Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/15/2026 (Draft)January 15, 2026 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 15, 2026 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: Joe Schmitt Vice Chairman: Chuck Schumacher Secretary: Paul Shea Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod ABSENT: Randy Sparrazza Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I James Sabo, Planner III January 15, 2026 Page 2 MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could I please -- if everyone could take their seat, please. Good morning, and welcome to the January 15th, 2026, our first meeting of the Calendar Year 2026, Collier County Planning Commission. If -- I'd ask everybody to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Commissioner Shea, I'd ask if you'd please take the roll. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chairman Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, he's not here. Commissioner Colucci not here. Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart is not here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And she has an excused absence as well. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a quorum, excellent. All right. Ray, are there any addenda to the agenda? January 15, 2026 Page 3 MR. BELLOWS: No changes to today's agenda. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Okay. Our next scheduled meeting scheduled for February 5th has been canceled. No petitions, it appears the 19th maybe as well, but we're going to hold that until we get more -- whether staff decides that it's worth us meeting. MR. BOSI: Thank you. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Right now we have zero petitions. We have another week before the advertising deadline would be due. I don't believe there's anything that's going to break free, but if something does, we can schedule for the meeting. So we'll hold tight on the 19th. Next -- as soon as -- I believe Thursday is when the legal advertising would be due. If we have nothing on there, I'll send out a note to the Planning Commission to let you know if we're going to hold a meeting on the 19th or if it's been canceled. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, you mean the 15th, don't you? I'm on the wrong month. I'm sorry. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. The -- are there any projected -- anybody going to be absent for the -- if we have a meeting on the 19th -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We should have a quorum. What about, then, the following one would be March 5th on my calendar? MR. BOSI: Yeah, correct. March 5th is -- and currently right now we have two petitions, so that's a solid yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And any projected commissioners going to be absent? January 15, 2026 Page 4 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So we should have a quorum. Okay. Well, approval of minutes. On the agenda are the November 20, 2025, and the December 4, 2025, CCPC meetings. Any commissioners have changes or amendments to those minutes? If not -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- we have a motion. A second, please. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimous. Ray, BCC report. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On Tuesday, January 16th, the Board of County Commissioners heard, on the public agenda, the rezone and companion conditional use for Fleet Management expansion. That was approved 5-0. And I don't know if you watched, but the Sabal Palm went very long, but it was -- ended up being continued indefinitely. Did the applicant want to come back at some point? MR. BOSI: The Board asked staff to work with the applicant and the landowner to see if there was an alternative use that could be derived upon that might be acceptable or if January 15, 2026 Page 5 there was any agencies -- environmental agencies or other outside community trusts that may be interested in purchase. So they've left the applications open, the GMP and the PUD, but the direction that they provided for us was really a completely different direction than what the current applications are calling for. So we'll sort those -- we'll sort those out and give you an update when we have a little more clarity on it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the current zoning on that is ag. MR. BOSI: Current zoning's ag. Ag Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Sending. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Nothing from the Chairman. Nothing on the consent agenda. ***So we'll proceed to the first item on the agenda, and that's PL20240005299. This is Major Transportation Hub LDCA. So who is presenting that? MR. BOSI: And this will be Mr. Alex Showalter, one of our newer members within our LDC amendment team. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, we're breaking them in. MR. BOSI: Yes. And he spent a couple years with Growth Management, and then he went with CAT for a couple years, and he's back with Growth Management. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Welcome. Thanks. MR. SHOWALTER: Good morning, Chair, Planning Commission. For the record, Alexander Showalter, Planner III. Today staff is bringing forward an amendment to add two new definitions for transit stop and major transportation hub. These definitions are necessary to fully implement Florida Statute 166.04151, which is part of the Live Local framework January 15, 2026 Page 6 for affordable housing. Under this statute, affordable housing developments are eligible for a 15 percent reduction in parking requirements without a public hearing when located within one-quarter mile of a transit stop or one-half mile of a major transportation hub. Currently, these definitions are not included in our LDC. Their absence creates uncertainty and limits the County's ability to realize the full intent of the Live Local Act. This amendment closes that gap by defining these terms and aligning our LDC with state statute. The amendment also formally identifies the three major transportation hubs as identified by the Board of County Commissioners, that being the government center transfer station here, CAT headquarters on Radio Road, and the newly constructed Immokalee transfer station. By adopting this amendment, the County provides clarity to developers, reduces regulatory friction, supports the delivery of affordable housing near transit where reduced parking is appropriate and consistent with state policy. Staff believes this amendment is narrowly tailored, legally necessary, and supportive of Live Local housing projects in Collier County. Be glad for any questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Alex, I think it's pretty straightforward. Any comments or questions from my fellow commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second, please. January 15, 2026 Page 7 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a second. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimous. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's too easy for his first trip. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let's give him a harder one next time, will you? MR. BOSI: We'll up the ante next time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***All right. We'll go to the next item. Two are items. They're companion items. PL20230012845, and the Companion Item PL20230012017. They're both the South Naples Toy Storage. I find that to be a unique name, Toy Storage. Is that for men's and boy's toys or -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anyways, that's a very interesting one. The only thing I -- interesting, this has a date going back to 2023. It's been around that long? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because the one that's just south of this -- MR. BOSI: The Premium Auto Storage -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. January 15, 2026 Page 8 MR. BOSI: -- that was just recently approved in the fall. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Noel, all yours. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, thank you, thank you. Sorry. We have to go through disclosures. I'm jumping ahead here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff materials only. I just spoke with Noel briefly just before the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, and then I spoke with Mike Bosi about this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. And anyone wishing to speak, please rise to be sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right, Noel, now we'll proceed. Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, again, Planning Commissioners. For the record, Noel Davis with the law firm of Davies Duke on behalf of the applicant, 951 Collier Boulevard Investors, LLC. This is a proposed GMPA along with a companion PUD rezone for a luxury motor vehicle storage facility. I have with me today Todd Kamps, my client representative; Pat Vanasse and Rachael Hansen with The January 15, 2026 Page 9 Neighborhood Company who are my client's land planners; Lee Davidson with Davidson Engineering is our civil; Schyler Houfek with Tropical Environmental is our ecologist; and Russ Weyer is our economist. The subject property is approximately 5.62 acres and is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard just under two miles south of U.S. 41. The property is currently vacant and zoned agricultural today. It has a future land-use designation of Urban Mixed District and is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. We are directly across from the Silver Lakes RV Resort and Golf Club and the Pelican Lake Motorcoach Resort. This is our property here outlined in black. Next to us we have FPL and LCEC substations as well as some traditional self-storage zoned C-5. There is also a similar facility, as was mentioned by Mr. Chairman, called 951 Vehicle Suites CPUD. This project is very similar to that. It's also similar to the Lutgert project that's coming out of the ground now at Airport and Orange Blossom. The difference, I think, here with this project is my client's seeking an even higher-end customer. These facilities, these units will be condominiumized. They will be a for-sale product and would allow an owner to store a high-end recreational vehicle, not just a luxury car or boat. Everything will be completely enclosed and required to be indoors. There is no outdoor storage involved. And the location makes sense from a compatibility perspective. We're also seeing continued demand in the market for these types of facilities. There are the two high-end RV resorts right across the street and also more and more demand from residents of Marco Island. Of course, in the wake of Ian January 15, 2026 Page 10 and a need for -- need to have a nice and safe place slightly more away from the coast to store your toys. We're not requesting any deviations. Your staff is recommending approval. Because of the time gap as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we did have two neighborhood information meetings for this. Both were duly noticed. Both had no public attendees. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have for me; otherwise, I'll bring up Mr. Vanasse to go through a bit more of the specifics. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Patrick. Good morning, Patrick. MR. VANASSE: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Vanasse, certified planner with The Neighborhood Company. Pleasure to be here this morning. Noel stole most of my thunder, touched upon a lot of highlights, so I will keep it brief. The Chairman did ask a question. This petition has been around for a little while. Just to give you a little background, the ownership group changed a little bit through the years, and that's why there was -- caused some delays. The principal leader of the group is still the same, is here with us today. And they are -- they've regrouped and are ready to move forward with this project. So jumping right into it, Noel has described the surrounding uses; however, what I'd like to touch upon is the subject property in context with the wider area and the broader surrounding uses. As you all know, Collier County significantly restricts where commercial uses can go. We relegate those uses typically to activity centers at the intersection of two major arterials. We have a perfect example at the intersection of 951 and U.S. 41. We have a substantial amount of commercial uses January 15, 2026 Page 11 there; however, those uses are typically more of the retail type of use. And what we're requesting today is a commercial use; however, it's a low-impact use that requires a little more space, and it's materially different than the typical commercial retail. So what we're asking for is infill commercial in an ideal location. It's within the urban area. It has urban-level services and utilities. It is surrounded by more intense facilities, utilities, and it offers an ideal transitional use from conservation lands compatible with the immediately surrounding intense substations. And beyond that, we have typical urban-level residential densities, commercial intensities. So we want these types of facilities to be located close to existing commercials, close to the homes, that's where the demand is, but somewhat removed. And what we have here is ideal location off of a major arterial. Our drive aisle is 600 feet, and it's tucked away behind these substations. And what it does is it provides some shielding, puts it in an ideal location, and also allows the facility to have easy access off this major arterial, dedicated road, looping around the uses, so if someone does come in with a Class A motorcoach, it's easy to maneuver. It makes sense. It doesn't create conflicts with the regular person going to a commercial center. So as Noel mentioned, we are asking for two requests today. The first one is a Comp Plan amendment to amend the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and Future Land Use Element. Relatively simple. We're asking for one single use, which is for limited mini or self-storage. More specifically, we are targeting the toy owner, people that have luxury RVs and