoning just like us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: RMF-16 zoning. Seventy-five feet I thought you said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventy-five -- zoned height. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Zoned height. MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventy-five feet zoned height. So the reality -- MR. CANNON: But not as built. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't matter. The zoned -- the exact zoning is what's there today. Someone may come in and buy up all those units, knock them down, and build 75-foot-tall buildings. It's not unheard of in Collier County, just like my client bought the other buildings, knocking them down, and could replace it with a 75-foot-zoned-height-tall building with 33 units in it. Instead of that, we're building 41 units at a lower height, and a stair-stepped height, not a uniform 75-foot-tall building looking right over -- right over the top of the pool. We've respected our neighbors. We've reduced the building height, and we think there's a legitimate public purpose. I think you may -- you may be stretching a little bit of what I said. My client believes he'll be fully occupying those units. There may be times that perhaps there will be a vacant unit or two, and he September 20, 2024 Page 114 wants the flexibility to help out other employers. And I just wanted the record to be clear, it's not -- it's not -- it's -- I don't even want to use the word "subsidiary." It's affiliated with Arthrex, but it's not Arthrex proper that is owning and developing the property. That's all I was clarifying on the record. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Anybody -- any of my colleagues have any -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I do. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The RF-16 [sic] height is 75. You're at 65 feet, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Now, if -- I had asked earlier what the closest -- or the next highest building or closest height building was to that, and that leads me into if you were to do a Live Local Act on this property, what would that allow you, or it doesn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't -- MR. BOSI: It doesn't apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because it's not commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It doesn't apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So you're -- and this is unique in the fact that it's transitional housing, which -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- to me, as what I just hear from Mr. Cannon, which I found kind of surprising, there was a murder in that little community, and the Sheriff's Office has been there a number of times. So if I was going to put it on a scale and try to figure out which would be the best use for this property, I think what Arthrex is doing would be it. That's my two cents. September 20, 2024 Page 115 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have -- anybody make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I make a motion to approve with the staff changes that were completed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Subject to the staff changes as stated on the record? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I call the question. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All opposed? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to be clear, that was for both petitions? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, for both petitions. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Both petitions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. For both petitions. Both the GMP amendment and the PUD. And Mr. Cannon certainly can raise any objections with the Board of County Commissioners at the scheduled meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, that concludes -- do we have any other closing comments? Anybody -- any comments from the September 20, 2024 Page 116 public? Yes, Mike. MR. BOSI: I would remind you that the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting has no petitions scheduled for it. There's no continuation, so I would ask that -- to take action that you cancel the October 3rd. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I make a motion that we cancel the October 3rd meeting; however, Robb and Chris are going to be here just -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Fine by me. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I make a motion to cancel that meeting. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I just want to make one comment. I'll turn it over to Robb and Chris. But I personally thank both Robb and Chris. Four years, my gosh, my brain hurts now from -- I'm going to miss this guy, I mean -- because his arguments, whooo. Chris brings some clarity to his arguments. But anyways, I really personally want to thank both of you. It's an effort. I would encourage any citizen to be involved in this. But thank you very much for your support to the community. And, you know, I've been involved in this both from a staff perspective and sitting on this committee, and you-all have engaged and really bit into this thing full bore, so I appreciate and thank your input. And I know the community and the Board of County September 20, 2024 Page 117 Commissioners and staff do as well. But any closing words? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. So I guess I would just like to thank, first of all, Bill McDaniel, the County Commissioner who nominated me, and the County Commissioners who ultimately appointed me. It was a -- I was glad to have the opportunity. I really appreciate our chairman, Mr. Fryer, and his -- he's amazing in how he conducts our proceedings. He's just -- he's just so good at that, and so I really appreciate that. Appreciate all my colleagues here. Obviously, you know, government -- to me, government works best when it's transparent, and people are held accountable, and it doesn't go beyond the scope of the actual authority that it has. And I think that means that, you know, there can be robust discussions, and that's always a good thing. Obviously, I'm not afraid of having a robust discussion. And I think having those discussions to highlight, especially to people who are -- you know, to the public, it allows -- it allows there to be, I think, more understanding when those things get fleshed out, aloud, and even in colloquial language as well. So I really appreciate the time. And out in Ave Maria, I really appreciate how everyone has been -- my colleagues have been deferential to my perspective as someone who is in -- for 17 years now, in an SRA in the RLSA program, and I really appreciate that I don't want to say deference, but certainly an acknowledgment that I have some knowledge about how things work. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm sure Mr. Yovanovich is going to miss you on this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm leaving before he kisses me. