[9.A) A Resolution Vacating a 20-foot wide Public Utility Easement Lying North of the Naples Diagnostic Imaging Center in Lots 13 through 17 inclusive and the South 32 Feet of Lots 8 through 12 of the Naples Seaboard Replat, Less the East 20 Feet of Lot 8, Tier 11, Block 21, as Recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 59, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, more Particularly Described Herein, Located at 20 10th Street North and Owned by APNI 4 LLC, as the Easement will no Longer Serve any Beneficial Purpose to the City; Directing the City Clerk to Record this Resolution; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

MAYOR. A RESOLUTION VACATING A 20 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LYING NORTH OF THE NAPLES DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTER IN LOTS 13 THROUGH 17 INCLUSIVE, AND THE SOUTH 32FT OF LOTS EIGHT THROUGH 12 OF THE NAPLES SEABOARD.

REPLAT WEST. THE EAST 20FT OF LOT EIGHT, TIER 11, BLOCK 21 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ONE, PAGE 59.

PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN.

LOCATED AT 20TH 20 10TH STREET NORTH AND OWNED BY APNI FOR LLC AS THE EASEMENT WOULD NO LONGER SERVE ANY BENEFICIAL PURPOSE OF THE CITY.

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU SIR.

GOOD MORNING. YES. WE NEED TO BE SWORN IN. ALL THOSE, MADAM CLERK, TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL DISCLOSURES. COUNCILMAN BURTON I SPOKE WITH STAFF AND KRISEMAN FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE WITH STAFF. KRAMER SAME AS BOTH.

PETRANOFF FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE WITH STAFF.

VICE MAYOR. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. NO CONTACT.

AND ON THIS MATTER? I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

SPOKE TO STAFF AND VISITED THE SITE WITH THAT.

GOOD MORNING. IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

ANDREW RATH WITH DAVIDSON, ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.

LICENSED TO STATE OF FLORIDA. BEEN PRACTICING CIVIL ENGINEERING HERE IN NAPLES FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS.

GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF PROJECT BACKGROUND HERE VOCATIONAL HISTORY AND SUCH WITH THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU.

TODAY. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 20 10TH STREET NORTH, WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION WITH CENTRAL AVENUE.

THIS IS AN OVERALL AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY WITH 10TH STREET ON YOUR LEFT, CENTRAL AVENUE TO THE SOUTH.

THIS BUILDING HAS SINCE BEEN DEMOLISHED RELATIVELY RECENTLY.

THE LOCATION OF THIS EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT IS BASICALLY LOCATED ALONG THIS DRIVE AISLE, WHICH WE'LL SEE ON THE SURVEY IN A MINUTE, BUT IT'S GOOD TO CROSS REFERENCE IT WITH AN AERIAL.

THIS IS A CURRENT SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING WHAT WAS ONCE AN ALLEY WHICH HAD BEEN VACATED BACK IN MAY OF 1987.

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT VACATION, THEY RECORDED UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC THAT IN GREEN SHOWS WHERE THIS UTILITY EASEMENT IS LOCATED, BASED ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE RECORDED UTILITY EASEMENT. THIS IS THE OFFICIAL SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED.

THIS IS THE LEGAL HERE. HERE IS THE SKETCH THAT ACCOMPANIES IT.

THESE ARE ALL PART OF THE THE PACKET INFORMATION ON THE AGENDA.

THIS IS A CURRENT CITY UTILITY GIS THAT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO CITY UTILITY EASEMENT.

NO CITY UTILITIES WITHIN THAT UTILITY EASEMENT.

THERE IS A GRID SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.

[00:25:05]

BUT THERE'S NO CITY WATER OR SEWER WITHIN THAT EASEMENT, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES OUTLINED IN RED. THIS IS THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED SITE PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER REVIEW WITH THE CITY FOR I WOULD SAY QUITE SOME TIME, MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF OR SO.

AND THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING IS COMMERCIAL SPACE.

AND THEN ABOVE ON THE SECOND AND THIRD STOREYS, THERE'S RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THE EASEMENT IN QUESTION IS OVER HERE, ROUGHLY ALONG THIS DRIVE AISLE.

10TH STREET IS TO YOUR TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.

THIS IS A ARCHITECTURAL PLAN OF THE SECOND FLOOR.

SO THIS WOULD BE ABOVE THE DRIVE AISLES THAT ARE SHOWN TO YOU IN THE SITE.

PLAN ON THE SCREEN BEFORE. THIS KIND OF SHOWS SOME ELEVATIONS FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET.

ROUGHLY ALIGNED WITH THIS GARAGE OPENING IS WHERE THAT EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT IS.

THERE'S A RENDERING FROM 10TH STREET VIEW. AND HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS THAT VACATED THE PLATTED ALLEY. YOU CAN KIND OF HONE IN ON THESE SECTIONS HERE.

RESOLUTION VACATING AND ABANDONING AN ALLEY APPROXIMATELY 20FT BY 160FT, LYING NORTH OF THE NAPLES DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTER, 50 10TH STREET NORTH, AND ACCEPTING UTILITY EASEMENT OVER SAID PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVE TO SECTION ONE THAT THE ALLEY APPROXIMATELY 20FT BY 165FT, LYING NORTH OF NAPLES DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTER, 20 10TH STREET NORTH, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BELOW, IS HEREBY VACATED AND ABANDONED, SUBJECT TO THE RETENTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE SUBJECT ALLEY.

SO, HAND IN HAND WITH THAT VACATION OF ALLEY, THEY RECORDED THE UTILITY EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND.

THESE ARE JUST LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION THAT WE OBTAINED FROM THE PRIVATE UTILITY PROVIDERS.

JUST ALL CONSOLIDATED HERE ON ONE SHEET. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A REQUEST TO VACATE THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN MAY OF 1987 SO NEARLY 40 YEARS AGO. AND THE CITY HASN'T PUT ANY UTILITIES IN THERE UP TO THIS POINT.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD MORNING. COUNCIL. ALLISON BICKET, DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER FOR THE RECORD.

ON JANUARY 27TH, 2023, DAVIDSON ENGINEERING SUBMITTED PLANS FOR THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROJECT, LOCATED AT 20TH 10TH STREET NORTH UNDER SITE PLAN PETITION 23 SP THREE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 20 10TH STREET NORTH IS AN APPROXIMATE THREE QUARTER ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF.

THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL, GROUND FLOOR AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE UPPER TWO STORIES.

DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, THE STREETS DIVISION NOTED A PORTION OF THE AREA ENCUMBERED BY THE DEDICATED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WOULD ENCROACH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND THEREFORE INDICATED THE PETITIONER SHALL REQUEST THE EASEMENT BE VACATED OR THE DEVELOPMENT BE REDESIGNED TO PREVENT ANY ENCROACHMENTS.

IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS, ANDREW ROTH OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING SUBMITTED A VACATION APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, APNI FOR LLC. AT THE APRIL 1ST, 1987 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, UNDER RESOLUTION 87, 5244 WAS APPROVED AND LATER RECORDED WITHIN OUR BOOK 1265, PAGE 1326, WITH THE ASSOCIATED EASEMENT ON PAGES 1327 AND 1329. THIS RESOLUTION APPROVED THE VACATION OF THE 20 FOOT BY 160 FOOT PUBLIC ALLEY NORTH OF THE NAPLES DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTER BUILDING AT 20TH STREET NORTH. WITH THE APPROVAL, THE CITY RETAINED A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED 32FT NORTH OF THE ALLEY, WITHIN THE LIMIT.

[00:30:04]

THE PROPERTY LIMITS. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS RECORDED IN OR BOOK 1265, PAGE 1329.

THIS REQUEST SEEKS TO VACATE THE EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IDENTIFIED WITHIN YOUR PACKAGE.

THE EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT IS DESCRIBED AS A 20 FOOT ALLEY, AS SHOWN ON NAPLES SEABOARD PLAT REPLAT TIER 11, BLOCK 21 LOTS 13 TO 17 INCLUSIVE, AND THE SOUTH 32FT OF LOTS 8 TO 12 LESS.

THE EAST 20FT OF LOT EIGHT. TIER 11 BLOCK 21 AS SET IN PLAT IN PLAT BOOK ONE, PAGE 59.

PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FPL, TECO GAS, CENTURYLINK, AND COMCAST REGARDING THE PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION.

TECO HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND INDICATED THEY HAVE NO ACTIVE FACILITIES IN THE SUBJECT AREA.

CENTURYLINK LUMEN STATED THEY HAVE NO RESERVATIONS TO THE REQUEST, WITH A STIPULATION THAT IF CENTURYLINK LUMEN FACILITIES ARE FOUND AND OR DAMAGED WITHIN THE ABANDONMENT AREA AS DESCRIBED, THE APPLICANT WILL BEAR THE COST OF RELOCATION AND REPAIR OF SAID FACILITIES.

COMCAST DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE VACATION, PROVIDED THAT ANY OF THE COMCAST FACILITIES THAT ARE IN NEED OF BEING RELOCATED BY BE PAID BY THE CUSTOMER. FPL AGREED TO THE VACATION OF THE EXISTING EASEMENT UNDER THE NOTION THAT A NEW EASEMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL REROUTED UTILITIES. FPL AND COMCAST WERE BOTH GRANTED A NEW EASEMENT TO SUPPORT THE VACATION REQUEST ALONG THE TEN FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THE NORTH TEN FEET OF THE PROPERTY.

THE EASEMENT DOCUMENTATION IS INTACT AS ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKAGE.

THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE EASEMENT VACATION REQUEST AND CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE NO EXISTING CITY OWNED WATER, SANITARY SEWER, RECLAIMED WATER, OR STORMWATER FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE VACATED.

THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE A FUTURE NEED TO INSTALL WATER, SANITARY SEWER OR RECLAIMED WATER WITHIN THE EASEMENTS, AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL CONNECT TO AN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN THAT ARE ALREADY LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

NOTICES FOR THIS VACATION APPLICATION HAVE BEEN MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE EASEMENT, AS PART OF THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SHALL THIS VACATION OF EASEMENT BE APPROVED? THEY VACATED PORTIONS OF THE EASEMENT WILL REVERT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT AND IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

OH. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. JUST REAL QUICKLY. THE THIS IS SOLELY ABOUT THE EASEMENT.

THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS THAT ARE THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION, THEY'RE NOT BEFORE US.

WE'RE NOT APPROVING ANY OF THAT. RIGHT. CORRECT.

THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. IT'S ONLY FOR THE EASEMENT VACATION.

AND THEN THIS IS A IT'S AN ALLEY THAT WE'RE VACATING.

WE'VE ALREADY VACATED THE ONE TO THE EAST. THE THE ALLEY WAS PREVIOUSLY VACATED.

AND THEN THERE WAS A DEDICATED UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE ALLEY.

AND PLUS THE THE NORTHERN 32FT AS DEPICTED ON THE IN THE DRAWING, IN THE NORTHERN 32FT.

THE NORTHERN 32FT, AS DESCRIBED IN WHEN IT WAS DEDICATED.

I THINK IN ADDITION TO THAT 20 FOOT ALLEY, THE LANGUAGE INDICATES THAT IT'S ALSO IT WAS ALSO INCLUDED, INCLUSIVE OF THE NORTHERN 32FT WITHIN THAT PROPERTY.

AND I CAN PULL UP THE LANGUAGE IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

THAT WAS IN THAT ORIGINAL. SO THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH WILL NOT IS THERE AREN'T PLANS TO INCORPORATE THAT BUILDING INTO THIS PROPERTY. CORRECT. THIS IS ONLY THIS IS ONLY FOR.

AND THIS IS ONLY FOR THE VACATION REQUEST. BUT THERE THE PLANS DO NOT ILLUSTRATE THAT THERE'S A CONNECTION OR ANY ANYTHING BETWEEN THE NORTHERN PROPERTY IN THIS.

AND THAT'S ONLY FOR UNDERGROUND. CORRECT. OR THAT MEANS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT AS THEIR PROPERTY LINE.

SO SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THE UTILITY EASEMENT, TYPICALLY WE WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING PERMANENT BUILT WITHIN OUR EASEMENTS. SO THEREFORE IF THEY WANT TO BUILD THIS TWO STORY BUILDING OVER TOP OF IT.

IT WOULD BE AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THAT AREA. AND THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE FUTURE PROBLEMS, PARTICULARLY IF THERE WERE UTILITIES.

[00:35:04]

TO BE PLACED IN THERE. AND SO THE UTILITY COMPANY WAS FPL SAID THAT FPL AGREES TO THE VACATION OF THE EXISTING EASEMENT UNDER THE NOTION THAT A NEW EASEMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL REROUTED UTILITIES.

WHERE IS THAT? THEY HAVE IN YOUR PACKAGE. YOU SHOULD HAVE A DEDICATION.

AND AND IT WAS IDENTIFIED IN YOUR, IN THE AS ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS.

IT'S THERE'S CORRESPONDENCE. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR ATTACHMENTS, IT'S CALLED CORRESPONDENCE FPL ACCEPTANCE OF NEW EASEMENT.

AND THEN THERE'S A FPL AND COMCAST EASEMENT SKETCH AND LEGAL ATTACHED AS WELL.

SO YOU CAN REFER TO THOSE DOCUMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THAT REQUEST AND THE DEDICATION OF THAT UTILITY EASEMENT.

OKAY. HOW HOW WILL YOU MANAGE THE UTILITIES, OTHER UTILITIES YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY? ARE YOU SPEAKING AS TO THE PRIVATE OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OUR CITY? OUR CITY? JUST GARBAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT? WELL, HOW WILL THAT BE? UTILIZED. IT WOULD BE COLLECTED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT THE EASEMENTS DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COLLECTION OF GARBAGE.

RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

WE OFTEN GET THESE YOU KNOW, EASEMENT REQUESTS FOR VACATING IT, AND IT'S SENT TO THESE UTILITIES.

HOW FORWARD LOOKING ARE THEY? YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE KNOW? YOU KNOW, DO WE SAY WITHIN THE NEXT FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

DO YOU SEE ANY USE OF THIS? BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING SO MUCH.

YOU KNOW, WE NEVER THOUGHT YEARS AGO THAT WE WOULD BE UNDERGROUNDING SO MUCH THAT WE DO THAT.

SO WHAT? YOU KNOW, HOW WHAT DO YOU ASK OF THESE UTILITIES AND BASICALLY HOW HOW LEGALLY BINDING IS IT IF THEY DO HAVE A NEW TECHNOLOGY AND THEY DO NEED AN EASEMENT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IF THEY NEEDED A NEW EASEMENT IN THE FUTURE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REQUEST THAT EASEMENT FROM THE THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

BUT OTHERWISE TYPICALLY THEY'VE THEY'VE THEY USE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THERE'S RIGHTS WITHIN THE THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT OTHERWISE IT IS THEY ARE GIVING THAT UP FOR THE, FOR THE FUTURE.

THIS IS NOT THEY CAN'T COME BACK AND REENACT ON THIS AFTER.

IT'S AFTER THEY'VE GIVEN UP THE RIGHTS. OKAY.

SO IT'S NOT THE CITY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THAT PIECE OF IT.

THAT'S UP TO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PRIVATE SIDE AND THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS PLAN.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT IF THERE'S ANY, SAY, SOME OF THESE UNDERGROUNDING USUALLY SAY FPL ACTUALLY DIRECTLY WORKS WITH ANY OF THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, WORKS ON EASEMENTS AS THEY SEE FIT AND CREATES THOSE, THOSE CARVE OUTS OF THAT PROPERTY FOR THEIR EASEMENT REQUEST.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. THIS IS JUST FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE I THINK THE MAYOR MENTIONED PROPERTY LINES.

SO FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS THIS PROPERTY, THIS IS THE AP.

APNI FOR LLC IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OR PETITIONER OWNS THE PROPERTY? IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. ROTH? CLOSING REMARKS.

CLOSING REMARKS. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION.

THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS. THANK YOU.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, AND WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION AND A MOTION, PLEASE.