boats. That is the target market. And we are also asking to rezone the property from agricultural to CPUD to January 15, 2026 Page 12 implement that subdistrict. More specifically, if we looked at -- look at the 60,000 square feet of indoor storage use, that equates to anywhere from 30 to 50 individual units. It all depends what the buyer wants. We can figure the interior a little different, but the typical unit is 25 feet wide by 50 feet deep, which allows for that Class A motorcoach. Also, the doors, compared to some of these other facilities, is a very tall door, at least 14 feet in height, sometimes 16 feet in height to allow for those large vehicles. So depending on what the demand is, what the consumer wants, sometimes two of those bays can be combined for one large unit. So as mentioned, anywhere from 30 to 50 units total. Those will be all condominiums and sold to individual owners. The facility will be gated. There will be cameras and security. It will be buffered, and we will have landscaping. As mentioned, it is considered a very low-impact commercial use. It generates very few peak-hour trips. Also, it doesn't generate any kind of odors or noise. All the activity is contained within the buildings. Everything is indoors. It is also conveniently located along Collier Boulevard in close proximity to a lot of new developments, in close proximity to high-end RV resorts right across the street. Some of these owners, when they leave for the winter, want to store their RVs indoors. Also, just anecdotally -- and also we provided a detailed market study that demonstrates the demand for this type of facility. But anecdotally, the owner has already been in touch with several homeowners on Marco Island that are looking for mainland storage. After the hurricanes, we all know that it's important to have facilities that are resilient and that are high and dry and can store -- store their toys away from that potential January 15, 2026 Page 13 flooding that can occur with a major storm event. With regards to the specifics of the subdistrict, relatively simple. Subdistrict limits it to one use that we've mentioned, limits it to 60,000 square feet. It also requests that the project come through as a PUD, which is the companion petition, and also requires a trip cap, which we have as part of the PUD. This is an exhibit of the proposed map change. As you can see, subject property's tucked away behind the FPL power plant, direct access to 951. Also, what I'd like to point out is the shaded area is all urban designated land, land that is -- that is planned for future development. So this land will get developed. We believe that this use is an ideal use for this location and the surrounding uses. The PUD implements the proposed subdistrict. Again, the PUD is relatively simple, very limited uses, for mini-storage and self-storage; caps the square footage at 60,000 square feet, consistent with the subdistrict; provides the peak-hour p.m. net trips on the roadway. And what's important to note is the traffic generated is considered de minimis, meaning that it has an impact of less than 1 percent on the adjacent roadway. So there is sufficient capacity. This will not affect the roadway system. With regards to preserve requirements, we exceed the minimum requirement of .55 of an acre, and we provide .68 of an acre. And we are generally consistent with Land Development Code requirements, and we are requesting no deviations at all. One thing that I'd like to point out that's -- that hasn't made it to your packet, in preparing for the presentation and reviewing the staff reports, we noticed that there was an accessory use that was left in there that should have been stricken. That is No. 2. Calls for outdoor storage and display of merchandise as an January 15, 2026 Page 14 accessory use. That is a remnant of the initial application which contained a primary use of outdoor storage and display. We eliminated that as a primary use. This was just omitted. It should have been stricken out. So just for the record, we are removing that. It should not be part of the request. To quickly go over the master plan here, as you can see, nice long drive aisle to get to the units, 600 feet. We are providing buffers around the entire property. Our largest buffer is in the form of the preserve, which is to the rear. That preserve is going to be at minimum 75 feet deep and is going to prevent any access to that conservation area to the east. We're going to have the preserve. We're going to have some water management, the drive aisles, and then the building. And as mentioned, this is tucked away behind an FPL easement. To the east and also to the south, we have those FPL easements. With regards to the other storage facilities that are immediately adjacent to us, we believe what -- that what is being offered here is complementary. There are synergies that make sense to collocate the different types of facilities. It's an ideal location. It's away from the residential homes. It's not in direct sight, but it's very close to them. And what they are targeting are different markets. So again, as we mentioned, Midgard is for the average homeowner that needs to store furniture, extra furniture, Christmas decorations. The one to the south is going to be targeting luxury cars, and we are targeting the owner of an RV/large boat that he needs a larger storage area. With regards to development standards, very consistent with other facilities throughout Naples and Collier County that are similar in nature. Our maximum height is 35 feet zoned height; actual height, 40 feet. And as mentioned, no deviations January 15, 2026 Page 15 whatsoever, and we will be demonstrating how we're consistent with the LDC as part of our Site Development Plan permitting. So with that said, I will wrap things up by saying that we have carefully reviewed the staff reports. We concur with their findings and conclusions and recommendation for approval. In my professional planning opinion, we have met all statutory requirements for a small-scale Comp Plan amendment. We are consistent with the Land Development Code. We are consistent with the Comp Plan, as amended. Also, as Noel mentioned, two NIMs were held for this project. We had no one turnout at both of them. It was duly advertised. Letters were sent out, and we have received no comments, no concerns from any of the neighbors. So with that said, I would say we are also complementary to those existing uses and compatible with them. And with that said, I would respectfully request a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I have just one question. As in the past with these, we did restrict -- there's no overnight type of facilities in these little condo units. Is this the same for this as well? MR. VANASSE: At least from the current request. These are going to be condos. They're going to be sold to individuals. Gated. Right now the intent wasn't to provide limited hours of operation because it will be limited to just a very small group, and it will be secured and gated. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Okay. My board in front of me is not working. Do we have any other commissioners? Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just informational. It's in the January 15, 2026 Page 16 Coastal High Hazard Area. What do you have to -- do you have to do anything special for being in there to protect your property? MR. VANASSE: So the site will go through the Water Management District permitting and through Site Development Plan. They will have to fill in the site and elevate the site, make sure that it is way above BFE. And one of the things that we know that the buyers will want is a safe, resilient place. You know, obviously a lot of people on Marco Island are perfectly aware of the dangers of flooding. And if they're going to store their vehicle somewhere, they want to know it's safe. It will be marketed that way. It will be designed that way. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How much fill are you thinking in terms of elevation addition? MR. VANASSE: I don't know the answer. Unfortunately, our engineer is not there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm sure he knows right now. MR. VANASSE: Yeah. He knows, and that will be part of our SDP and District permitting. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. It's not important for this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I think the BFE there is probably six or seven feet, at least. And I don't think -- the ground elevation is probably nothing more than five. So you're going to have some required. And I know in order to meet insurance requirements you're going to have to -- and the building codes, you're going to have to be above BFE, and probably one foot of freeboard above BFE. So I don't -- but that all will be worked out during the permitting process. So any other questions? Michelle. January 15, 2026 Page 17 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. So, Pat, I think I'm having a hard time understanding what this project is, because when I read it, I thought when I heard RVs, outdoor space -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Condo. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- I was thinking more of a different kind of storage unit. And then in reading mini self-storage, I was thinking it was kind of that kind of a project. And then when I hear Noel say, no, it's high-end condos, individual. And then it had mentioned that there's renderings in this packet. I didn't see renderings in this packet. MR. VANASSE: I'll address those one by one. So with regards to the use itself, Collier County doesn't have a specific use with regards to these car condos or RV condos. What we have is a general SIC category for warehousing. There are numerous sub uses within there, and we are limiting our use to mini-storage. That's the closest or equivalent use. So all the other warehousing uses we're not asking for. And what we are presenting is that, more specifically, this is going to be geared to the toy storage facilities. Man caves is another use, a word that's been used. But this one is specially designed for bigger units, for RVs and for large boats. So it's going to be completely self-contained. It's going to look similar to other car condos that you've seen, but these are going to be larger units with taller, bigger doors. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Commissioner, for some of the other PUDs that are similar, we have called out some of the uses like automobiles, RVs, boats, you know, and that's something that you could request if you deem that needed. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Help me out. How would that guide me, then? January 15, 2026 Page 18 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So under the use with the SIC code, it would say for -- we'd have to work with them as to language that would be appropriate that wouldn't be too limiting, but that would include, you know, automobiles, boats, RVs, and other recreational equipment, or whatever additional phrase they would need to -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, because if this moves forward to the County Commissioners, too, I want them to understand what kind of a -- because again, it's warehouse, mini-storage, RV. I think those words do not adequately describe what this project is. And again, RV -- I don't know, of all the car condos that we've been doing, if it's -- an RV would be considered one of these luxury car condos. MR. DAVIES: If I may, Commissioner McLeod. So the best way I could try to explain this, I think, is that the code and when it was written, right, predates this use being sort of a trending use now, right, and particularly, as Patrick explained, with the increased demand and increased fear, frankly, in the market for the next hurricane and protecting their fancy toys. So when we come in with an application like this, we are creating our own subdistrict and PUD that's limiting this use the best we can using the sort of options within -- or the SIC references within your Land Development Code. So typically -- and I'd defer to staff as well. But typically, that 4225 SIC code, the mini-storage and self-storage, you see that word "warehousing" as well. I agree 100 percent with you that that doesn't perfectly describe what we're trying to do here. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. MR. DAVIES: But I think it's the closest box to try to put us in, and then with the PUD, that language is limited to allow for the RV, car, or boat, essentially. January 15, 2026 Page 19 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Why didn't the other car condo projects that have come before us use these same SIC codes? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. They did. They did, mini storage, self-storage. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Maybe they just -- MR. BOSI: Mini store -- mini warehousing and self-storage is the larger umbrella. The specificity that you're seeing within a car condo is specifically for storing of cars and other type -- other type of storages. But this request is not for cars but for larger recreational vehicles. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Is this the first -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So in other PUDs that you've -- that have been approved, there's another one that said, "Limited to air-conditioned indoor vehicle storage intended for automobile, recreational vehicles, swamp buggies, four-wheelers, and boats." But maybe they can proffer some language that would work for them -- MR. DAVIES: And if that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- if you deem that needed. MR. DAVIES: We're fine with that type of language if you -- if the concern is that this turns into something else, we're fine with additional -- additional language to Ms. Ashton's point about that. There's no objection to that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. Again, when I went through this material, I had a completely different vision of what -- MR. DAVIES: Sure. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Where the other projects it's clear to me that it's a luxury car condo project. I just didn't see this at all. And then with that fact that it had, like, outdoor January 15, 2026 Page 20 storage space, which now has been removed, that was a little -- leading me into a different kind of thought process for this project. MR. DAVIES: Understood. And we're happy to add the language that Ms. Ashton's suggesting. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. If that's okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's okay. But, you know, given the site and given the proximity to what I would think are not very nice-looking neighboring properties, it's a substation, and it's a -- was it Lee County maintenance facility? MR. DAVIES: Yeah, LCEC. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, nobody else is going to go in there and develop this thing. You know, it's pretty limited for the existing zoning that it's going to be anything but what's being offered there. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I do have another question. So it's -- am I right there's, like, three storage facility properties right next to it? I mean, this is going to be like "storage row" or something. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, there's an existing storage facility there now. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's been there for years. Just south of it is what we approved four, five months ago, and now this one, but -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Does that concern any of you guys that it's, like, one right after the other? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: When I first saw this, I called Mike, and I -- because I wanted to get clarity on these -- between the two. But given the proximity of the LCEC January 15, 2026 Page 21 and the other mini-storage and FP&L, I mean, it's -- I can't see anything else of what I would call -- a use that anybody would go in there and develop any kind of commercial or residential in there. This seems to be appropriate. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right, right. It is a suitable space, again. High -- it's a Coastal High Hazard Area. It's right by the FP&L plant. So yeah, I was just -- there's already three. MR. DAVIES: Yeah. And so there is one that exists today. There's one that you approved recently this year. As Patrick mentioned, I do think that -- I mean, I get it, they're all under that broad category of self-storage. As this use has evolved and as the market has evolved for it, I do think it's fair to characterize all three of them as complementary. So the one you see on the screen, Midgard Self Storage, that's the old-school traditional one, as Patrick mentioned. Extra garage space, right? Your Christmas decorations, your other stuff you don't want to keep in your garage. We are similar to the one you previously approved, but the difference -- and I think this is an important difference -- is you cannot store a $2 million Class A motorcoach at that facility. You can here. And there's not going to be that many of these units, you heard Patrick say. So it's 60,000 square feet. Max of 50 units if we chop this up. Probably more like something in the high 30s. And the target customer is, quite frankly -- and you can see this on the aerial really -- the folks that, you know, live during the season in their Class A motorcoach right across the street. They go back up north for the winter. They want a safe, elevated indoor place to keep their winter motorcoach. Instead of driving it back up north, they leave it there. They come back and get it in the winter. They drive it across the street and stay for the winter. January 15, 2026 Page 22 So that's the market demand that sort of, you know, is the business thinking behind this proposal. And I think that's what -- I mean, I recognize that concern with now three right in close proximity, but when you pair that with the different target markets for each -- and to Mr. Chairman's point, I mean, we've got, you know, power stations/substations right next to it. So it's low trips. It's low impact. The target customer is this, you know, higher-end sort of -- this is going to be a first-class facility, as Patrick mentioned, to make sure that they're comfortable not just, of course, for our insurance and marketing purposes, but that at the end of the day, a customer is comfortable purchasing one of these commercial condominium units to keep a very valuable toy inside of it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you, Noel, for being sensitive to my concerns. MR. DAVIES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Informational. If -- so they're going to purchase these so that you'll be set up with some kind of association management like that? MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. So you create, like, a commercial condominium, just like a residential condominium. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. DAVIES: But a lot of times people think of condos as residential. It's a way to effectuate the division of land, right? So the condominium process can be -- can be land, it can be water, it can be traditional residential, or it can be a commercial project like this. And the purpose of that is to essentially be able to convey fee simple interest to our end users. And you sell that. It's like a condo. There's condo docs. There's a condo association for the common elements of the property that are not the individual units that each purchaser would store their toys in. January 15, 2026 Page 23 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. So the current ownership, basically, will be out of it once everything's sold, just like a residential HOA? MR. DAVIES: Correct, but subject to compliance with the zoning, compliance with the condominium documents that would be, you know, recorded on title and all that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My only other comment is -- I mean, we approve these, and there's some existing already. If you go west 41 down towards the city, there's a couple of them going in. There's some across from -- going east on the Trail. I trust your market analysis is pretty much validated that there's still a need for these. And I mean, that's a business decision. I don't consider that part of the zoning other than you're required to submit a marketing analysis. But I trust that you feel that this is certainly going to be developed, and it's going to be profitable from a standpoint of selling units. MR. DAVIES: We are. And my client wouldn't be doing it if they hadn't done their due diligence on the market. And I recognize, again, the number of these that are coming out of the ground, right? And -- but I think here and the specifics of our market research on this is such that -- almost all of the ones that you mentioned are the ones that we're familiar with or the new ones that are coming up, they're a very nice place to store your luxury car. They're -- as Patrick mentioned, we've got the larger doors. The idea here is to seamlessly pull in your -- you know, you drive in -- you open the garage, you drive in, you drive all the way through, and you're done. You get on the plane and you go north. And so I think the marked distinction with this specific project is that the facility will be designed, or the units, the commercial condominium units will allow for access of a large, January 15, 2026 Page 24 you know, motorcoach bus. And a lot of these other projects, almost all of them that I can think of, you could put your Ferrari in there, right? You could put your other -- your wine collection, and a smaller item or a luxury car or two, but it doesn't have the height, width, and sort of comfort to -- so these are less units, which means less trips, less traffic, but bigger units to accommodate specifically the high-end recreational vehicle. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Do we have any registered public speakers? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no public speakers registered. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff is recommending support of the project. And we did receive an email from Ms. Hansen earlier this week, so we weren't able to correct it. But, yes, we do agree with the elimination of the storage. It was a leftover that staff missed and should have had eliminated already. We most certainly concur with that. It is in the coastal high -- or Coastal Urban Fringe which limits density to four units an acre. This is an area we would not want to see or promote residential development. We think this is a use that is very complementary to the surrounding uses, the substations, as well as the other two self-storage facilities. We know it's a -- the intensity associated with the -- these facilities are extremely low. For all those reasons, staff is supporting. The one thing I did want to bring up to the Planning Commission, and the concern we would have is now that PUDs January 15, 2026 Page 25 are eligible for Live Local and the number of self-storage facilities that have been developed, you may want to discuss with the applicant that aspect in terms of what can we -- how can we be assured that this doesn't turn into a 25-unit-an-acre by-right individual residential development utilizing Live Local. And that's -- that would be one of the issues that staff would be concerned about, we would want to discuss with the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Mike, how many units could go there if you put residential housing there? Are you saying 25? MR. BOSI: Twenty-five units an acre. No, that means you would -- it's, what, 5.6 acres? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, how many? MR. BOSI: So you'd have 130 -- 130 units, roughly. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Because I was thinking this property is going to have to be filled high, just like a residential community would be. So why would we not want residents here? But you just answered the question. If you're going to have 100 -- more than 100 houses there with, average, two people -- that's a lot of people coming in and out of storms versus this is going to be whatever, like, 30 people driving their car and then leaving. So I just answered my own question -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- that this makes sense versus a residential community. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. So once the -- if you were to recommend approval and the Board were ultimately to approve it, Mr. Bosi was pointing out that it would qualify for Live Local, which is done administratively, approval up to about January 15, 2026 Page 26 25 units an acre. There are -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Without having to come back here. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Without having to come before you. So to address this issue, there are at least two PUDs where the applicant was required to record a restriction in the official land records that stated that there wouldn't be residential at this location. So if that's something that you want, we can add that as a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would definitely support it. But you want to see them bring in fill, and you ought to see the Live Local that's going right next to Henderson Creek. There must be eight foot of fill coming into that site. And that's going to be a 10-story facility right there on 951 just south of Walmart, right at Henderson Creek, and that's -- that was a Live Local. That's a -- of course, that never came to us. It was -- it's being converting to affordable housing. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's going to need fill, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it will. It absolutely will. It's going to need it just for insurance purposes if you're going to be storing -- they're going to be storing any high-end -- any equipment in there. But they're going to have fill anyway, because it has to meet the BFE and the building codes. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Oh. I was just going to say, that was a project that was endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners. There was actually money that was conveyed because of the affordable housing commitment that was associated with it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What would you suggest we January 15, 2026 Page 27 add to this as a condition to give us the protection we're looking for? MR. BOSI: I believe the two that Ms. Ashton had referenced, the applicants had volunteered that information -- or that commitment. There wasn't a requirement. It was discussion. And then there was concern. To address those concerns, the applicants of those two prior PUDs had volunteered to add that restriction. So I think that conversation with the applicant would be beneficial to see what the outcome of that would be. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Davies, do you have any issues with that -- adding that language? MR. DAVIES: It's your prerogative. I mean, I think it's going to be really hard to find a developer for residential -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I agree. MR. DAVIES: -- affordable housing or otherwise, to put a bunch of apartments by substations, but I'd defer to your discretion about that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would put it in there, but the reality, I don't see anything else going in this site, quite honesty. MR. DAVIES: I think you're protected by what you see on the aerial with the substations that this isn't going to be residential. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, in reality, you'll have to comply with all the federal and state permitting requirements anyway -- MR. DAVIES: Of course. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the 404 permits through the Army Corps. I suspect there are -- I don't know. You have jurisdictional wetlands there? I'm assuming you're going to go through the 404 process, Section 7 consultation. It is not in the January 15, 2026 Page 28 panther area, but I suspect you probably may have to even be subject to the PHUs. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've done the studies on that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So all that will have to go through the state and federal permitting, yeah. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So what were the two conditions we were going to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the condition would be subject to the language -- Heidi, do you have standard language you think we should add to this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the first issue was the alteration to the permitted uses that we already discussed, and then the second one would be that they would record -- it would be a -- under Exhibit F, that they would record a restriction that would prohibit residential uses. And I can work with Noel on the language. We'll look at the other PUDs, and it's -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Would that be valid? Because you'd be violating the State Live Local by putting that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the State would have to challenge it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, someone would have to challenge the restriction. If in the future they decide they want to put residential here, then it would just come back as a -- you know, a PUD amendment to add resolution -- and remove the restriction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, it's subject to challenge. January 15, 2026 Page 29 I doubt -- it could be challenged, but I doubt anybody's going to proceed with that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's the best we can do under the circumstances. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Noel, do you have any closing comments? MR. DAVIES: Nothing further from the application. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I close the public hearing and turn to my colleagues. Any comments, or do I hear motions? If anybody would like to motion. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I can try it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll make a motion of approval with the two conditions to use the alternate description of permitted uses and the agreement to prohibit residential use. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And Heidi will work with the language, with the applicant to codify that. So with that, that's for both petitions, GMPA and the PUDZ. Staff? MR. BOSI: And did that include the removal of the accessory use for outdoor display towards -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And removal of outdoor storage, okay. Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck seconds. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. January 15, 2026 Page 30 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposition; passes unanimous. MR. DAVIES: Thank you very much. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. ***All right. And I think we're ready to go to the next petition. These are three petitions, PL20240012171, Immokalee Sand Mine expansion, that's the conditional use; PL20240012172, Immokalee Sand Mine expansion variance; and the accompanying excavation permit, 20200002201. And these all require EAC approval. So it's a -- it's a conditional use, a variance, and an excavation permit each to be voted on and then an included EAC approval. So I turn to the first -- do we have any disclosures? Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich and then staff materials. Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Bosi. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. If there any persons wishing to speak on this matter, please rise to be sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and January 15, 2026 Page 31 nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, I turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant and property owner. With me today is Jessica Harrelson, Matt DeFrancesco, Norm Trebilcock, and Tim Hall. They're all our experts regarding this particular petition. Those of you -- which I think you were all present for the Silver Strand Mine we did a few months back where we were expanding an existing mine -- sand mine to add additional area to do some mining. This is basically the same concept. We're asking for a conditional use to expand the area of mining by 91 acres. We have some variance requests regarding landscape buffers similar to the other petition because we really don't have anybody around us at this point, but we have the commitment to put in landscape buffers should residential be approved or developed near us. And we have an excavation permit to move forward with the actual excavation. Since there's nobody here from the public, and since I know you've all read the materials, unless there's somebody online -- nobody? I don't want to give this short shrift, but it is very similar to what was done in the past, and I spoke to you-all, and all the material is actually part of the record. So if it's okay, I'll just do the general overview, and I have Jessica and others that could take you through the detailed site plan if you prefer. What you have on this exhibit is the area in gray is where we're currently authorized to mine and the area in blue is the proposed expansion area. On the previous exhibit you could see January 15, 2026 Page 32 where the property is located. We're on State Road 82, and to the north is Hendry County. Your staff is recommending approval. Hendry County is recommending approval or not objecting based upon the development standards we have already approved in the approval resolution. The area that was excluded was initially an area that we were asked to exclude while there was a study going on regarding a potential wildlife corridor. That wildlife corridor decision has been made, and it's not in the location we were asked to exclude from the original approval. So we're just simply coming back to add the area we had voluntarily agreed to hold off on until that study had been completed. There's no additional traffic impacts because we already have traffic on the road. The same access will be utilized. The same processing area will be utilized. So it is simply a request to expand into an area that we had voluntarily excluded while there was a study done. That is -- that is sum and substance the three petitions, three requests. And with that, we're available to answer any detailed questions you may have regarding this -- these three petitions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, I do want to note the packet we received, the site plan did not load, and we were sent an additional staff report that included the site plan. And I just want to make sure on the record that we did receive it, and I would hope that that was amended if anybody wanted to access it by the public as well, because that one plan did not load properly in our document. MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's this document right here, correct? January 15, 2026 Page 33 MS. HARRELSON: It was sheet 3 of the initial staff report. MR. BOSI: Correct. We haven't -- no public has inquired related to asking to see the document. We had made that available, and we have -- we are going to update the ordinance with it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I mean, it was just that one insert that didn't load in our document, and then we all received a new document. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And this includes the two variances? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and the excavation permit itself. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the excavation permit. But if any -- of course, with any -- is this -- is this all drag-line type, or is there -- if there's any -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If we -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- explosives, that goes through a separate application through the County. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and that's an administrative process -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Administrative process. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that we'll follow should we decide to do blasting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any questions? Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Rich, when we had talked about this before this meeting, you had -- and you said it now that originally there was the wildlife corridor that they thought was going to be going through this land, and you-all voluntarily January 15, 2026 Page 34 excluded it from your development. And I asked you, well, what'd you get for that when you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What'd we get? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't donate anything. We got a pat on the back for basically saying, "Hey, we'll let you do your study," and -- yeah. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And I wanted it to be noted for the record that you-all did not get anything when you voluntarily excluded this from your development area. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then now that you're getting it back -- the point is you didn't get anything for it, so it's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't receive any compensation to not use this area. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we were not compensated. Now we're coming back, and we're saying, "Since you don't need it, you didn't pay us for it, can we please use our land?" COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Exactly, exactly. And that's what I wanted to be noted for the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just, Rich, a question. And maybe Mike's the best guy to answer, but it's on the county line, and we're just talking about Collier County. What are you hearing from the other county? Are they totally oblivious to it? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. In your packet, there's a letter of support from Hendry County. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I missed January 15, 2026 Page 35 it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, does that conclude your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you want a detailed presentation, that concludes our presentation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. As is typical with any mining, any type of vehicle cleaning and prior to going onto county roads, all that's in here. MR. YOVANOVICH: All that's already in there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All that's in here preexisting. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's already been acknowledged in the conditions of approval. It's all in your resolution, so it's -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just didn't know if Norm wanted to get up and talk about vehicles. We could ask him. MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, if you guys want to ask any of my experts anything, they're here -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, Tim's back there, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or if you'd rather go home. I've got nowhere to go. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, after Tuesday, your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a little tired, but I've got nowhere to go. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, any other comments or concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. We have three petitions. I've read them all. And we can vote each one, so we'll vote on January 15, 2026 Page 36 the conditional use. Any -- and this is both as EAC and as the Planning Commission for the conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And second. All in favor -- go ahead. Oh, staff, please. MR. BOSI: And following the brevity of the presentation, staff would -- is recommending approval of all the petitions, and we would entertain any questions you may have, but didn't mean to interrupt your approval process. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And any registered public speakers? MR. SABO: No registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So we'll proceed. We have a motion and a second. All in favor for the conditional use, please proceed by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes. ***Next one is the variance, and this is acting both as the Planning Commission and as the EAC. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, motion. Second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. January 15, 2026 Page 37 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***And this one is -- the third one will be for the excavation permit. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. Second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Passes unanimous. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that concludes that. So with that -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: We need that sand for all the fill that is needed. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So is this approaching your record, Chuck? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, no. He's got the record. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yep. Close. January 15, 2026 Page 38 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So we have no old business. We have no new business. You will let us know on the February meeting. I mean, if it's critical and you need to get the petition in, I guess we'll come in and meet for one. That's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what we're paid for. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I prefer just to move them along rather than have them stack up. MR. BOSI: I understand. And we will -- we'll evaluate. We'll let the Planning Commission know and just leave you with the one thought, though. With February being Valentine's Day, we will recognize that absence does make the heart grow fonder. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Terri, I stopped myself a couple times from talking. I was getting that look, you know. All right. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. We are adjourned. ******* January 15, 2026 Page 39 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF VERITEXT BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.