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chris, do you have any comments? September 20, 2024 Page 118 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I don't think Yovanovich is going to miss my no votes. But I -- yeah, you know, I said at the last meeting that I wanted to give some thoughts like lessons learned, and I kind of got away from that, you know, and started thinking about it, you know, as this meeting was coming up, and I said, "That's pretty darn arrogant. Everybody's going to find their own way." And I started thinking more, just -- I said -- I think I'll use the word "nostalgia," like I'm going to miss my team. You know, it's like I'm retiring and I'm not going to get to play anymore. So I did think of one thing that I think really is in my wheelhouse, and I've brought it up just about from day one, and that is, "What is quasi-judicial?" I mean, what is that? Nobody can seem to explain it to me, so I kind of did a little research the last couple of weeks. The best I can tell it's really like a court proceeding. It's just more informal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And so the one thing I feel like, and it just hit -- you know, it hit me this morning, and -- you know, in the DLC -- and I don't want to talk about it. But I've always said, a courtroom is a beautiful place because it combines advocacy with evidence. And over the last 20 years, what we've really done is we've exported advocacy into the public domain, and we've left evidence behind. And now so much is getting said with no evidence. You know, I know for a fact because I'm on the David Lawrence Center board that if you compare, you know, the number of Sheriff calls -- there's already a Hope home there on that place, and in the last four years there have been -- there's nothing -- there's no evidence. So I certainly respect and understand the concept of fear or "I'm afraid this is going to happen." But I'm saying -- and I'm not trying to focus on David Lawrence September 20, 2024 Page 119 Center; I'm using it as an example -- that, you know, we have to be very open to whatever people want to say, but we are putting people under oath, and to me your feelings, depending on the situation -- but typically how you feel is not evidence. So, you know, I think that's the one thing, because, frankly, even after four years, some of this land-use stuff, I still have trouble with are we legislative? Are we judicial? Is it a GMP? Is it -- so, I still feel like I'm coming up to speed on that. But I did want to say that one thing because I feel like, of everybody up here, I've got more experience in the courtroom, and so I wanted to highlight that before I left. The beauty of a courtroom involves that strict, you know, is it really valid, reliable evidence before we're going to consider it. And I think that's what we do in a more -- or should do in a more informal way. Sorry, I'm going to go on a little longer. I know I'm holding you guys up, but it's my last hoorah. And another thought, and just kind of going around the room is there's not -- I don't see -- and you know I'm usually very complimentary of people, but I don't see a ton of really good people doing a great job as lawyers in front of us, and I know that sounds extremely harsh. I don't think it's because they're not good lawyers. I think it's because land-use stuff is extraordinarily hard. And I don't know -- I don't know whether Rich is going to like or not like what I have to say, but, really, we need some young lawyers to step up and follow what Rich is doing, because Rich has got gray hair, and he's made a lot of money, and I don't know how much longer he's going to be around. And it's -- and it's good -- working, working, not living, working. You'll be out playing golf is what I'm trying to say. You know, we need some young guys. I saw Zach Lombardo come up here, and I thought he did a phenomenal job. And I know September 20, 2024 Page 120 they're out there. We've got to start -- this is just -- to the bar, we need some folks -- because this is hard stuff. It's not stuff you're going to pick up in three months, because he's using litigation skills, he's using land-use skills. He's got to plan for the completely unexpected because we could be moody one day. So it's not an easy thing to do. The staff, I think that -- you know, I can't mention all of you, but Jamie and Mike, I remember -- you guys are phenomenal, but I remember going to a Leadership Collier thing where I was speaking, and I think McDaniel was speaking, and you guys gave a presentation. I'm like, these guys, they just -- you guys are -- you really know your stuff, and you -- you know, I know government gets hammered all the time, but our land-use department -- our Growth Management Department is fantastic. So thank you, thank you, thank you. And for you guys -- you guys, you never get the good stuff. You get the bad stuff. So kudos to you for being there when I need you, and I really appreciate -- I do appreciate you guys, because you don't have an easy job because everybody stops, and they all stare at you, and it's something you didn't even anticipate, so thank you for that. Yeah, the Chairman, I think, is amazing. I've been on a number of boards. I've been appointed by the governor. I've been on all kinds of boards, and I've never seen anybody prepare like Ned. I mean, I think you guys all know because you're sitting up here. I don't think the people out there realize. I mean, I'd be willing to bet he spends 30 hours a month, 40 hours a month. He treats it like a job, and it shows, and I think we depend on him a lot. He's phenomenal. And the new guys, you know, I think I thought you guys coming in, I'm going to have to teach these guys a thing or two, and you guys September 20, 2024 Page 121 are like, oh, my goodness, the institutional knowledge and the intelligence and the demeanor you guys have brought to this from day one is impressive. I'm kind of bummed I never got to sit next to you. And, you know, Robb, Robb and I probably disagree more than I disagree with other folks on here on your approach, but he's my brother. He's my pledge brother. So we came in together; we're going out together. So brothers in arms. And, Joe, your institutional knowledge, you're all -- before I make a decision, I always -- you're one of the -- you're one of the go-to guys. I always want to know what you're thinking, because you're probably seeing something I don't see that you know because of your extreme knowledge. And, Paul, you're the same way. Just to me, Paul, you're the heart and soul of this place, and I mean, you just -- I always want to know what you have to say, and you say it in so many fewer words than I say it and get to the heart of the matter, so it's a beautiful thing. And last, but not least, I do know a lot about court reporters, and, you know, you've got a gem here in Terri. And I've started -- ever since I met her and started seeing what she did here, we've started -- our law firm started to use her. She's phenomenal. She's like the field goal kicker that never misses. You kind of don't notice her because she never misses. So thank you. You're phenomenal at your job. Thanks, everybody. I really am going to miss you guys, I really am. Sorry I went on, but I wanted to get all that out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the good news now, Paul and I are going to be the engineers and are going to outweigh the lawyers, right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We hope. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We hope. September 20, 2024 Page 122 COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think you already do. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anyways, thank you very much, and, with that, meeting adjourned. ******* September 20, 2024 Page 123 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:49 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ 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.