COUNCILMEMBER PETRANOFF. YES. YOU KNOW, NOW THAT WE'VE HANDLED THE EXTERNAL UTILITIES ON SEWER WATER, ETC. THE WHAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SAID IT'S NOT UNDERNEATH THERE, DO YOU HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THIS TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS IN THE FUTURE? WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, WE LOOK NUMBER ONE AT THE WATER SYSTEM ARE THE WATER MAINS IN A GRIDDED FASHION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEAD ENDS AND WHAT'S WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED AS FAR AS ADDING ADDITIONAL PIPES FOR LOOPING? IF YOU SAW ONE OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS ON THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION, IT SHOWED THE WATER LINES ARE WELL LOOPED ON 10TH STREET, CENTRAL AVENUE AND OUR EASEMENT TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY.

IN BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE 111 BUILDING.

SO ALL THAT'S BEEN LOOPED. WELL, SO THE WATER SYSTEM, YOU KNOW THERE'S NO SHORT CIRCUITING TO IT.

IT'S WELL LOOPED. WE CAN MAINTAIN FLOW AND PRESSURES THROUGHOUT THAT SYSTEM.

[00:40:01]

THAT'S WHAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK FOR WHEN WE'RE VACATING AN EASEMENT.

CAN WE IMPROVE THE SYSTEM BASED ON THIS AREA AND THE GRIDDING OF THE WATER SYSTEM? WE SAID NO, WE WOULD NOT NEED THAT EASEMENT. AS FAR AS SEWER GOES, IT'S GRAVITY SEWER IN THAT AREA.

THERE'S GRAVITY SEWER ON 10TH STREET THAT THEY WILL BE CONNECTING TO.

SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO TO ADD ADDITIONAL SEWER LINES BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.

THERE IS SOME RECLAIMED WATER IN THE AREA, BUT ANY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE DESIGNED ON THAT PROPERTY THAT WILL BE BETTER THAN WHAT IS THERE NOW.

AND THEY DON'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL UPGRADES OF OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR SYSTEM.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT LOOPING AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT FUTURE GROWTH ON THOSE LOOPS INTO A HORIZON OF X YEARS. CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, BASED ON OUR WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN, WE KNOW THE AREAS THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVED FOR ANY ANTICIPATED GROWTH.

AND THAT'S THAT AREA IS NOT OF ANY CONCERN. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER KRAMER, AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF ANY OF THE INSTANCES THAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST ASKED YOU WERE IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW WOULD YOU BE SITTING HERE AND IT NOT BE IN OUR PACKET? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH, WE ALREADY TOLD US THAT.

RIGHT? RIGHT. AND IT'S IN THE AGENDA DOING THIS IF IT IF IT HADN'T ALREADY BEEN VETTED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND LIKE ANDREW MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS HAS BEEN UNDER REVIEW BY THE CITY FOR, YOU KNOW, A YEAR AND A HALF. SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE UTILITY LAYOUT ALLOWED AND ANY REQUESTS MADE ON THAT PROJECT.

I'M JUST CHECKING WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR EVENT HORIZON IS ON, LOOKING AT THIS STUFF.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S THE MASTER PLAN YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

OKAY. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE APPROVAL. THANK YOU. MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY VICE MAYOR SECOND.

OH, IS THAT OKAY? THE MOTION. DO YOU WANT IT? OH, YES. SORRY, I WAS JUST CLEARING MY THROAT. OH, OKAY.

MY APOLOGIES. EVERYTHING MEANS SOMETHING. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER KRISEMAN.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENNYMAN.

WHO IS ABSENT? VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES. MAYOR.

HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MISSING.

WITH THAT GOING TO ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THAT WOULD BE SEVEN E.

[10) ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA (If Needed)]

YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PERPETUAL ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FOR SIDEWALK BETWEEN STELLA NAPLES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, AND THE CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO A PRIVATE SIDEWALK FOR PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS.

LOCATED AT 82 NINTH STREET SOUTH, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PERPETUAL ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE PERPETUAL ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT DID NOT GO THROUGH APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT. THE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING FOR THE.

YES, FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? I BELIEVE IT WAS UNDER THIS ONE WAS UNDER SITE PLAN PETITION 21 SP SP2.

I THAT THAT IS CORRECT. SO IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, CORRECT? YES. OKAY. SO IT WAS WAS THERE A CHANGE OF USE IN THIS PROJECT? I MAY IS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THIS REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THIS FOR THE SIDEWALK.

I'M GETTING TO THAT. OKAY. I MAY ASK. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, CAN I ASK ERICA TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE? YES, I ANSWER THIS QUESTION. I THINK SHE MIGHT BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLANNING.

THANK YOU. SHE'S A LOOK IT UP. I'M SORRY. OKAY WITH THAT? YOU'RE ASKED WHEN I VISITED THE SITE. AND IN PREVIOUS TIMES, THERE WAS A SIDEWALK THAT RAN IN FRONT OF THE UTILITY POLES. AND NOW THAT IT'S DEVELOPED, IT'S GRASS AND SWALES.

SO CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT SIDEWALK THAT IS UP AGAINST THE I CAN EXPLAIN THAT.

YES. SO THAT IS THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT ZONE.

IT'S IN SETBACK ZONE C, SO AS PART OF THIS BACK ZONE C, AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 58, DASH 909 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THAT THE LAYOUT OF THE OF SETBACK SETBACK ZONE C IS THAT THE COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT SIDEWALK

[00:45:02]

IS, IS INITIALLY IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING.

SO YOU HAVE THAT SIDEWALK. AND THEN THERE'S TYPICALLY IN CASES IF THERE'S ON STREET PARKING, THE THERE IS ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF OR BEHIND THAT PARKING SPACE BEHIND THOSE PARKING SPACES.

SO IN THAT CASE, THAT'S WHERE THERE WOULD TYPICALLY BE A SIDEWALK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SINCE THE CODE DOES NOT, IS IT? THAT IS WHERE IT ACTUALLY REQUIRES A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK.

AND THEN THAT'S THE THERE'S A FIVE, FIVE SIDE, FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING AND A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES OR IN THE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY.

I HAVE THE CROSS SECTION PULLED UP AND THE THE CODE STATES WHERE THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK STRIP.

IT'S REQUIRED WHERE THERE'S ON STREET PARKING IS PERMITTED.

SO IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED.

AND IN THIS CASE, THAT SECTION IS IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US 41.

AND WITH THAT CLOSE PROXIMITY, WE DON'T ADVISE TO HAVE ON STREET PARKING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT SECTION BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTS AND SAFETY CONCERNS.

SO THAT THAT SECTION CLOSEST TO US, 41, WE DID NOT WANT TO AUTHORIZE THE ON STREET PARKING THAT AREA. OKAY. SO I HAVE THAT THE ON STREET PARKING WAS ON FIRST, NOT 41.

YEAH IT WOULD BE ON FIRST. THAT'S THE SECTION.

I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T EXPLAIN THAT CORRECTLY CLEARLY, BUT ON FIRST AVENUE SOUTH, WHICH IS OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IS WHERE THE ON STREET PARKING WOULD BE. IN THIS CROSS SECTION, THE SECTION ZONE C, SETBACK ZONE C WOULD BE APPLIED PER THE CODE.

COULD WE MAYBE POP THAT ON THE SCREEN FOR THE PUBLIC? THANK YOU. BECAUSE I DO HAVE A LARGER COPY I'M LOOKING AT.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO JUST TAP IT. SORRY. THANKS.

THERE YOU GO. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PULL UP THE CODE.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO GET TO? THE MUNICODE. CODE.

WITH THAT ERICA. DO YOU MISS MARTIN? I SWEAR I DO. OH. MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU SWEAR IN ERICA.

NO. SORRY. I MISSED THE BEGINNING. ERICA MARTIN.

ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. THE PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IS FOR IT'S A MIXED USE BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THEN TEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE.

RIGHT. SO WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED, THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED.

RIGHT. THE SIDEWALK WAS APPROVED WITHIN THAT SITE PLAN.

IT WAS. AND THEN THE ON STREET PARKING ON FIRST WAS REMOVED AND RELOCATED.

IN THE PLANS, THE THE SUFFICIENT PLANS THAT I HAVE THE THERE IS NO ON STREET PARKING ON FIRST.

RIGHT. SO THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE RELOCATED INTO THE PARKING GARAGE THAT I DON'T KNOW.

NO. SO THE ON STREET SPACES ARE NOT REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.

SO THEY ARE PROVIDING THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THIS PROPERTY UNDER IN THE IN THE GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THE ON STREET SPACES ARE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES.

THEY'RE NOT PARKING SPACES TO SATISFY THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY.

SO WHETHER WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF ON STREET SPACES IS JUST IT'S NOT THE ON STREET SPACES AREN'T REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL. OKAY. AND DO YOU DO YOU KNOW THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SPACES THAT WERE NEEDED FOR THIS? I THOUGHT I HAD IT IN HERE. TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED WAS 46, AND TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED IS 50.

OKAY. AND I'LL WAIT FOR HER TO FINISH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OH, MISS MARTIN, I'M SORRY.

WAS THAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THIS BUILDING COMPLETED? YES. SO IT WAS REVIEWED BY ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.

THANK YOU. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, I'VE PULLED UP THE SETBACK ZONE.

SEE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO ON THE SCREEN FOR REFERENCE.

[00:50:01]

SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AS REQUIRED, WITH A CONNECTION OUT TO THE ON STREET PARALLEL PARKING.

THAT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED AS PART OF SETBACK ZONE C, AND AS I WAS INDICATING AS FAR AS THE NOTES, THE FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK STRIP IS REQUIRED WHERE THERE'S ON STREET PARKING THAT IS PERMITTED WHERE ON STREET PARKING IS PERMITTED.

SO IF IT'S NOT PERMITTED, THAT FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK STRIP IS NOT NECESSARILY APPLICABLE OR REQUIRED.

OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE THIS REQUEST CAME TO LIGHT.

THE WE REQUESTED EITHER AS FAR AS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS AT THE TIME, THAT IF THEY ONLY WISH TO APPLY THAT FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS PUBLIC ACCESS, AS THERE HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN A CONNECTION FROM US 41 ALONG FIRST AVENUE SOUTH IN THIS, THIS SECTION, BECAUSE THIS IS A CONNECTIVE AREA BETWEEN EIGHTH STREET AND US 41.

SO THERE IS A CONNECTIVE PUBLIC ACCESS SIDEWALK FROM POINT A TO POINT B.

I'LL PULL UP BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE CONFUSED ON THIS IS RIGHT HERE.

I WILL GO TO. THE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, US 41.

THERE'S A SIDEWALK. THEY ELECTED TO NOT BRING THAT SIDEWALK AND CONNECT ALL THE WAY WITHIN.

OR CONNECT WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. A DIRECT CONNECTION IN LIEU.

THEY BROUGHT IT UP AND THEY THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE. IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR HERE THAT CONNECTION RIGHT THERE.

AND INSTEAD THEY BROUGHT IT UP ALONG THE EDGE OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

RIGHT. SO MY THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

SO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING A SIDEWALK WHICH WAS PART OF THE CRA CONVERSATION OF FROM ON FIRST AVENUE ACROSS THE STREET WE WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WERE SIDEWALKS SO THAT PEOPLE COULD GET ACROSS THE STREET TO THE WEST SIDE.

SO NOW WITH THIS DECISION THEY WOULD HAVE TO CROSS THE ROAD AND WALK OR RIDE THEIR BIKES UP AGAINST THAT FIVE, THAT FIVE FOOT SEAWALL, SEAWALL, SIDEWALK THAT'S NEXT TO THE BUILDING AND THEN CONTINUE DOWN TO EIGHTH STREET. CORRECT. YES. OKAY. I JUST IT MY PREFERENCE WAS TO HAVE A DIRECT CONNECTION.

IS THERE A HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN BUT WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENT AND THE ALLOWANCES? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS, THERE WAS THAT, THAT OPTION THAT THEY HAD TO IN LIEU OF THAT SUBMIT AN ACCESS EASEMENT, BUT WE COULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION AS IT WAS BEFORE, INSTEAD OF FILLING IT IN.

WELL, I MEAN, THE CODE AS IT STATED, IT STATES THE I MEAN, I AND I DID ASK THAT QUESTION.

I DID STATE THAT I WANTED TO HAVE THAT THAT DIRECT CONNECTION, BUT WITH THE WITH THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, WRITTEN FOR THIS SECTION THAT I HAD INDICATED, IF THERE'S NOT THE ON STREET PARKING, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. RIGHT? NOT REQUIRED.

BUT YOU COULD HAVE MADE THE DECISION AND MADE THEM DO TO LEAVE THAT SIDEWALK THERE.

SO WE COULD HAVE THAT CONTINUATION TO CROSS 41, NOT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING OR THE CODE SAY WE CAN'T.

WELL, THE CODE STATES THAT IF IT'S THAT'S THIS IS THE CROSS SECTION THAT IS TO BE APPLIED.

THEY WHEN THEY DEMOED THE PROPERTY, THEY DEMOED THE SIDEWALK AND THEN PROVIDED THIS PLAN.

AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, I DID REITERATE THAT I DID REQUEST TO I'D PREFER TO HAVE THE CONNECTION, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT STATES THAT IT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THIS SETBACK ZONE.

SEE, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TO TO FOLLOW. OKAY.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED.

WITH THAT, I'M COMPLETE. IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR ITEM 70.

APPROVING PERPETUAL ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.

FOR THE SIDEWALK BETWEEN STELLA'S STELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AND AND THE CITY OF NAPLES.

SECOND. OKAY. WITH THAT, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

THE SECOND WAS VICE MAYOR. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBER.

[00:55:03]

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES. MAYOR.

HEITMANN. NO. IT PASSES 5 TO 1. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 11, A MR. MCCONNELL.

[11.A) A Resolution Modifying the Plans Approved with Conditional Use Petition 24-CU5, and Adding Conditions to Resolution 2024-15421, Which Granted a Conditional Use Approval Allowing a Private Beach Club in the PS, Public Service District, for the Port Royal Club on Property Located at 2900 and 2755 Gordon Drive; and Providing an Effective Date. (SUPPLEMENT 1/ADDED ITEM).]

YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE PLANS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 20 4-Q5 AND ADDING CONDITIONS TO RESOLUTION 2024 15421, WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, ALLOWING A PRIVATE BEACH CLUB IN THE PS PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT FOR THE PORT ROYAL CLUB ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2927 55 GORDON DRIVE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SWEARINGEN. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU.

AND WITH THAT DISCLOSURES. COUNCILMAN BARTON.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE DISCUSSED THE PETITION REQUEST WITH STAFF MET WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PETITIONER, KRAMER, FROM THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF FROM THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF AND VICE MAYOR. YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, BEEN TO THE SITE, RECEIVED EMAIL COMMUNICATION, SPOKE WITH STAFF.

AND ALSO EMAILED WITH THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIVE.

THANK YOU. I VISITED THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF AND OTHER THAN THAT, FULL DISCLOSURES. GOOD MORNING, SIR. GOOD MORNING TO YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, SIR, CAN I CAN I JUST ASK COUNCIL MEMBER A FEW QUESTIONS? YES. CAN YOU BE IMPARTIAL IN YOUR DECISION MAKING TODAY? YES I CAN. OKAY. THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE.

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE PORT ROYAL CLUB? I AM, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY WITH THAT? VERY GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS TIM MCCARTHY. I'M AN ARCHITECT AND PARTNER AT MANAGING AT HART HOWERTON AND INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN FIRM BASED IN SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW YORK AT TEN EAST 40TH STREET. I'M A FLORIDA LICENSED ARCHITECT. MY CV IS ON FILE, HAVING TESTIFIED BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, AND I'M REGISTERED WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION ON AUGUST 21ST, 2024.

LAST YEAR, THIS COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2024 15421, WHICH GRANTED, AMONG OTHER RELATED APPROVALS, CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 4634 OF THE CITY OF NAPLES.

CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR A PRIVATE BEACH CLUB IN THE PS PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT.

