Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Naples planning board recommends code changes to tighten airport planning and require council sign‑off on runway expansions
Summary
The Planning Advisory Board voted to recommend approval of an ordinance that adds an airport utilization plan, tightens definitions in the airport commercial district and requires City Council approval before increases in declared runway distance or land acquisition for runway expansion; opponents warned of federal preemption and added costs.
The Planning Advisory Board voted to recommend approval of an ordinance that rewrites multiple sections of the city’s land‑development code governing Naples Municipal Airport, board members and staff said.
The motion — to recommend the ordinance to City Council subject to the edits discussed at the meeting — carried on the roll call (six in favor, one opposed, one absent). The board’s action advances the package to the council for first reading, which staff said is scheduled for Jan. 21.
City counsel and staff presented the ordinance as a codification and clarification exercise: it adds new definitions (including a distinct "airport utilization plan"), sets procedures and submittal timelines for airport master and utilization plans, prescribes criteria city council may use in review, and cleans up the C‑4 Airport Commercial District code so that currently permitted on‑site uses (for example, the humane society and an observation deck) remain authorized.
In several exchanges board members raised substantive questions about definitions and thresholds. One focus was a 10,000‑square‑foot threshold that triggers development review for paving, landscaping and lighting projects; counsel said the figure aligns with the existing site‑plan section of the code and was intended to distinguish routine repair and FAA‑required safety work from development that should be reviewed. Another line of questioning centered on noise definitions and metrics (LDN/DNL) and whether the ordinance’s wording is sufficiently clear to map to the airport’s monitoring reports.
The draft also addresses declared runway distance. Counsel told the board the ordinance would prevent declared distances from exceeding the distance in existence at enactment and would prohibit the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) from acquiring or leasing property to expand a runway without prior City Council approval. Board members debated whether to put precise footage into the code or to rely on numbers shown in the master or utilization plans; counsel said the plans will reflect the specific measurements and that inserting exact figures into the ordinance could require frequent code changes.
Public commenters appearing on behalf of Responsible Government Naples urged caution and asked the board to decline to recommend the ordinance. Jennifer Hollander, counsel for Responsible Government Naples, told the board the drafts risk conflicting with federal jurisdiction (FAA preemption) and recently proposed state laws (she cited Senate Bill 180 and Senate Bill 250). Hollander said the ordinance expands administrative review layers, increases staff and legal costs, and would heighten uncertainty for airport users and projects. Jose Cabrera, also speaking for the group, said the revised draft diverged from prior conversations and that RGN would press the issue with City Council.
City counsel replied that the office had worked with NAA counsel and made edits intended to avoid preemption, and that staff would take the board’s comments into account before council consideration. Counsel and others also noted that the airport master plan is a capital document typically prepared on a roughly 20‑year horizon (primarily for FAA grant and planning purposes), while the utilization plan is intended to be updated more frequently; staff said the utilization plan would be reviewed by council at least every three years under the proposed language.
The Planning Advisory Board’s recommendation does not adopt the ordinance; it forwards the board’s findings to City Council, which will conduct its own readings and a vote. Staff said a supplemental airport overlay ordinance is expected to follow and that City Council will see related comprehensive‑plan language in the same timeframe.
Votes and next steps: the board recommended approval to council with the edits noted at the meeting. City staff said the ordinance will be presented to City Council for first reading Jan. 21 and for a second reading after the election.