AFTER THAT APPROVAL. PORT ROYAL CLUB CONTINUED WITH THE ENTITLEMENT AND PERMITTING PROCESSES, OBTAINING FINAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM THE CITY'S DRB, FINALIZING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE PERMIT FROM THE STATE'S DEP, AND SECURING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE FROM THE CITY.

BASED ON THOSE VARIOUS APPROVALS, THE CITY THEN ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE NEW CLUBHOUSE, AND CONSTRUCTION IS WELL UNDERWAY. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, THE CLUB HAS CONTINUED TO WORK CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF, MYSELF AND MY CONSULTANT TEAM TO OPTIMIZE THEIR INVESTMENT IN THIS NEW GENERATIONAL BEACHFRONT FACILITY.

ALONG THE WAY, AN OPPORTUNITY HAS ARISEN FOR THE FOLLOWING MINOR IMPROVEMENTS, CONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB'S ABUTTING NEIGHBORS TO INCREASE THE ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SEAWALL FROM ITS CURRENT ELEVATION OF PLUS 5.3FT NAVD TO PLUS 8.0FT TO IMPROVE CLUB RESILIENCY IN THE FACE OF FUTURE CATASTROPHIC STORM EVENTS.

SECONDLY, TO RELOCATE THE ACCESSIBLE POOL CHAIRLIFT FROM THE NORTH EDGE TO THE SOUTH EDGE OF THE POOL.

TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE BUILDING CODES AND THEIR REFERENCED STANDARDS.

THIRDLY, DUE TO THEIR DEMOLITION DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION TO REDESIGN AND REBUILD THE ENTRY GATES ALONG GORDON DRIVE WITH SLIDING GATES RATHER THAN SWINGING GATES. AND FINALLY, NUMBER FOUR, TO ENHANCE THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH ADDITIONAL STORM VAULTS TO EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. BECAUSE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE AND CIVIL PLANS ARE EXPRESSLY AND SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED IN THAT 2024 CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION, AND BECAUSE REVISIONS TO THOSE PLANS ARE REQUIRED TO REFLECT TODAY'S PROPOSED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS.

[01:00:03]

THE CITY'S PLANNING STAFF HAVE ADVISED US THAT THE 2024 RESOLUTION MUST BE AMENDED TO REFER TO TODAY'S PROPOSED AND DATED PLANS.

NONE OF TODAY'S PROPOSED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS IMPLICATE OR IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXPRESSLY LISTED IN THE 2024 CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION, WHICH SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED. TODAY'S CHANGES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF AND DETERMINED CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE CODE, AND A SUFFICIENCY LETTER HAS BEEN ISSUED. SO FIRSTLY, A SITE OVERVIEW.

THESE TWO SIDE BY SIDE IMAGES REFLECT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS ON THE LEFT AND THE REVISED PLANS ON THE RIGHT.

LABELS FOR THOSE FOUR PROPOSED CHANGES I JUST MENTIONED ARE INDICATED ON THE PLAN ON THE RIGHT, AND ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT SLIDES WILL NOW ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY, CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE NAPLES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING ITS VISION.

THE CLUB IS SEEKING TO ENHANCE RESILIENCY TO PRESERVE THE LONG TERM INVESTMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

ON SCREEN IS AN AERIAL RENDERING OF THE BEACHFRONT PLUS A SITE PLAN DOWN BELOW.

EACH IMAGE IS REFLECTING THE SAME PROPERTIES NORTH TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE IMAGE AND SOUTH OF THE PORT ROYAL CLUB, WITH THE CLUB'S BEACHFRONT BUILDING IN THE CENTER TO THE CLUB'S SOUTH.

THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY RECENTLY SECURED PERMITS FOR AND BEGAN RECONSTRUCTION OF THEIR SEAWALL TO THE CLUB'S NORTH.

THE IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING NEIGHBOR HAS SUBMITTED DRAWINGS SEEKING STATE APPROVAL TO REBUILD HIS SEAWALL AND IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THAT, AT 2790 GORDON DRIVE, THEY HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR RAISED SEAWALL.

THE DRAWING CONTINUES TOWARDS THE LEFT WERE TWO ADDITIONAL LOTS HAVE SECURED FDEP APPROVALS TO REBUILD THEIR RESPECTIVE SEAWALLS.

WALLS. ALL OF THESE AT AN ELEVATION OF PLUS EIGHT NABBED.

THIS PAGE IS AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE CLUB'S DESIGN, ILLUSTRATING OUR INTENTION TO BUILD IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE EXISTING WALL, WHICH IS INDICATED IN GRAY, AND TO DO SO ENTIRELY ON THE CLUB'S PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY.

THE RED OUTLINE ON THE LOWER DRAWING SHOWS HOW THE NEW WALL WILL MIRROR THE EXISTING FORM AND SHAPE OF THE EXISTING SEAWALL.

THIS PAGE AND THE PAGE THAT FOLLOWS PUTS THE SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION IN CONTEXT.

THIS IS A SECTION CUT AT THE SOUTH END OF THE CLUB'S SITE, WHERE THE POOL AREA WILL NOW HAVE A SEAWALL SEPARATING THE DUNE.

RESTORATION. PLANTING ON THE BEACHSIDE FROM THE POOL DECK ON THE CLUB SIDE AND NORTH OF THAT LOCATION.

HERE IS A SITE SECTION AT THE EVENT LAWN. UNLIKE THE POOL DECK, WHERE THE POOL PAVING WILL ABUT THE BACK SIDE OF THE WALL HERE AT THE EVENT LAWN A PLANTING BED ON THE CLUB SIDE IS PROVIDED JUST INSIDE THE FACE OF THE WALL TO ALLOW VEGETATION TO CONCEAL THE VERTICAL FACE OF THE NEW WALL.

THIS ENLARGEMENT DRAWING AT THE POOL DECK, ILLUSTRATES HOW A NEW SHEET PILE ON THE RIGHT WILL BE INSERTED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE EXISTING SEAWALL, AND A NEW CONCRETE BEAM WILL BE POURED ON TOP OF BOTH TO UNIFY THE TWO WALLS.

AND THIS SECOND ENLARGEMENT REFLECTS THE SAME ASSEMBLY AT THE NORTH END OF THE SITE.

BEFORE TURNING THE PAGE TO THE SECOND MATTER OF TODAY'S CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT APPLICATION.

KIND MEAL OUT. KINDLY ALLOW ME TO SUMMARIZE THE CLUB'S REQUEST RELATIVE TO THE SEAWALL OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO PLACE THE REQUEST IN CONTEXT. THE BUSINESS CASE FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE WAS DUE TO BE PRESENTED EARLIER THIS WEEK IN AECOM'S REPORT, REFERENCED IN COUNCIL'S MONDAY WORKSHOP AGENDA.

THEIR PRESENTATION CITED TWO CATEGORIES OF ADAPTATION IN THE FACE OF RESILIENCE ONE AT A BUILDING LEVEL, TWO AT A COMMUNITY LEVEL. AT THE BUILDING SCALE, THE PORT ROYAL CLUB HAS ALREADY PULLED BACK SOME 60 TO 80FT FROM ITS HISTORIC LOCATION, AND IT HAS ELEVATED ITS STRUCTURES COMPARED TO THE FEMA FIRM DESIGNATION OF LOEWENSTEIN FOR THIS SITE.

THE CLUB'S DINING ROOMS ARE LOCATED SIX FEET HIGHER AT ELEVATION 15, WITH KITCHENS 9.6FT HIGHER AT ELEVATION 18.6.

THAT'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EXTRA FREEBOARD, AND WALLS BELOW THOSE DINING ROOMS AT THE PARKING AND STORAGE LEVEL ARE, AS CITED IN AECOM'S REPORT. FLOOD PROOFED IN MANY PLACES AS RECOMMENDED.

ON THE SECOND SIDE OF AECOM'S REPORT WAS THE COMMUNITY SCALE.

THE CLUB TODAY IS ASKING FOR THE INCLUSION OF SEAWALL ALL IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY.

AS I REFLECT ON THE CLUB'S 70 YEAR MULTIGENERATIONAL BRIEF AS PRESENTED TO ME AS THEIR ARCHITECT,

[01:05:06]

I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS COUNCIL WILL FIND WISDOM IN ECOMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPORT THE CLUB'S WILLINGNESS TO MAKE A SIZABLE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN WHAT WOULD BE THE THIRD LEG OF THIS RESILIENCY STOOL AND IMPROVED SEAWALL.

AS TO THE SECOND MATTER AT HAND, THE ACCESSIBLE POOL LIFT UPDATE ON THE LEFT DRAWING THE LIFT WAS INDICATED APPROXIMATELY AT THE MIDWAY POINT, EAST TO WEST OF THE POOL'S NORTH EDGE. THIS MIDWAY POINT IS ACTUALLY THE DEEPEST POINT OF THE POOL, AND THEREFORE IS IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE WATER DEPTH AT AN ACCESSIBLE LIFT LOCATION.

THE BALANCE OF THE POOL'S NORTH SIDE IS FAIRLY CONSTRAINED BY THE SHAPE OF THE POOLS AND THE SURROUNDING PLANTING BEDS.

THE SOUTH SIDE THEREFORE OFFERED MORE FLEXIBILITY TO SLIDE THE LIFT TO THE EAST OR UP THE SCREEN HIGHER UP THE SLOPING BOTTOM OF THE POOL, AND THEREFORE COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE CODES.

DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE LARGE FLATBED TRUCKS DELIVERING MATERIALS TO THE SITE REQUIRED REMOVAL OF THE OLD PIERS, ENTRY FENCES AND SWINGING GATES. TODAY'S AMENDED DRAWINGS SHOW THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE PIERS, FENCES AND GATES WILL BE REBUILT RIGHT IN THEIR PREVIOUS LOCATION.

THE NEW DESIGN, SHOWN HERE ON THE BOTTOM, WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHEREBY GATEPOSTS CAN BE UP TO TWO FEET, FOUR INCHES WIDE AND UP TO SIX INCHES TALLER THAN THE SIX FOOT TALL GATE.

THE GATE WILL NOW BE SLIDING INSTEAD OF THE OLD HINGED AND SWINGING GATE DESIGN.

AND FINALLY, STORMWATER ENHANCEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE NAPLES COMP PLAN, INCLUDING ITS VISION STATEMENT. THE CLUB IS SEEKING TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF WATER QUANTITY ON CITY SYSTEMS. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN, INCLUSIVE OF 85 STORMWATER STORAGE UNITS THREE FEET TALL UNDER THE PARKING LOTS.

PAVING. THE HISTORIC CLUBHOUSE HAD ZERO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON ITS DECADES OLD PROPERTY.

OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL IN 2024 WAS INTENDED AND APPROVED TO DRASTICALLY IMPROVE THAT CONDITION.

BUT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS TODAY'S AMENDED STORMWATER DESIGN, APPROVED BY CITY STAFF AND FDEP DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS.

THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED 85 STORAGE UNITS HAVE NOW NEARLY DOUBLED TO 162 STORAGE UNITS BELOW GRADE.

THOSE ARE ILLUSTRATED IN YELLOW. IN SUMMARY, TODAY'S PROPOSED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS SUBMITTED UNDER THIS APPLICATION FOR AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION WILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE CITY OF NAPLES COMP PLAN WHILE IMPROVING AMENITIES THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR CLUB MEMBERS IN THE SURROUNDING PORT ROYAL COMMUNITY FOR DECADES. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC SEAWALL COASTAL ENGINEERING QUESTIONS TODAY OR STORMWATER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? OUR EXPERTS ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY.

BUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS AS A LICENSED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS TESTIMONY AS A QUALIFIED EXPERT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.

MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER'S AGENT? VICE MAYOR? YEAH. THANK YOU. JUST A FEW QUESTIONS.

THE THE ADDITION OF THE SEAWALL. I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE ALREADY UP TO EIGHT FEET, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT, CORRECT? THEY'RE EITHER PERMITTED TO BE AND THEREFORE THEY NEED TO HIRE A CONTRACTOR AND EXECUTE ON THAT, OR THEY HAVE ACTUALLY FINISHED THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF IT. BUT THAT IS CORRECT.

AND I'M GOING TO NOT FOR NOW, BUT FOR LATER COMMENT.

I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THAT EXISTING SEAWALL IS 5.3.

YES, SIR. OKAY. VERY GOOD. WE HAD RESILIENCY DISCUSSIONS AND I WAS LED TO BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE.

I THINK THEY VARY BY LOCATION. WHEN I FLIPPED THROUGH THE AECOM REPORT, THEY WERE TALKING A LOT ABOUT AREAS FURTHER NORTH IN TOWN.

YES. SO JUST AS A MATTER JUST AS A NOW THAT YOU'VE MADE THAT COMMENT THE ELEVATIONS OF SEAWALLS ACROSS TOWN AND UP AND DOWN THE BEACH ARE THEY CAN BE FOUND.

YES, SIR. OKAY, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. THE ON THE UNDERWATER, THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.

IT'S UNUSUAL. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER HAD A PETITIONER COME IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THIS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO ALMOST DOUBLE THE STORMWATER RETENTION ON THE PROPERTY.

[01:10:08]

AND I LIKE THAT, OF COURSE, BUT CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU DID IT? TWOFOLD. THIS CLUB IS BEING OFFERED AS A ONCE IN A MULTI GENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO REBUILD.

THE PRIOR BUILDING WAS A 70 YEAR BUILDING, AND WE'RE LOOKING OUT AT THAT SAME TIME HORIZON AS WE'RE MAKING CHOICES.

THOSE CHOICES INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE SEAWALL, THOSE CHOICES.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS GROUP, THE CLUB HAS MADE OTHER, MORE EXPENSIVE CHOICES FOR UPFRONT CAPITAL COST.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE BUILDING CODE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO BUILD THE ROOFS WITH WOOD TRUSSES FOR AN INCREASE IN COST.

THE CLUB HAS CHOSEN TO BUILD THE ROOF WITH METAL TRUSSES, AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THIS YET AGAIN ALIGNS WITH THE CLUB'S VISION TO CREATE A RESILIENT STRUCTURE FOR MANY GENERATIONS GOING AHEAD.

SECONDLY, IT WAS A AN EFFORT TO WORK WITH EDDIE BLISS WHEN HE WAS STILL ON STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE MAKING ALL THE RIGHT CHOICES, GIVEN ALL OF THE GUIDANCE AND AVAILABLE CODES ACROSS THE MULTIPLE LAYERS, WHETHER IT'S AT CITY OR STATE LEVEL, AND EMBEDDING ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THE FORWARD LOOKING VISION THAT THEY REFLECT AND IN PLAY AND IN PLAIN LAY LANGUAGE.

THIS EXTRA STORMWATER ENHANCEMENT WILL HELP ALLEVIATE FLOODING.

YES OR NO? YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO CAPTURE MORE AND HOLD IT ON OUR SITE BEFORE IT ENDS UP IN THE CITY SYSTEM.

I LOVE THAT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT, DO YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT OF THAT WILL FLOW AT ONE POINT INTO OUR SYSTEM? AT THE STORMWATER DISCHARGE RATE WILL BE 18.75 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WHICH IS A REDUCTION OF 3.18 FROM THE PRIOR PRIOR DESIGN. 14.5%. COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU. GO TO THE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD MORNING, ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A ACTUALLY A REVISION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE PORT ROYAL CLUB.

THAT WAS CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 20 4Q5. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS CONDITIONAL USE IN AUGUST OF 2024.

AND THEY ARE NOW COMING IN ASKING FOR FOUR CHANGES.

THE PETITIONER OUTLINED. CHANGE TO THE SEAWALL.

ELEVATION TO THE STORMWATER VAULTS, UNDERGROUND TO THE ENTRY COLUMNS AND GATE, AND THEN ALSO TO THE LOCATION OF AN ADA LIFT ON THE POOL.

THOSE ARE THE CHANGES. THEY'RE ELECTIVE BY THEY'RE ELECTED BY THE PETITIONER.

THIS DID GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. IT WAS APPROVED.

AND TO BE CLEAR, THE THE PROJECT BEFORE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE WITH ALL OF OUR RESPECTIVE CODES AND REGULATIONS.

BUT THEY'RE JUST ELECTING TO MAKE SOME OF THESE CHANGES AND IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, TO EXCEED THOSE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY YOUR CODE.

WE DID NOTICE THIS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE DID REVIEW THIS. LIKE I SAID, THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, STAFF HAS FOUND THE REVISIONS SUFFICIENT.

WE DID ALSO SEND THIS OUT TO REVIEW BY STAFF FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE, AND REVIEWED THIS AGAINST THE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA, AND FOUND THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE CRITERIA.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT RESOLUTION THAT YOU ARE ACCUSTOMED TO LOOKING AT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS WE ARE NOT REPLACING THE CONDITION OR THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED THIS CONDITIONAL USE. THIS WILL BE MODIFYING THE PLANS THAT WERE REFERENCED AND ATTACHED TO THAT RESOLUTION.

SO THERE'S A NEW SET OF PLANS, BUT YOU WILL SEE THE THE PLANS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS NOT A FULL COMPREHENSIVE SET BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MAKING REVISIONS TO EVERYTHING.

SO YOU'LL BE REFERENCING A NEW SET OF PLANS IN THIS RESOLUTION.

ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT.

BUT WE ARE PROPOSING SEVEN ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

THOSE ARE IN YOUR RESOLUTION. THEY'RE RELATED TO SIGNAGE STANDARDS WILL BE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH SIGNAGE STANDARDS. THAT A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED IN HERE RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC AND, AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS. THOSE ARE PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SAW IN THE LAST RESOLUTION AS WELL.

THUS, WE'VE CONTINUED THROUGH THE THE RECENT STORMWATER REVIEW OF THIS THIS PETITION.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, STAFF FOUND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILMEMBER KRISTEN.

JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION, MISS MARTIN, ON THE CONDITIONS.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS, IF NOT MOST OF THEM.

[01:15:01]

IN MY MEMORY, ANYWAY, WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL.

YES. SO THE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN TERMS OF NEW ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MODIFICATION YOU MENTIONED SIGNAGE IS NEW. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S THAT'S NEW? I DIDN'T THINK SO. NO, SIR. THIS WENT THROUGH A SECOND ROUND OF SITE PLAN. SO.

SO I JUST WANT TO I IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, THESE ARE NOT AS THE RESOLUTION STATES, ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND THEY'RE ENTIRELY THEY'RE CONTINUING CONDITIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE.

CORRECT. THE ROADWAY CONDITIONS, THE TRAFFIC, NONE OF THAT.

THEY WERE ALL IMPOSED EARLIER. CORRECT. AND OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE PETITIONER.

EXACTLY. YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

AND TO THOSE SEVEN NUMBER FIVE, THERE WAS A PAYMENT INSTEAD OF A SIDEWALK.

CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THAT? I CANNOT, BUT I CAN ASK ALLISON TO.

GOOD MORNING AGAIN, ALLISON BICKET. FOR THE RECORD MADAM MAYOR, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THE SIDEWALK, THERE IS PAYMENT IN LIEU THAT WAS REQUIRED. THEY ARE DOING.

THEY'RE INSTALLING SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY NEAR THE CROSSWALKS ON EITHER EDGE OF THE THE ENTRANCE.

OTHERWISE, THEIR ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE SIDEWALKS IN LIEU OF INSTALLING THOSE SIDEWALKS WHERE THERE'S NO CONNECTIVITY.

WE HAD I HAD REQUIRED THAT THEY PAY IN LIEU FOR THAT ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK AS PART OF THE PRIOR REQUEST.

SO THERE WON'T BE A SIDEWALK THERE. THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK WHERE NECESSARY.

IN FRONT OF YES, IN FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAYS. I GUESS IF THERE'S A EXHIBIT THAT COULD HELP, YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PLAN OVER HERE. WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS PROPOSED ON EITHER SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE AND EXIT, WHICH CONNECT TO THOSE EXISTING CROSSWALKS. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SURE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES.

VICE MAYOR. YEAH. JUST ONE MORE COMMENT ON THE ADA THE POOL LIFT ACCESS.

I WANTED TO COMMEND THE PETITIONER FOR MOVING THAT FROM WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY LOCATED TO CLOSER TO THE STAIRS, WHICH IS WHERE EVERYONE ELSE ENTERS THE POOL.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT REALLY DOES BETTER MEET THE TEST FOR EQUAL ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE.

SO NICELY DONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITH THAT OR CLOSING REMARKS, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR THIS MORNING'S DISCUSSION. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR MOTION OF APPROVAL THIS MORNING.

THANK YOU. OKAY. DISCUSSION OR MOTION? COUNCIL.

MADAM MAYOR, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, I MOVE APPROVAL. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

AND TO THE RECORD CLEAR, THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

AND MAYOR HARTMAN YES. SO IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 11 B.

[11.B) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 25-CU6 Pursuant to Section 46-34 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Approving Off-Site Parking within 600 Feet Pursuant to Section 50-102(B)(2) of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, and Approving a Parking Needs Analysis Pursuant to Section 50-107 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for the Properties Located at 1148 3rd Street South, Owned by Olde Naples Building LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company, and 375 Broad Avenue South, Owned by Triple “A” Building LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing an Effective Date (SUPPLEMENT 1/UPDATED ITEM).]

YES, MAYOR. BEFORE I READ THE TITLES, 11 B AND 11 C ARE ESSENTIALLY COMPANION ITEMS. I'M ASSUMING THERE'S ONE PRESENTATION. BUT BEFORE WE GET THERE I DID HAVE A REQUEST.

THIS IS A HIGHLY COMPLEX ISSUE WITH A LOT OF LEGAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE FULLY FLESHED OUT WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE READY TO PRESENT TODAY.

HOWEVER, FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POINT OF VIEW, THERE ARE SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT STILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND FULLY FLESHED OUT BEFORE WE WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING THIS FORWARD. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST ONCE I READ BOTH TITLES WILL BE TO CONTINUE THIS TO A DATE CERTAIN OF DECEMBER 10TH, ALLOWING US STAFF, THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVES TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND I UNDERSTAND DO PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION OF SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY.

BUT IF IF COUNCIL IS WILLING OR IF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IS TO CONTINUE THESE ITEMS, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY PROVIDED TODAY.

BECAUSE THE RECORD WILL BE FULLY REFLECTED AT THE DECEMBER 10TH MEETING.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL READ THE TITLE OF 11 B IF COUNCIL SO WISHES, THE CONTINUANCE WOULD BE THE MOTION WOULD BE FOR A CONTINUANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN OF

[01:20:01]

DECEMBER 10TH. AND THEN I WILL GO ON AND READ THE TITLE FOR 11 C AND REQUEST THE SAME MOTION.

AND JUST TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR MYSELF. I HAVE TWO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

WE WILL NOT TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE CAN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT SINCE THIS WILL BE CONTINUED ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA AT THE END OF THE MEETING, BUT IF ANYONE WANTS TO TESTIFY OR PROVIDE TESTIMONY FOR THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS, THAT WILL NOT OCCUR.

ASSUMING THE COUNCIL DOES CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE DECEMBER 10TH MEETING WHEN THE ITEM IS REOPENED AND REHEARD.

OKAY. SO ITEMS 11 B AND 11 C PUBLIC SPEAKERS CAN COME AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

CORRECT. THANK YOU. ASSUMING. YES. SO IF I MAY READ 11 B THE TITLE.

YES. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE CONDITION 20 5-Q6 PURSUANT TO SECTION 46, DASH 34 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES APPROVING OFF SITE PARKING WITHIN 600FT PURSUANT TO SECTION 50, DASH 102, SUBPARAGRAPH B, TWO OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, AND APPROVING A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5107 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH, OWNED BY NAPLES BUILDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, OWNED BY TRIPLE IN QUOTATIONS.

A BUILDING LLC FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. NOW THAT THE TITLE HAS BEEN READ, I'LL JUST REITERATE WHAT I, WHAT I JUST SAID IN REGARDS TO THE VARIOUS LEGAL FACTORS THAT NEED TO BE FULLY FLESHED OUT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND STAFF.

AND THIS WILL PROVIDE US MORE TIME TO DO THAT AND PRESENT A MORE FINAL PRODUCT ON DECEMBER 10TH.

SO THE REQUEST IS A CONTINUANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN OF DECEMBER 10TH, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE THE ITEM.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO DECEMBER 10TH.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRINO.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER PENA IS ABSENT.

MAYOR, REAL QUICK, MY APOLOGIES. I WILL SAY BEFORE THE VOTE HAPPENS, IF THERE ARE, IF THERE IS A COMMENT FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE ON SIMPLY THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST, I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK ON JUST THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST, ASSUMING AND CONFIRMING THAT NO SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS WILL BE MADE OR HEARD TODAY.

AND FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. ATTORNEY, THIS IS ON ITEM 11 B, CORRECT? THANK YOU. DID I HAVE THE PETITIONER'S AGENT? YES. GOOD MORNING. MARK, DRAFTING COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

YOU UNDERSTAND THE ATTENTION TO GO TO DATE CERTAIN AND DECEMBER 10TH AND WE DON'T OBJECT TO THAT.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH STAFF TO RESOLVE ANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED WITH THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

YES. MAYOR HEITMAN. YES. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 10TH 10TH.

THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. THANK YOU. ITEM 11 C RESOLUTION DETERMINING OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 25 01A PURSUANT TO SECTION 58 OR

[11.C) A Resolution Determining Outdoor Dining Petition 25-OD18 Pursuant to Section 56-126 of the Code of Ordinances to Allow Fifteen (15) Tables and Seventy-Six (76) Chairs on Private Property for a New Restaurant in the Olde Naples Building Within the Third Street Commercial Area Special Overlay District on the Property Owned by Olde Naples Building, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Located at 1148 3rd Street South, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date (SUPPLEMENT 1/UPDATED ITEM).]

56 126 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW 15 TABLES AND 76 CHAIRS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A NEW RESTAURANT IN THE OLDE NAPLES BUILDING WITHIN THE THIRD STREET COMMERCIAL AREA.

SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY OLDE NAPLES BUILDING, LLC.

FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND AGAIN, I WILL JUST BY REFERENCE, MAKE THE SAME STATEMENTS THAT I JUST MADE TWO TIMES PREVIOUSLY.

BUT THE MOTION REQUEST WOULD BE THE SAME. I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE ITEM 11 C TO DECEMBER 10TH.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER.

YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT.

AND. MAYOR. HEINEMAN. YES. THANK YOU. AND THAT CONCLUDES 11 B AND C GOING TO

[11.D) A Resolution Determining Petition 25-V4, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Section 46-37 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow a Driveway to Encroach Twenty-Six (26) Feet Six (6) Inches into the Minimum Fifty (50) Foot Required Setback From the Intersection of Extended Street Curb Lines Pursuant to Section 50-131 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for the Property Owned by Forest Ave. Properties, LLC, and Located at 1209 Forest Avenue, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

11 D. YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 20 5V4 RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 46 S 37 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY TO ENCROACH 26FT AND SIX INCHES INTO THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE INTERSECTION OF EXTENDED STREET CURB LINES

[01:25:03]

PURSUANT TO SECTION 5131 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY FOREST AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC AND LOCATED AT 1209 FOURTH AVENUE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL. THANK YOU. BROTHERS INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY YOU WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN.

PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

OKAY. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

SPOKE TO STAFF. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE WITH STAFF.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE WITH STAFF. VICE MAYOR FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

SPOKE TO STAFF. NO OTHER CONTACT. AND I DROVE BY THE SITE.

MET WITH STAFF. NO FURTHER CONTACT. MAYOR I DO HAVE ONE DISCLOSURE MYSELF BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.

SO THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. JAMAL DAOUD, WAS A PRIOR CLIENT FOR ME ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE RELATED TO A DIFFERENT PROPERTY.

WHEN I WAS NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY. I DID DISCLOSE IT DURING MY INTERVIEWS FOR BEING SELECTED CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT MY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS WAS JUST IN THE ROLE OF CITY ATTORNEY ANSWERING STAFF'S QUESTIONS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING SIR. IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. JAMAL DAOUD.

AND A PRESENTATION OR A REQUEST. I HAVE A I'LL DO JUST A I'LL TRY AND MAKE IT QUICK POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THE THE PROPERTY THAT WE OWN AND REALLY THE I THINK THE LAKE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL WAS DESIGNED BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED, THE 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE INTERSECTIONS.

AS YOU'LL SEE FROM THIS PRESENTATION AT LEAST THE 5 OR 6 INTERSECTIONS AROUND OUR PROPERTY.

THERE'S NOT A SINGLE HOUSE AT ANY ONE OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS THAT MEETS THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

SO ANYWAY, I'LL GO THROUGH HERE, TRY AND MAKE IT BRIEF.

JUST A SITE OVERVIEW. IT'S IN LAKE PARK. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED THE, THE THE LOT IN PARTICULAR.

THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WE'RE HOPING TO BUILD THERE.

AND THIS IS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS HOW THIS ALL GOT FLESHED OUT, THAT IT'S BASICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MEET THAT THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE DRIVEWAY. THIS IS A STREET VIEW, AS YOU CAN SEE.

YOU SEE THE INTERSECTION THAT'S CREATING THE PROBLEM.

I HAVE THAT ARROW POINTING TO OUR LOT. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN SEE THE TWO DRIVEWAYS FOR OUR NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

ONE OF THEM'S DIRECTLY IN THE INTERSECTION. THE OTHER ONE IS NOWHERE NEAR 50FT FROM THAT INTERSECTION.

THIS IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY WE WISH TO BUILD, WHICH WOULD REALLY LINE UP DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OR FROM THE DRIVEWAY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OURS. SO THESE ARE THE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, SIX INTERSECTIONS.

LIKE, THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO OUR PROPERTY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE BY ONE OF THESE INTERSECTIONS, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO GOING TO GO IN A CIRCLE AROUND HERE.

SO NINTH AVENUE NORTH AND FOREST AVENUE, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, AT LEAST FOUR HOUSES THAT DO NOT MEET THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

FOREST AND 13TH. OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE THERE'S AT LEAST ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, I BELIEVE THAT.

DON'T MEET IT. NINTH AVENUE NORTH AND 13TH STREET NORTH.

ONCE AGAIN, I BELIEVE THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR THAT DON'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

HERE'S A TERRACE AND 13TH. ONE, TWO. THREE. ANOTHER FOUR.

AT LEAST THAT DON'T MEET THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

AND THEN EIGHTH TERRACE AND FOREST AT LEAST TWO THAT DON'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

ANYWAY, LIKE I SAID, I WAS GOING TO TRY AND MAKE THIS BRIEF.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY ON OUR PROPERTY UNLESS WE GET THIS VARIANCE.

THERE'S LITERALLY NO OTHER WAY AROUND IT. AND I THINK GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS? AGENT? COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. I SAW THE PAB ON THIS.

ARE YOU PRESERVING THE TREE? WELL, THAT WAS THAT'S ACTUALLY HOW THIS WHOLE THING THAT SEEMED TO BE THE BIG ISSUE.

[01:30:02]

WELL, THAT'S HOW THIS WHOLE THING STARTED WAS THE TREE WHERE WE ORIGINALLY HAD THE DRIVEWAY WAS WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE TREE.

BUT BUT EVEN AT THAT POINT, WE DIDN'T REALIZE IT WASN'T.

IT DIDN'T MEET THE 50FT. SO WHETHER THE TREE IS THERE OR WHETHER THE TREE IS NOT THERE, WE CAN'T MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

HOWEVER, WE WOULD NEED A SLIGHTLY GREATER VARIANCE IN ORDER TO SAVE THE TREE SO THAT THAT IS THE.

THAT'S THE PLAN. AND WE'VE WORKED WITH THE CITY ARBORIST AND TALK TALK THROUGH, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE TIMES TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE THAT TREE.

GREAT. THANK YOU. SO YOU DO NOT HAVE PLANS ON TAKING THAT TREE DOWN? WE DO NOT. SO BUT BUT AS I STATED, WITH THE TREE OR WITHOUT THE TREE, WE NEED A VARIANCE.

NO MATTER WHAT. IF WE. IF WE TRIED TO TAKE THE TREE DOWN, WE COULD MAYBE GET A 10 OR 15 FOOT VARIANCE.

IF WE WANT TO SAVE THE TREE, WE NEED A 26 FOOT VARIANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, SO THAT WE CAN SAVE IT.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE POWER LINE THAT'S ALSO IN THAT.

IS THAT IN THE AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE WITH A POWER LINE OR WITH ANY OTHER UTILITIES.

OKAY. AND THIS IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL RESIDENCE.

WELL, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED YET WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO LIVE THERE OR WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO SELL IT, BUILD IT TO SELL. SO WE JUST HAVEN'T DECIDED YET.

GOT IT. KRAMER AND STAFF MAY HAVE TO VERIFY. IS THAT TREE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY, OR IS IT IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? IT IS ON HIS PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT. AND IT KIND OF BORDERS HIS PROPERTY LINE.

SO IT JUST GREW BIG, PROBABLY SET RIGHT ON HIS SIDE OF THE LINE.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE TRUNK MOSTLY IS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT THEN OBVIOUSLY THE. CANOPY AND THE ROOTS.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS ON YOUR PROPERTY. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT, SIR. AND ALSO, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE SELLING IT OR YOU'RE LIVING IN IT. IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. WELL, THIS IS ACTUALLY A CITY TREE, AND I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF IT IS IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU KNOW, I YOU CAN YOU CAN BARELY. IT'S HARD TO SEE.

I MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE ADDED ADDED SOMETHING THAT SHOWED THE THE TREE ROOT SYSTEM.

IT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL, REALLY COMING OVER ON OUR SIDE.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE ASKING.

WELL, THAT'S. SEE, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.

I'VE GOT A NEIGHBOR THAT IF HE'D CUT ABOUT TEN OF HIS TREES DOWN, I'D BE REALLY HAPPY.

THAT'D BE FANTASTIC. BEST THING EVER. WELL, AND LOOK, WE HAD OFFERED WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY ARBORIST, WE HAD OFFERED TO. I MEAN, WHATEVER THE LARGEST REPLACEMENT TREE WE COULD COME UP WITH, WE OFFERED THAT ALSO.

SO IT'S IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO REMOVE TREES OR ANYTHING ELSE.

LITERALLY. JUST JUST WANT TO PUT A DRIVEWAY IN.

OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER.

WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

KIM. CITY OF NAPLES PLANNING DEPARTMENT. MY RESUME AND QUALIFICATIONS ARE ON FILE.

PLANNING TO PETITION 20 5V4 IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED DRIVEWAY.

AT 26FT AND SIX INCHES FROM THE INTERSECTION OF EXTENDED STREET CURB LINES FROM THE DRIVEWAY SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FROM SECTION 5131, WHICH REQUIRES A DRIVEWAY TO BE A MINIMUM OF 50FT TO THE INTERSECTION OF EXTENDED STREET CURB LINES.

THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE R 17.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES ARE PERMITTED, INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS. THIS PROPERTY IS AT A Y INTERSECTION OF FOREST AVENUE AND NINTH AVENUE.

1209 FOREST AVENUE, OR LOT 28, WAS PREVIOUSLY COMBINED WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

1215 FOREST AVENUE, LOT 27. THESE TWO WERE SPLIT WITH MINOR SUBDIVISION PETITION 1919 TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT FOR LOTS 27 AND 28 OF BLOCK C. LOT BLOCK C LAKE FOREST.

ACCORDING TO THE PLAT MAP OF COLLIER COUNTY, THE PETITIONER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT 2021.

INTENDING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE PETITIONER BECAME AWARE OF THE DRIVEWAY ENCROACHMENT DURING THE SINGLE FAMILY PERMIT REVIEW.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A 72.5FT FRONTAGE, WITH A LARGE EXISTING CITY TREE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, COMBINED WITH THE Y INTERSECTION AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY, RENDERING A 50 FOOT MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SEPARATION IMPOSSIBLE.

THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE CITY ARBORIST AND CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO DEVELOP A SAFE DRIVEWAY LOCATION THAT WILL ALLOW THE EXISTING CITY TREE TO REMAIN.

THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT IN THE 1950S THAT HAVE ENCROACHING DRIVEWAYS.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL ALLOW THE PETITIONER VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE FUTURE HOME.

[01:35:04]

ON AUGUST 28TH, 2025, A TOTAL OF 309 LETTERS WERE SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

STAFF RECEIVED ONE CORRESPONDENCE SUPPORTING THE PETITION AS LONG AS THE TREES REMAINED THERE.

A BIG FAN OF THE TREES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THE VIEW. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERED PETITION 20 5B4 AT THE SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2025 MEETING AND VOTED 7 TO 0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 46.

37 C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAS APPLIED THE VARIANCE CRITERIA TO THE REQUEST FOR A DRIVEWAY TO BE 26FT AND SIX INCHES FROM THE INTERSECTION OF EXTENDED STREET CURB LINES, ENCROACHING INTO THE 50 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTANCE, AND FIND THAT THE PETITION MEETS THRESHOLD CRITERIA ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN AND MEETS THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FIVE. THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR DOES NOT APPLY.

SHOULD CITY COUNCIL RECOMMEND APPROVAL? STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE, THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE LOCATED AT 26FT AND SIX INCHES FROM THE INTERSECTION OF EXTENDED STREET CURB LINE, AS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION AND SHOWN IN THE DRIVEWAY DIAGRAM.

AND TWO THAT THE CITY MANAGED FICUS TREE WILL BE PRESERVED.

STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO PULL UP REALLY QUICKLY FOR YOU.

THE SURVEY FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH I BEAR WITH ME HERE.

OVER HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE TREE IS ON CITY PROPERTY AND A LITTLE BIT ON THE PETITIONER PROPERTY, BUT THE OVERGROWTH IS DEFINITELY ON HIS PROPERTY AS WELL.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE THE CITY ARBORIST HERE. WE DO.

COULD YOU COME FORWARD? GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. HEATHER SHIELDS, URBAN FOREST MANAGER, FOR THE RECORD.

MISS SHIELDS, WE ARE A TREE CITY USA. CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. 28 YEARS AND WE HAVE SHADE TREES.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? CANOPY COVERAGE. OBVIOUSLY.

OUR SHADE TREES ARE OUR BEST TREES WHEN IT COMES TO THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, CO2 YOU KNOW, SHADE STORMWATER UPTAKE, ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

AND ADDITIONALLY, AND I THINK VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR OVERALL NAPLES BRAND IS THE STATUTE THAT THEY PROVIDE DOWN THROUGH OUR STREETS.

WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THEM, THEY'RE LINED WITH THE SAME SPECIES, AND IT CAN REALLY BE QUITE BEAUTIFUL AND ESTHETIC IN TERMS OF PROPERTY VALUES AND THE CITY'S, LIKE I SAID, OVERALL BRAND. I GUESS I WOULD CALL IT, OR THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE VERY SPECIAL.

HAVE YOU WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER TO ENSURE THAT THAT TREE WOULD NOT BE REMOVED IF WE GRANTED THIS? YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. AND THE WHOLE ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THE WAY THE VARIANCE IS SET UP RIGHT NOW IS THE PROTECTION OF THAT TREE.

WE'VE WORKED EXTENSIVELY. I WANT TO SAY WE PROBABLY WENT BACK AND FORTH AT LEAST SIX, EIGHT MONTHS, MAYBE BEFORE WE BETWEEN MYSELF, THE PETITIONER PLANNING AND THEN ALSO OBVIOUSLY ALLISON AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MANAGE TO SAVE THE TREE, PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, ENSURE THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET.

AND WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS OUR BEST PLANNED OPTION.

AND THAT IS TO KEEP THE TREE AND ALLOW THE SIDE DRIVEWAY.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMAN AND THEN VICE MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MISS SHIELDS. WE HAVE CODE THAT ALSO DESCRIBES HOW TREES CITY TREES ARE IN CONSTRUCTION.

AREAS NEED TO BE PROTECTED. IS IT IN CODE OR IS IT IN SOME OTHER FORM? IT'S IN CHAPTER 38 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THAT'S SECTION OR CHAPTER 38 IS TREE PROTECTION.

AND THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT DESCRIBES THE TREE PROTECTION THAT NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED ON ANY SITE THAT IS BEING DEMOED AND THEN BUILT UPON. YEAH. AND AND YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE HOW THAT IS TOO OFTEN OBSERVED IN THE BREACH. IN OTHER WORDS, NOT NOT PROPERLY ACTED UPON

[01:40:04]

ON CONSTRUCTION SITES. WE'VE ALL SEEN IT AND AND IT SOMETIMES IS THE PROPER FENCING AROUND TREES IS PUT INTO PLACE, AND THEN OVER TIME, IT FALLS APART DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

AND THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE THEN, IS THAT RIGHT? OR IS IT WHERE THERE ARE PROBLEMS ON A SITE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED? IS THAT IS THAT A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE? IT IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, BUT IT'S THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE BUILDING SITE INSPECTORS. AND I WILL SAY THAT OVER THE YEARS I'M GOING TO SAY MAYBE THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE AN INCREASED NUMBER OF SITE COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS THAT ARE WITHIN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND THEY HAVE BECOME VERY AWARE OF THE TREES AND THE PROTECTION, AND I PROBABLY TALK WITH THEM AT LEAST A COUPLE TIMES A WEEK REGARDING QUESTIONS ON SITES. SO I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE AT PERFECT YET WITH TREE PROTECTION IN CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE ARE.

DO YOU THINK WE'RE GETTING BETTER? WE ARE 90%.

YES WE ARE. WE ARE GETTING MUCH BETTER. AND LIKE I SAID, THOSE THOSE INCREASED INSPECTORS ARE NOW LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL WHEN THEY GO TO THE SITES. YOU KNOW, PLANNINGS KEEPING ALL THE MOVING PARTS ARE, ARE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT CODE BECAUSE IT IS A RELATIVELY NEW CODE FOR US MOVING, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE WE'RE DOING GREAT PROGRESS IN IT.

YEAH. AND AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS PETITIONER OR HIS CONTRACTORS, THAT HE MIGHT ULTIMATELY SELECT WOULD YOU KNOW, WOULD BE ACTING IN ANY IMPROPER FASHION.

I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT IT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM, EVEN WITH SOME ESTABLISHED CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITES, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE JUST NEED TO BE DILIGENT ABOUT.

I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU FEEL THAT WE'RE DOING A BETTER JOB OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE.

WE ABSOLUTELY ARE. THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT. BUT I CERTAINLY I HATE FOR THE WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT KNOWS THAT IT'S A PROTECTED TREE, AND THEN BY CHANCE, THE CONTRACTORS DO KNOCK IT DOWN AND WE JUST GO, OH, WELL. AND THEY PAY THE FINE BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO PAY THE FINE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S PROTECTIONS IN THAT WITHIN THIS RESOLUTION JUST TO CONFIRM THAT WE'RE GOING TO THAT THE TREE WILL REMAIN.

I'LL CHECK THAT. AND THEN I HAVE VICE MAYOR. YEAH.

JUST REAL QUICKLY. FIRST OF ALL, I REMEMBER THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS ON THIS PROPERTY AND THANK YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH TAKING THAT THING DOWN AND GET RID OF THAT EYESORE, BUT THE COMMUNITY REALLY DOES APPRECIATE IT.

THE I DON'T TYPICALLY SUPPORT VARIANCES, BUT BOY, IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS REALLY CALLED FOR IN MY OPINION.

AND I ESPECIALLY BELIEVE THAT VARIANCE THE THRESHOLD CRITERIA ONE, TWO, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX.

AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA OF TWO AND THREE AND FIVE AND THEN THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDED.

I SUPPORT THOSE AS WELL. AND BY THE WAY, I BELIEVE RETENTION OF THE TREE, IF YOU SO DESIRE, I BELIEVE IT VERY WELL COULD HELP SELL THIS PROPERTY.

SO IT'S A GREAT TREE AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S INPUT.

THANK YOU. I HEARD IF. IT'S A CONDITION WE DID THAT IS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN YOUR RESOLUTION. CONDITION NUMBER TWO IS THAT THE CITY MANAGED. FICUS TREE WILL BE PRESERVED.

SO THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE.

AND IT WAS THE WHOLE REASON WHY THE EXPANSION REQUEST WENT TO 26FT WAS SPECIFICALLY TO PRESERVE THE TREE.

YEAH. MR. DOWD ORIGINALLY WAS TRYING TO MEET THE CODE AS AS MUCH AS HE COULD BY PUSHING THE DRIVEWAY.

AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, WHICH IS COMMENDABLE. HE WAS, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR AS LITTLE OF A VARIANCE AS POSSIBLE. BUT THROUGH WORKING WITH HEATHER AND ALLISON, THIS LOCATION, HE CHOSE TO MOVE IT.

WIN, WIN. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

CLOSING REMARKS PLEASE, MR. DOWD ALL I'D LIKE TO SAY IS, WELL, A COUPLE THINGS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE THAT THESE WERE TWO THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE LOTS THAT WERE COMBINED AND THEN SPLIT.

SO THAT ALL HAPPENED BEFORE. BEFORE, LIKE WE JUST BOUGHT PASSED TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHATEVER WAS THERE BEFORE.

I'M ACTUALLY NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE, BUT THERE IS NO LIKE TREE OR NO TREE.

THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

AND, AND WE HAVE SAID, I MEAN, I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT HAVING MATURE TREES IS, IS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAY, IT'S NOT IDEAL TO GO AROUND A CORNER TO,

[01:45:08]

TO GET TO YOUR GARAGE. BUT I AGREE THAT SAVING THE TREE IS IS IS WORTH THAT.

THANK YOU SIR. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

MADAM MAYOR, IF NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

ALONG WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED.

ONE THAT THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE LOCATED 26FT AND SIX INCHES FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EXTENDED STREET CURB LINES, AS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION AND SHOWN ON THE DRIVEWAY DIAGRAM AND TO THE CITY MANAGER'S CUBAN LAUREL WILL BE PRESERVED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOTION BY VICE MAYOR. SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. STAFF.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 11 E MR. MCCONNELL. YEAH.

[11.E) This Item has been Continued. A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 25-CU3 Pursuant to Sections 46-34 and 58-533 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for a Residential Dwelling Unit in the C1 Retail Shopping District on Property Owned by Chlumsky -- DAKY, LLC, and Located at 1199 Third Street South, Suite A, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.]

JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS THIS CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN OR JUST CONTINUED? IT'S NOT A DATE CERTAIN. IT'S JUST CONTINUED. OKAY, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO 11 F MAYOR, IF WE MAY.

[11.F) A Resolution Pursuant To Section 56-125 Of The Code Of Ordinances Determining The Six Month Review Of Live Entertainment Petition 24-Le1 Approved By City Council Resolution 2024-15427 For Amplified Indoor And Outdoor Live Entertainment At Keeywadin’s On The Property Located At 711 5th Avenue South, Owned By Larry A. Wynn, Jerry M. Wynn, And Timothy D. Wynn, Trustee Of The Don Q. Wynn And Annie Merle Wynn Irrevocable Trust U/A/D/ 8/26/93, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings And Conditions; And Providing An Effective Date.]

OKAY. YES, SIR. A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 6-1 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DETERMINING SIX MONTH REVIEW OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 20 4-L1 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2024 15427 FOR AMPLIFIED INDOOR AND OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT KEY WEDDINGS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 711 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, OWNED BY LARRY A WYNN, JERRY M WYNN AND TIMOTHY D WYNN, TRUSTEE OF THE DON Q WYNN AND ANNIE MERLEY WYNN IRREVOCABLE TRUST.

82693. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

ALL RIGHT. YOU DO NOT HAVE A PETITIONER HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS YOUR CODE REQUIRES A SIX MONTH REVIEW WHEN A LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION IS OR PERMIT IS GRANTED. SO THIS KEY WITNESS RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

IN THROUGH RESOLUTION 2024 15427. WE ARE HERE TO REPORT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO ISSUES.

WE CHECKED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE FIRE MARSHAL REPORTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO ISSUES, NO COMPLAINTS, NO VIOLATIONS.

AND THAT IS YOUR SIX MONTH REVIEW. THANK YOU.

AND I DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY QUESTIONS? YES. COUNCILMAN CRAMER, I GUESS IT'S FOR ALL OF US, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME.

MISS ERICA, HOW CAN WE GET THIS KIND OF THING JUST AFTER SIX MONTHS? THERE'S BEEN NO ISSUES ON IT. OKAY, YEAH, I AGREE, I THINK THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE CODE AND I, YOU KNOW, MATTHEW AND I WENT OVER THIS. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN THE CODE IS IT REQUIRES A CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.

SO THAT WORD REVIEW REALLY DOES MEAN COMING BACK BEFORE YOU THROUGH AN AGENDA ITEM.

BUT I THINK YOU WILL SEE ME IN THE FUTURE WITH AN AMENDMENT, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS COMMON SENSE THAT THERE'S BEEN NO PROBLEMS. WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO SEE IT AGAIN. CORRECT PROBLEMS. WE DID NOTICE THIS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

WE WE TREATED THIS THE SAME AS WE WOULD THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL.

SO YOU DO HAVE A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU? IT WAS YOU KNOW, IT WAS NOTICED AS AN ITEM TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE. BUT YES, I AGREE WITH YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM MAYOR. I'LL JUST SIMPLY THROW OUT THERE THAT COACH BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH ON THAT ONE. SO, AND SORRY TO CLARIFY, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS IN THE RESOLUTION.

SO AND THIS IS LANGUAGE TAKEN FROM YOUR CODE.

SO THE OPTIONS ARE TO CONFIRM OR REVOKE THE PERMIT.

BUT BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS IF WE WERE HERE BEFORE YOU WITH VERIFIED VIOLATIONS, WE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING THAT YOU CONSIDER REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE PERMIT.

BUT BECAUSE WE'RE HERE PROVIDING TO YOU THAT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY ISSUES STAFF WOULD BE RECOMMENDING CONFIRMATION OF THIS PERMIT, SO NO CHANGES REQUIRED, BUT JUST. RIGHT. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD WELL, WE CAN FINISH THIS ONE.

AND THEN I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONFIRM THE APPROVAL OF THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. IT WAS ACTUALLY BARTON.

BARTON. I MEAN BARTON. DID I SAY CRAMER? YOU DID.

I JUST WROTE DOWN CRAMER ALSO. THANK YOU. CRAMER.

BARTON. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

[01:50:03]

PENMAN IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRINA. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN.

YES. THANK YOU. AND I DO WANT TO JUST SAY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER IN REFERENCE TO THESE APPROVALS AND MAKING THEM EASIER. WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN CORRESPONDENCE.

THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM F G. I MEAN, 11 G.

[11.G) A Resolution Pursuant To Section 56-125 Of The Code Of Ordinances Determining The Six Month Review Of Live Entertainment Petition 24-Le2 Approved By City Council Resolution 2025-15554 For Amplified Indoor Live Entertainment At London Club Dining Room At The Claw Bar Restaurant On The Property Located At 221 9th Street South, Owned By Resort Hospitality Partners, LLC, More Fully Described Herein: Providing Findings And Conditions; And Providing An Effective Date.]

THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 6-1 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DETERMINING THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 20 4-L2 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2020 5-15554 FOR AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT LONDON CLUB DINING ROOM AT THE CLUB BAR RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 221 NINTH STREET SOUTH. OWNED BY RESORT HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ALL RIGHT.

AGAIN, ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR, SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

THIS IS FOR THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR THE LONDON CLUB DINING ROOM AT THE CLUB BAR.

THIS WAS APPROVED THROUGH RESOLUTION BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2025 15554.

FOR HERE TO REPORT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO NO VIOLATIONS, NO COMPLAINTS AND NO ISSUES WITH THIS PERMIT.

AND THAT IS VERIFIED BY POLICE, FIRE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WE DID NOTICE THIS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE. AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT BE CONFIRMED.

AND I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. COUNCIL QUESTIONS.

MOTION. MOVE TO CONFIRM THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION.

AT THE CLAW BAR LONDON CLUB DINING ROOM. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRINO. YES. MAYOR.

HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY GOING TO 11 H.

[11.H) A Resolution Pursuant To Section 56-125 Of The Code Of Ordinances Determining The Six Month Review Of Live Entertainment Petition 24-LE3 Approved By City Council Resolution 2024-15524 For G Indoor Live Entertainment With Doors And Windows Closed With A Maximum Of Two Entertainers Wednesday Through Saturday From 12:00 P.M. To 10:00 P.M. And Sunday From 10:00 A. M. To 6:00 P. M. ; Providing Outdoor Amplified Live Entertainment With A Maximum Of Two Entertainers Wednesday Through Saturday From 12:00 P.M. To 10:00 P.M. And Sunday From 10:00 A.M. To 6:00 P.M. For The Ac Marriott Hotel On The Property Owned By Palmetto Hospitality Of Naples, A Florida Limited Liability Company And Located At 455 12th Street South, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings And Conditions; And Providing An Effective Date.]

MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. RESOLUTION.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 6-1 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DETERMINING THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 24 DASH LA THREE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2024 15524 FOR INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO ENTERTAINERS WEDNESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 12 TO 10 P.M.

AND SUNDAY FROM 10 A.M. TO 6 P.M., PROVIDING OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO ENTERTAINERS WEDNESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 12 P.M.

TO 10 P.M. AND SUNDAY FROM 10 A.M. TO 6 P.M. FOR THE AC MARRIOTT HOTEL ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY PALMETTO HOSPITALITY OF NAPLES, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND LOCATED AT 455 12TH STREET SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AGAIN, ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. THIS IS THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 2483.

THIS WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2024 15524 FOR THE AC MARRIOTT.

AGAIN CONFIRMING THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT, POLICE AND FIRE.

NO ISSUES, NO COMPLAINTS, NO VIOLATIONS. WE DID NOTICE THIS AT ALL.

PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION.

AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT BE CONFIRMED BY CITY COUNCIL.

I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT A MOTION.

MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 11 H LIVE CONTINUANCE OF THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT THE AC MARRIOTT. SECOND MOTION FOR APPROVAL. FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER IN A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. MAYOR.

HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 12. WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN FOR 13, 11, 11.

I MEAN, SORRY, 11 I THERE WAS ONE MORE. THANK YOU.

[11.I) A Resolution Pursuant to Section 56-125 of the Code of Ordinances Determining the Six Month Review of Live Entertainment Petition 24-LE5 Approved by City Council Resolution 2024-15551 for Amplified Indoor Live Entertainment for Soluna Restaurant on the Property Owned by Kevin Stoneburner and Located at 403 Bayfront Place, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

MAYOR. RESOLUTION. PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 6-1 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DETERMINING THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 24 LA FIVE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2024 15551 FOR AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR SOLUNA RESTAURANT ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY KEVIN STONEBURNER AND LOCATED AT 403 BAYFRONT

[01:55:04]

PLACE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AGAIN, ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR THIS IS A SIX MONTH REVIEW OF THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 2485, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2024 15551 GRANTING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT TO THE RESTAURANT SOLUNA, WHICH IS IN BAYFRONT. STAFF DID NOTICE THIS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT, DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION, AND CONFIRMED FROM POLICE, FIRE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS, NO VIOLATIONS AND NO ISSUES WITH THIS PERMIT, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT IS CONFIRMED BY CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTION? MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 11.

I TO CONTINUE THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT LUNA RESTAURANT.

SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT.

AND MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, STAFF.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEMS 12. THERE ARE NO OLD BUSINESS.

WE HAVE ITEM 13 A, WHICH IS A TIME CERTAIN OF 1230, AND IT IS NOW 1030.

OUR NEXT ITEM WOULD BE 13 B, SO WE WILL TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS AND COME BACK.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 13 B.

[13.B) Consider Appointing One Alternate Member to the Code Enforcement Board, One Alternate Member to the Community Services Advisory Board, and One Alternate Member to the Design Review Board. ]

GOOD MORNING MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. ITEM PATRICIA RAMOS FOR THE RECORD.

ITEM 13 B IS TO CONSIDER APPOINTING ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD, AND THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT YOUR MEETING ON MONDAY.

YOU INTERVIEWED FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.

HENRY JOHNSON, AND THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT APPOINTMENT FOR THE ALTERNATE MEMBER.

AND I DO WANT TO BRING SOMETHING TO YOUR ATTENTION.

HE DID APPLY TO FILL THE PARTIAL POSITION THAT'S LEFT OF THAT ALTERNATE POSITION.

BUT SINCE IT'S SO CLOSE TO ENDING AND WE WOULD NORMALLY BE IN THE PROCESS TO ADVERTISE THAT ALTERNATE POSITION FOR APPOINTMENT, IN FEBRUARY WE ADDED A FULL TERM, WHICH HE TOTALLY WOULD WANT.

SO INSTEAD OF COMING BACK IN TWO MONTHS TO GET HIM REAPPOINTED, WE JUST MERGED IT INTO APPOINTING HIM FOR A FULL THREE YEAR TERM WHEN WE GET TO THAT MOTION. THANK YOU. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THE APPLICANT.

I HAVE A MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO READ THAT MOTION SO THAT WE HAVE THE TERMS IN HERE.

CORRECT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPOINT HENRY JOHNSON AS ALTERNATE NUMBER TWO FOR THE BALANCE OF A THREE YEAR TERM COMMENCING OCTOBER 15TH, 2025 AND EXPIRING FEBRUARY 14TH, 2026, AND THEN FOR A FULL THREE YEAR TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 13TH, 2029. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT HENRY JOHNSON AS ONE OF THE ALTERNATES TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO COMPLETE THE EXISTING TERM THAT RUNS UNTIL FEBRUARY OF 2026 AND ALSO FILL THE SUBSEQUENT THREE YEAR FULL TERM MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISMAN.

SECOND, WELL DONE SIR. I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I OPPOSED. THANK YOU.

NEXT IS THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD.

THE CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWED SUZANNE CLEM ON MONDAY, AND THIS IS FOR TO FILL THE BALANCE OF AN ALTERNATE TERM FOR A THREE YEAR TERM COMMENCING OCTOBER 15TH, 2025 AND EXPIRING APRIL 30TH, 2027.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. THE MOTION. MOTION.

I MOVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. MISS. CLIMB. CLEM.

FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER.

ALL IN FAVOR? SIGN BY. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU.

COUNCIL. MRS. AND THE LAST APPOINTMENT IS FOR AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.

[02:00:06]

THE CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWED JAMES KNAFO ON MONDAY AT THE WORKSHOP, AND THE APPOINTMENT WOULD BE AS AN ALTERNATE FOR THE BALANCE OF A THREE YEAR TERM COMMENCING OCTOBER 15TH, 2025 AND EXPIRING MAY 31ST, 2026.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE JAMES KNAFO TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMANN.

ALL IN FAVOR? SIGN BY. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU.

COUNCIL. THANK YOU, MRS. RAMOS. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES 13 B GOING TO 13 C

[13.C) A Resolution Accepting the Recommendations from the Naples Blue Ribbon Committee Regarding Compensation and Benefits for the Mayor and City Council Members; Dissolving the Current Blue Ribbon Committee; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

MRS RAMOS, IF I MAY READ THE TITLE REAL QUICK.

YES, YES. MR. MCCONNELL, THE RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NAPLES BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REGARDING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DISSOLVING THE CURRENT BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU PATRICIA.

AGAIN, THANK YOU, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THE NAVAL CITY CHARTER SECTION 2.5 PROVIDES FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY CITY COUNCIL OF AN INDEPENDENT BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF SEVEN NAPLES RESIDENTS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE COUNCIL LEVEL OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE COMMITTEE MAKE ITS RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 1ST. THAT WAS THE DEADLINE, AND WE MET THAT DEADLINE BY BEING HERE TODAY ON OCTOBER 15TH.

THE CITY COUNCIL REESTABLISHED THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND APPOINTED SEVEN MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE THAT CONSISTED OF PETER GO, LOIS ALFON, MIKE ASSAD, STAN KARP, KAREN HANLON, JOSEPH BURKE, AND MARTIN HEINRICH.

LOIS SEALFON WAS THE CHAIR FOR THAT COMMITTEE.

THEY MET ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2025. THEY DID STUDY THE LEVEL OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS.

I ATTACHED THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING IN YOUR PACKET.

SO IN CASE YOU WANT TO REFERENCE ANY OF THE INFORMATION IT WAS AVAILABLE TO YOU.

THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL WAS TO RECOMMEND A SALARY INCREASE OF 22% FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND AN INCREASE IN THE CURRENT MONTHLY STIPEND FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM $300 TO $400 A MONTH, AND FOR THE MAYOR FROM $400 TO $500 A MONTH. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT NO PENSION PROVISION BE PROVIDED FOR EITHER THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU FROM THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE FOR YOUR DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION. ALSO, I BELIEVE MY CELL PHONE IS IN THE AUDIENCE TOO.

IF THE COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT COMMITTEE.

AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE FOR THE DUE DILIGENCE AND REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CHARTER.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION. VICE MAYOR. YEAH, I JUST I THINK EVERYBODY UP HERE WOULD PROBABLY SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS A SINCERE APPRECIATION FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND THE LEADERSHIP PROVIDED BY CHAIR SELFAND. IF YOU FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR ALL OF THE MEMBERS HERE ON THE DAIS, IF YOU LOOK INTO THE MINUTES OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE CHAIR SELFAND HAD SOME WHAT I THOUGHT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAD TREMENDOUS MERIT AND WHENEVER THAT TIME IS APPROPRIATE.

HOPEFULLY THOSE COME FORWARD. BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR LEADERSHIP AND FOR GETTING THIS KIND OF WORK DONE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. AND MISS RAMOS, CAN YOU JUST REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THE PENSIONS, WHICH I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE, BUT THE PENSIONS AND THE PAST THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A RECOMMENDATION BY THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE THAT THE COUNCIL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PENSION PLANS.

SO. BUT YOU WERE ELIGIBLE IF YOU HAD TWO TERMS. IS THAT CORRECT? NO. THAT WAS I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS EVER CORRECT FOR THE PENSION PLAN.

OKAY. JUST FOR THE FOR 57 PLAN THAT THE CITY HAS FOR AN INVESTMENT PLAN THAT COUNCIL CAN PARTICIPATE IN. THANK YOU. OKAY WITH THAT? OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

[02:05:05]

OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? YES, SIR, I MOVE APPROVAL. SECOND, IF WE COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC THERE.

JUST A OKAY. ON ITEM 13 C, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NAPLES BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REGARDING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN I.

YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT. THANK YOU, MRS. RAMOS, FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS. THANK YOU. AND GREAT JOB TO THE CITY CLERK'S TEAM AND AND HUMAN RESOURCES WHO WORK SO HARD TO PUT THAT TOGETHER SO QUICKLY TO GET THIS TURNED AROUND AND TO THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE FOR GOING ALONG AND MAKING THEIR SCHEDULES ACCOMPLISH THAT DATE.

ALSO, JUST A NOTATION THAT THIS RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED OFFICIALLY DISSOLVES THE CURRENT BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE.

SO THIS PROCESS IS DONE FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS THAT SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE.

WITH THAT THAT CONCLUDES ITEM 13 C MOVING TO 13 D MR.

[13.D) 1. A Resolution Approving the Competitive Bidding Process for the Purchase of Goods and Services During Fiscal Year 2025-26 as Provided in Section 2-663(D) of the Code Of Ordinances, City of Naples and Approving a List of Vendors that have Been Previously Approved and that are Entities Regularly Receiving Bids for County, State or City Official Use; Authorizing the Approved List of Vendors During Fiscal Year 2026 In the Total Not-To-Exceed Amounts as Set Forth Herein; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Orders Therefore; and Providing an Effective Date. 2. A Resolution Approving the Competitive Bidding Process for the Purchase Of Goods and Services During Fiscal Year 2025-26 as Provided in Section 2-663(D) Of The Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples And Approving A List Of Vendors That Are Entities Regularly Receiving Bids for County, State Or City Official Use; Authorizing the Approved List of Vendors During Fiscal Year 2026 In the Total Not-To-Exceed Amounts As Set Forth Herein; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Orders and Piggyback Agreements Therefore; and Providing an Effective Date. 3. A Resolution Exempting the Competitive Bidding Process for the Purchase Of Goods and Services During Fiscal Year 2025-26 as Provided in Section 2-666(9) Of the Code Of Ordinances, City of Naples and Approving a List of Vendors that Have Been Previously Approved and that are Single or Sole Source Entities; Authorizing the Approved List of Vendors During Fiscal Year 2026in The Total Not-To-Exceed Amounts as Set Forth Herein; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Orders Therefore; and Providing an Effective Date. 4. A Resolution Exempting the Competitive Bidding Process for the Purchase of Goods and Services During Fiscal Year 2025-26 as Provided in Section 2-666(9) of the Code Of Ordinances, City of Naples and Approving a List of Vendors that are Single or Sole Source Entities; Authorizing the Approved List of Vendors During Fiscal Year 2026 In the Total Not-To-Exceed Amounts as Set Forth Herein; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Orders and Sole Source Agreements Therefore; and Providing an Effective Date.]

MCCONNELL. YES, MAYOR. I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE ONE PRESENTATION, SO TO SPEAK, WITH A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THIS. SO IF, IF I COULD JUST READ ALL FOUR ORDINANCES, SAYS WE WILL TAKE OR I CAN JUST RESOLUTION OR RESOLUTIONS.

YEAH. MY APOLOGIES. NO BUT WE WILL. WE'LL NEED SEPARATE MOTIONS, OBVIOUSLY.

WHEN THAT TIME COMES. SO. OKAY. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 2025, 2026, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION TWO, SIX, SIX, THREE, SUBPARAGRAPH D OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, AND APPROVING A LIST OF VENDORS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND THAT ARE ENTITIES REGULARLY RECEIVING BIDS FOR COUNTY, STATE OR CITY OFFICIAL USE.

AUTHORIZING THE APPROVED LIST OF VENDORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNTS AS SET FORTH HEREIN.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PURCHASE ORDERS THEREFOR AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 20 2526, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION TWO, SIX, SIX, THREE, SUBPARAGRAPH D OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES AND APPROVING A LIST OF VENDORS THAT ARE ENTITIES REGULARLY RECEIVING BIDS FOR COUNTY, STATE, COUNTY, STATE OR CITY OFFICIAL USE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVED LIST OF VENDORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNTS AS SET FORTH HEREIN.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PURCHASE ORDERS AND PIGGYBACK AGREEMENTS THEREFOR, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE RESOLUTION EXEMPTING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 20 2526, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION TWO, 666, SUBPARAGRAPH NINE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES APPROVING LIST OF VENDORS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND THAT ARE SINGLE OR SOLE SOURCE ENTITIES AUTHORIZING THE APPROVED LIST OF VENDORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2026, IN THE TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT AS SET FORTH HEREIN.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PURCHASE ORDERS, THEREFORE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE RESOLUTION EXEMPTING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 20 2526, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION TWO, 6666, SUBPARAGRAPH NINE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES APPROVING A LIST OF VENDORS THAT ARE SINGLE OR SOLE SOURCE ENTITIES AUTHORIZING THE APPROVED LIST OF VENDORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2026, AND THE TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNTS AS SET FORTH HEREIN, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PURCHASE ORDERS AND SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENTS THEREFOR AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? I'M SORRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT GOES TO MR. YOUNG. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO THERE'S FOUR RESOLUTIONS BEFORE YOU.

NOW, IN YEARS PAST, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN TWO. AND A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DIDN'T LIKE WAS, IS THAT THEY WERE LUMPING TOGETHER THINGS THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND OTHER ONES THAT YOU HADN'T SEEN BEFORE.

AND GIVEN THE THE CHANGES MADE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND HOW AGREEMENTS ARE STRUCTURED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR, IT MADE SENSE TO TURN AROUND AND SAY, LOOK, HERE'S THE ONES YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED THAT HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OR THEY'RE PART OF A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING TYPE OF THING ALREADY AUTHORIZED UNDER THAT SECTION. AND WHICH ONES ARE OR ARE NOT REPEATS OR ARE NEW SO THAT THAT DIFFERENTIATE IT.

SO THE KEY TO THIS AND IT'S IN THE ORDINANCES OR EXCUSE ME, RESOLUTIONS THEMSELVES THAT STIPULATE THE SECTIONS OF WHICH.

[02:10:03]

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO STIPULATE THAT COMPETITIVE THAT COMPETITIVE BIDDING SECTION REFERS TO ANYTHING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOES THROUGH OUR OWN COMPETITIVE BID, BUT IT ALSO RECOGNIZES COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE MET IF GOODS AND SERVICES ARE PURCHASED PURSUANT AND IT HAS THREE SEPARATE SECTIONS UNDER THERE IT SAYS A VALID, EXECUTED, VALIDLY EXECUTED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING COOPERATIVE PURCHASING WITH OTHER ENTITIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WITH OTHER FLORIDA GOVERNMENT ENTITY. EXCUSE ME, I WANT TO READ IT. SPECIFICALLY, A CONTRACT AWARDED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR BY STATE OF FLORIDA OR ITS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. AND THEN IT ALSO HAS OTHER CONTRACTS OR BIDS RECEIVED BY ASSOCIATIONS OR ENTITIES REGULARLY RECEIVING BIDS FOR COUNTY, STATE OR CITY OFFICIALS. SO. SO WHILE THESE ARE CUSTOMARY TO YOU, I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

AND THAT'S WHERE THAT PART IS VESTED. AND THE OTHER TWO THAT REFER TO THE SECTION SIX.

I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT THE SECTION TWO SIX, SIX, SIX EXEMPTIONS THAT IS ALSO DEFINED IN THAT SAME SPECIFICS.

NOW, ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT I DID PREPARE FOR YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE, THEY CAN BE DAUNTING IS BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'RE AUTHORIZING. BUT I ALSO WANTED TO THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUT IN THERE THAT YOU HADN'T SEEN BEFORE, AND THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY CREATED WITH FELIX AND CASEY, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK HIM BOTH FOR THAT, TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR AS YOU'VE ADOPTED THESE IN THE LAST YEAR, AND THERE'S A COLUMN THERE THAT SHOWS YOU HOW MUCH YOU ADOPTED IN 2025, THEN ALSO HOW MUCH WE'VE ENCUMBERED SPENT AND HOW MUCH WE'RE ASKING IN 2026.

AND THE REASON THAT THAT'S THERE IS THE VERY LAST DOCUMENT IN THE.

YOU'RE WELCOME. SO WHAT THIS SHOWS YOU IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 CAPACITY.

AND IF YOU SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PIGGYBACK OR OTHERWISE, YOU AUTHORIZED IN LAST YEAR'S RESOLUTION UP TO ALMOST $23 MILLION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND COLUMN, THOUGH, WE UTILIZE MEANING ENCUMBERED $9.8 MILLION, AND OF THAT THERE REMAINS 1,000,006 ENCUMBERED AT YEAR END. SO YOU'RE IN YOUR ACCRUAL PERIOD NOT TO GET INTO ACCOUNTING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INVOICES YET.

BUT THE PROXIMITY WOULD BE EVEN IF YOU SPENT ALL OF WHAT YOU HAD ENCUMBERED ON ACCRUALS, YOU'RE STILL NOT EXCEEDING 10 MILLION.

SO I POINT THAT OUT TO YOU IS BECAUSE IT I THINK EVERYONE BELIEVES THE MOMENT YOU PASS THESE THAT YOU'VE AUTHORIZED 22 MILLION, YOUR BUDGET CONSTRICTS WHAT YOU SPEND. AND THE PURPOSE IS YOU'RE GIVING CAPACITY.

SO DAILY ACTIVITY OPERATIONS, EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, THOSE THINGS CAN BE PURCHASED.

I ALSO WANTED YOU TO HAVE 2026 ON THIS SAME SPREADSHEET SO YOU CAN IDENTIFY WELL, WHAT WAS THE SWINGS? WHAT CHANGED? WHY ARE THEY THERE. RIGHT. AND IF YOU GO FOR EXAMPLE YOU GO TO TEN EIGHT WHICH IS ONE.

YOU'LL SEE IT WENT UP AND THERE'S $2.5 MILLION ON TEN EIGHT.

WELL, WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE YOU APPROVED A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET, WHICH IS TO ACQUIRE A FIRE TRUCK.

WELL, IT HAS TO GO UP BECAUSE THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO BE IN ITS BID IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY TO GO AHEAD AND GET THAT DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY.

BUT YOU'VE ALREADY AUTHORIZED. SO THIS IS AUTHORIZING CAPACITY, AND IT GIVES YOU FUNCTIONALITY TO PERFORM YOUR FUNCTIONS BOTH ON YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE, ETC.. THE COLOR CODING, ALL IT IS, IS TRYING TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR OF THINGS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE, I.E. YOU GO TO ONE OF THEM THAT SAYS PUMPS. YOU CAN SEE PUMPS THAT ARE IN THERE SEVEN TIMES.

WELL, AGAIN, NOT EVERY EVERYONE ON THIS LIST HAS THE SAME PUMPS AVAILABLE AT THE SAME TIME AT THE EXACT MOMENT WE NEED IT.

SO WE'RE HAVING CAPACITY, AND YOU MAKE YOUR PROCUREMENT DECISIONS ON WHAT'S GIVING YOU THE BEST, BEST FINANCIAL BANG FOR YOUR BUCK, AS WELL AS THEY HAVE AVAILABILITY AND CAN GET IT WHEN IT'S NEEDED.

SO I JUST WANTED TO A PROVIDE YOU A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION, GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT EXPENDITURE BACKGROUND.

SO YOU JUST WEREN'T BLINDLY APPROVING THIS AND NOT THAT YOU EVER DID, BUT THAT I TRIED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS IN THE BEGINNING AS TO REALLY A LITTLE BIT HISTORICALLY AS TO HOW MUCH YOU SPEND IS. AND SO AND ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE THAT WE HAD, ONE THAT WENT FROM 50,000 TO 450,000.

NOW WHAT IS THAT EXACT ONE IS 17TH AVE. WHEN WE DID THE PILOT PROGRAM PROGRAM TO PUT THE PUMPS OUT.

AND IN A MOST RECENT CRA MEETING, HE SAID, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THAT FOR RIVER PARK.

SO WE UPPED THAT FROM 50,000 TO 450,000. NOT THAT IT WOULD.

THAT RIVER PARK IS GOING TO TAKE THAT, BUT TO GIVE US CAPACITY NOT ONLY FOR THAT, BUT WE ALSO INDICATED TO YOU THIS IS A PILOT PROGRAM AND IN THE EVENT THAT WE DEEM IT NECESSARY. IN AN EVENT AFTER WE WE DO RIVER PARK TO HAVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WE'VE GOT CAPACITY FOR THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENCUMBER THE FUNDS UNLESS WE NEED THEM.

BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FINANCIAL BACKGROUND IN THOSE ITEMS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK FELIX AND CASEY FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO FELIX. CASEY WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING, AND STAFF IS HERE.

[02:15:05]

IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RELATED TO THEIR VENDORS THAT THEY UTILIZE.

SO THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING CAPTAIN.

MANAGER GARY DID A WONDERFUL JOB EXPLAINING EVERYTHING TO YOU.

SO I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS. DIRECT QUESTIONS I CAN GET GRANULAR ANY WHICH WAY YOU WANT.

SO FIRE AWAY. WELL I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED WHERE THE DETAILS OF THIS.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT INSIGHT TO THE DETAILS ON THESE AFTER WE APPROVE THE BUDGET AND HOW THIS ACTUALLY IS DISTRIBUTED. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT MULCH ON THIS ONE.

THERE'S A MULCH AGREEMENT ON HERE, A PLAYGROUND AGREEMENT.

AND THERE'S ALSO CHRISTMAS LIGHTS.

SORRY, MISTER MERRITT. CAN YOU TELL ME THE MULCH ARE WE DECIDED THAT WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MULCH THIS YEAR? OR IS THAT POLICY? NOT SO THIS IS AUTHORIZING CAPACITY.

SO WE HAVE IT IN THE EVENT. BUT WE HAVE DISCUSSED FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE IT'S A CONSTANT PERPETUAL COST. AND THE TWO, IT ENDS UP IN OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO BRING BACK A POLICY DISCUSSION AS IT RELATES TO RESILIENCY MATTERS AND SAY IN PARKS AND PARKWAYS, ARE WE GOING TO THINK ABOUT OR AUTHORIZE SOMETHING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY? AND YOU'VE SEEN THE PICTURES THAT THAT PUBLIC WORKS IS PROVIDED WHEN THEY SHOW HOW MUCH DEBRIS THEY PICK UP IN OUR STREET SWEEPERS? AND IT'S BASICALLY. 80% OF HOW OF OUR MULCH WE JUST PAID TO PUT OUT SO OR OTHERS.

SO I THINK THAT IS A FAIR DISCUSSION. BUT FROM WE'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE NO MULCH.

AND SO FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE THIS IS JUST AUTHORIZING CAPACITY REGARDLESS OF HOW THAT CONVERSATION GOES.

YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE IT. BUT SINCE I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, I THOUGHT I'D JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS ON ON THAT.

AND I DO LOOK FORWARD TO THAT COMING BACK BECAUSE I POLICIES SOMETIMES I CAN'T FIND THEM I AGREE MA'AM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALSO THE CHRISTMAS LIGHTS. DO WE HAVE CHRISTMAS LIGHTS OTHER THAN FIFTH AVENUE? AND LET ME LET ME JUMP IN REAL QUICK. SO GOT TO REMEMBER WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LIST, THIS IS THE ENTIRE LIST, RIGHT? YES. NOT THE ONE THAT WENT TO THAT. NOT THE ONE YOU PUT FOR COUNCIL.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHRISTMAS LIGHTS, THAT'S THERE BECAUSE IT'S UNDER 50,000.

THERE'S AN OUTSIDE CONTRACT. YES, WE'RE GOING TO ENGAGE.

SO THE LIST THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THE TOTALITY LIST.

THE RESOLUTIONS ONLY HAVE THE ONES THAT ARE OVER $50,000.

SO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BEFORE CHAD ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THAT'S UNDER $50,000. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION IT SHOULD NOT BE ON THERE BECAUSE IT SHOULD ONLY SAY $50,000.

IF I'M CORRECT. LOOKING AT THAT LIST, YOU ARE RIGHT.

CORRECT. NO WORRIES CHAD, SORRY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.

CHAD MERRITT, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR. CURRENTLY THE CHRISTMAS LIGHTS ON FIFTH ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE COVERED WITHIN THIS CONTRACT THAT WE UTILIZE.

WE DON'T PUT CHRISTMAS LIGHTS ON ANY OTHER AREA.

OKAY. WELL, THAT I GUESS THAT WAS ANOTHER POLICY DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, AND I DIDN'T REALIZE I THOUGHT THAT WAS A EXPENSE THAT CAME OUT OF.

WELL, THERE'S TWO THINGS ON THAT. FIRST IS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF AN AUTHORIZED CONTRACT BECAUSE THE CRA WAS PAYING FOR IT AND IT WAS OUT OF THE CRA FUNDS OF WHICH CONTRACTS EITHER YOU WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT AS TO WHETHER CRA OR THEIR CITY, BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETIMES IT'S OVERLAPS AND WE ALREADY HAVE A CONTRACT. SO CRA USES THE EXPENDITURE.

BUT YOU KNOW, SO IN EITHER CASE IT'S GOING TO SHOW FOR THAT REASON.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT THE CRA HAS DONE IS THAT IT DID END UP, IF YOU RECALL, IN THE AUTHORIZED BUDGET WITHIN COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE GENERAL FUND AND SAID THAT THERE HAS TO BE YOU ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP ON THAT CONVERSATION, HOW IT CAME ABOUT HISTORICALLY AND TO HAVE A CONSCIOUS DISCUSSION ON THAT. BUT IRREGARDLESS OF ITS WEATHER, IT WOULD END UP BACK IN THE CR OR THE OTHER.

WE HAVE TO. IT IS AN AGREEMENT THAT'S IN PLACE FOR OUR PURPOSES.

GREAT. THANK YOU. AND I'M SORRY TO GET GRANULAR ON THAT ONE, BUT SINCE I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY SO AS FAR AS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. AS FAR AS THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE JUST SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH DOING BUSINESS. AND I APPRECIATE AGAIN THE THE DETAILS.

[02:20:05]

I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THE LIBRARY BECAUSE WE TEND TO USE THE SAME VENDORS.

ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THAT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES WITH, WITH THE LIBRARY, WHICH WE HAVE MANY LIBRARIES, IF I'M GUESSING WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF, YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THE LIBRARY OF CONSULTANTS THAT DO THE ENGINEERING WORK.

IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE SPEAKING OF? OKAY, GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

WELL, YOU COULD ACTUALLY TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE LIBRARIES.

SO EVERY FIVE YEARS. RIGHT. WE GO OUT TO BID, AND WE CREATE A LIBRARY BASED ON CNA TO GET ALL THE ENGINEERING VENDORS, AND WE RANK THEM, AND WE SELECT A LIBRARY THAT ENCOMPASSES ALL DISCIPLINES UNDER ONE LIBRARY.

THAT ABILITY GIVES YOU MANY CAPABILITIES. NUMBER ONE, IF YOU NEED SOMETHING VERY QUICK, YOU HAVE A LIBRARY OF VENDORS THAT YOU CAN GO IMMEDIATELY. GO ASK BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE OR YOU'RE NEGOTIATING IS A TASK ORDER TRYING TO GET IT IN PLACE.

TWO THAT LIBRARY, JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE ALL THOSE VENDORS THE DEPARTMENT STILL GOES, SENDS A LETTER OF INTEREST AND RANKS THEM JUST LIKE WE RANKED THEM AT THE BEGINNING TO SEE WHICH IS THE BEST ONE TO PROVIDE US THE SERVICE THAT WE NEED. SO YOU STILL THAT LIBRARY IS GIVING YOU THE THE ABILITY TO STILL TRY TO GET WHICH IS THE BEST VENDOR RIGHT NOW.

THAT LIBRARY IS CONTINGENT ON WHAT IF YOU IF YOUR PROJECT IS MORE THAN, I BELIEVE, $7.5 MILLION IN TOTALITY.

YOU CANNOT USE THE LIBRARY AS CAP. YOU HAVE TO GO OUT TO MARKET.

MEANING THAT WE HAVE TO GET IT OUT RIGHT. SO MEANING THAT, LIKE YOU SAW THE ONE FOR EIGHTH STREET SOUTH.

WE HAVE TO BID THAT PROJECT OUT. WHY? BECAUSE THAT WAS MORE THAN THAT TOTAL AMOUNT.

SO WE HAD TO BE THE ENGINEER. AND THE ENGINEER WENT OUT.

WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY THAT IF WE CHOOSE TO BID IT OUT, WHICH YOU ELECTED TO DO IN A COUPLE OF THEM, I BELIEVE, AND THE ONE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHATEVER WE WE COULD HAVE GONE INTERNAL, BUT WE STILL WENT OUT, RIGHT. SO YOU STILL HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DO THAT? YOU KNOW, THE CITY MANAGER CAN DIRECT ME TO SAY NO. YOU WANT TO BID THIS OUT? WE CAN BID THIS OUT. THE LIBRARY GIVES YOU THE CAPACITY TO DO EVERYTHING A LOT FASTER INTERNALLY.

YOU ALREADY VETTED THESE VENDORS. YOU CAN DO THAT.

JUST LIKE THE FIRE STATION. WE HAVE TO BID THAT OUT.

WE BID THAT ENGINEERING WORK OUT. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN THE 7.5.

AND THAT'S STATE STATUTE THAT WE ARE FORCED TO DO THAT.

WE CANNOT DO IT WITHIN THE LIBRARY BECAUSE IT'S PAST CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT.

GOTTA REMEMBER IT'S THE THAT CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT. THANK YOU.

CAN I MAKE SENSE OF THAT? NO WORRIES, MA'AM, GO AHEAD. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE FIVE YEARS THE LIBRARY IS SET TO BE? IT'S 20. WE START IN 2024. SHOULD BE 2028. OKAY.

RIGHT. SO NOW LET ME ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS TO THE LIBRARY. RIGHT. A LOT OF ENGINEERS COME IN AND SAY CAN I JOIN THE LIBRARY.

THE LIBRARY IS CLOSED. WE CANNOT ADD ANY MORE VENDORS IN.

I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THAT SO YOU CAN ADD ANY VENDORS IN. RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT'S CAPPED, THAT'S WHAT IT IS. SO THE ONLY TIME TO ADD ANY VENDORS IS ON WHEN IT EXPIRES, RIGHT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE 1 IN 19 THAT WE DID IN 24 WHEN WE DUE TO DIFFERENT CONFERENCES AND DIFFERENT TRADE SHOWS, WE GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CAN WE JOIN? AND QUITE, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THE CONFERENCE THAT SAID, YOU CAN'T JOIN, COME IN IN 24 AND BID ON IT. THEY DID, AND SOME OF THEM DID JOIN OUR LIBRARY, BUT WE CANNOT ADD IT TO THE LIBRARY TO ASK THEM TO DO WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN LIBRARY.

THANK YOU. NO WORRIES. AND THEN, MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO.

HE HAD REFERENCED ABOUT PUTTING UP LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM THE LIBRARY.

BUT GETTING BACK TO THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, EVEN TO THE REQUISITION LEVEL, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO FILL SUPPLIES IN THE WAREHOUSE OF PIPE AND THIS AND THAT OR THE OTHER, THE REQUISITIONS TO REPLENISH HAVE TWO QUOTES FROM THESE PREEXISTING TO TRY TO CAPITALIZE AND GET THE BEST PRICE.

THERE ARE SOME AND SOMETIMES IT'S A MIXED BAG.

HALF THEIR ITEMS. ONE COMES IN CHEAP. YOU MAY HAVE TEN ITEMS ON THAT REQUEST TO FILL THE WAREHOUSE ORDER.

SOME WILL COME IN CHEAPER, SOME WILL COME IN MORE EXPENSIVE.

AND YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF SPLITTING. OR IS THE JUICE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WORTH THE SQUEEZE ON IT? BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS GETTING BOTH QUOTES THAT COME INTO THE REQUISITION, EXCUSE ME.

AND AND AND ARE PLACED INTO THE MUNIS SYSTEM.

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THIS LIST, THEY'RE LEVERAGED AGAINST EACH OTHER ON AN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

YEAH. JUST TO ADD TO THAT, SO YOU WERE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY YOU SEE THE DIFFERENT COLOR CODES.

ALL RIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE THREE FOUR VENDORS FOR IT.

RIGHT. SO INTERNALLY THEY'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND SAY WHO IS GIVING YOU THE BEST PRICE AND THIS AND THIS OUTSIDE CONTRACT TO BUY X ITEM.

RIGHT. SO INTERNALLY THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING LEVERAGING THOSE CONTRACTS.

THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THOSE NUMBERS. AND AS GARY EXPLAINED JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE A MILLION HERE TWO 200,000 200,000 THERE, IF YOU SPEND 200,000 ON THIS VENDOR, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SPENT SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE SPENDING.

BUT YOU CAPACITY WISE, YOU OPEN IT UP TO ALL THESE VENDORS SO THAT YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND CHOOSE AND PICK WHICH ONE IS GIVING YOU THE BEST MONEY.

AND YOU JUST ASKING FOR CAPACITY, RIGHT. SO BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUY, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO PICK THE BEST VENDOR.

[02:25:01]

BUT YOU YOU HAVE TO HAVE CAPACITY ACROSS THE BOARD SO THAT WE DON'T COME BACK HERE TO TELL YOU WE ARE SHORT.

SO WE HAVE TO DO A, YOU KNOW, A RESOLUTION JUST TO ASK FOR AN EXTRA $50,000 TO COVER AN ITEM THAT WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY SO THAT THAT'S WHY WE IT'S A CONSTANT MEETING. THIS STARTED IN JULY AND CONSTANTLY THIS IS BEING DONE THROUGH THE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

RIGHT. SO WE CONSTANTLY WE CONSTANTLY ARE DOING OUTSIDE CONTRACTS.

YOU SEE THE LIST NOW BECAUSE THIS IS THE BIG LIST.

BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING UNDER $50,000 WE'RE STILL DOING OUTSIDE CONTRACT.

WE'RE STILL PIGGYBACKING. RIGHT. THIS IS THIS IS ONGOING.

THIS DOESN'T STOP CONSTANTLY. NOW IF SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT WE NEED TO GO OVER 50, THEN WE HAVE TO COME AS A SINGLE ITEM.

THEN WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT. SO YOU JUST GOT TO REMEMBER YOU SEE THIS TODAY.

BUT IN THE BACKGROUND IT'S THIS IS CONSTANTLY EVERY DAY.

AND IF YOU AND IF YOU SEE THIS LIST, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ITEMS 99% CHANCE HAS AN OUTSIDE CONTRACT GETS CREATED THROUGH LEGAL THROUGH US TO THE VENDOR BACK TO US GET EXECUTED. THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS IN THERE TO GET THIS DONE, AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T MOVE AS FAST BECAUSE THE WAY THE CITY THE CITY ATTORNEY CAME UP WITH NOW A LOT OF THESE VENDORS HAVE TO SIGN THESE PIGGYBACK CONTRACTS JUST BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT WITH AN ENTITY.

THEY'RE STILL SIGNING OURS. HOURS AND A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT USED TO THAT STUFF.

SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT IT DOES TAKE. SOMETIMES IT'S NOT AS FAST AS YOU THINK BECAUSE THE VENDOR HAS TO SIGN, AND THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS WITH IDENTIFICATION AND SOME OTHER ITEMS ACROSS THERE THAT WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, MASSAGE IN BETWEEN THE LEGAL OF EACH ENTITY.

OKAY. SORRY, I WILL I HAVE A FEW MORE, BUT I'LL LET YOU OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS OR COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? NO. PETRANOFF THANK YOU. WHEN YOU ORDER THESE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, HOW DO YOU MANAGE THE INVENTORY OF THESE TO, YOU KNOW, THE TO THE GOODS AND TO ENSURE THAT YOU'VE GOT THE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT YOU AUTHORIZED IN THESE LIBRARIES? IT'S ALL THROUGH THE PURCHASE ORDER. SO THE DEPARTMENT PUTS IN THE PURCHASE ORDER AND THAT'S HOW IT GETS MANAGED.

THEY GOT THE PURCHASE ORDER, WHATEVER THEY RECEIVE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO INVOICE FOR? CAN YOU GO IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THAT? FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ORDERED TEN COMPUTERS, RIGHT? THEY PUT IN THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR TEN COMPUTERS. THE SHORT END BASICALLY IS THERE'S $300,000 IN THAT CAPACITY VENDOR TO ORDER COMPUTERS.

RIGHT. THAT IS IN MUNICH. IT'S TELLING YOU THAT'S MAX CAPACITY.

IT'S ALREADY TIED INTO WHEN THEY COME BACK IN AND THEY'RE ASKING THE TEN COMPUTERS WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE. YES. YOU HAVE CAPACITY. IT'S A VALID CONTRACT.

YES. THE CODE HAS THE CONTRACT NUMBER ON IT. ALL THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING.

THAT'S PART OF YOUR ASSET INVENTORY. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROCESS. CRADLE TO GRAVE, RIGHT? STARTS FROM HERE, GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND. THEN IT GETS TO US, AND THEN WE GO. YES, ALL THESE THINGS ARE MET.

WE ORDER IT, THE VENDOR SENDS THEM THE INVOICES.

SO IF THEY GOT FIVE OUT OF THE FIVE OUT OF THE TEN, THEY INVOICE FOR FIVE.

THERE'S THE INVENTORY. IT'S ALL AT THE USER END.

THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE INVENTORY WHAT'S COMING IN AND WHAT'S COMING OUT. SO IF YOU HAVE A, FOR EXAMPLE, A P CARD, WHICH IS ANOTHER METHOD OF PURCHASING BESIDES POS.

POST. HOW DO YOU MANAGE THAT? IF YOU'RE ORDERING A COMPUTER, YOU COULD ORDER IT TWO WAYS, CORRECT? OR IS THAT OR IS IT PRODUCT SPECIFIC THAT ARE ORDERED THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE VALID FOR PURCHASE CARDS AND THEN OTHER A SET OF ITEMS THAT ARE JUST FOR POS OR IS IT THE DOLLAR THRESHOLD? SO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, FELIX, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU? GO AHEAD, SIR, I JUST WANT TO WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE DONE, THEN I'D LIKE TO BECAUSE THE INVENTORY IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN FALLS UNDER FELIX. OKAY. SO HE'S GOING TO TALK ON THE ONE BECAUSE THERE'S OVERLAP BETWEEN WAREHOUSE AND THEN FIXED ASSETS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.

IN THE MEANTIME HIM HIS MONITORING BETWEEN WHETHER IT'S A PO OR A P CARD AND BY VENDOR I WANT HIM TO FINISH THAT.

BUT HE WASN'T GETTING TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION AND I WANTED TO GET AN ANSWER ON THAT.

SO THERE'S MANY INTERNAL WAYS OF DOING THIS RIGHT.

SO MOST OF THE TIME, WHAT WE TRY TO DO WHEN WE'RE USING THE P CARD, WE OPEN A PURCHASE ORDER AND THEN WE USE THE PICARD KIND OF.

I CAN GET A LITTLE MORE GRANULAR ON THAT, BUT USUALLY WE ARE OPENING A PURCHASE ORDER, AND THEN WE CAN USE THE PICARD.

NOT ON ALL OF THEM, NOT ON THE SMALL PURCHASES AND ALL THE BIG ONES.

RIGHT. GOT IT. AND THERE'S A THRESHOLD. YOU SAID ON THE SMALL PURCHASES WE DON'T.

IS THERE A THRESHOLD? BECAUSE I'M STILL CALCULATING ANYTHING ON THE PICARD THAT'S ON THE CONTRACT SIDE. WE'RE STILL ADDING IT TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT ON THE CONTRACT SIDE. SO.

OKAY, SO LET ME TRY TO BRIDGE THE GAP. OKAY? SO.

SO WHAT FELIX IS SAYING IS IF YOU GO TO TO A VENDOR AND YOU BUY BY PO OR BY PICARD, THAT'S GOING TO GET AGGREGATED FOR HIS PURPOSES TO FLAG THAT.

ARE THEY ABOVE 50 AND DO THEY NEED TO BE DISCLOSED HERE? OKAY. SO AND THE OTHER PART OF IT IS INVENTORIES AND AND AND WHAT I WILL SAY TO YOU IS IT VARIES BY DIVISION IN THE

[02:30:02]

SENSE IS SOME ARE SMALLER, SOME ARE NOT. BUT THERE'S ALSO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT PERFORMS WHAT YOU CALL WHERE THEY'VE KEPT CONSUMABLES HISTORICALLY.

NOW THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSUMABLE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT.

BUT LET ME JUST DIFFERENTIATE FOR A MOMENT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I REFERENCED THE WATER WAREHOUSE, THE WATER WAREHOUSE IS AUDITED EVERY YEAR GOING THROUGH AND AND AN INVENTORY COUNT AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

THAT IS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER WAREHOUSE. OKAY.

IN ADDITION, AND A FINANCE PERSON ACCOMPANIED BY THE AUDITOR GOES THERE ON 930 OR 10 ONE WE BLOCK OUT, SAY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ANYTHING FROM THE WAREHOUSE FOR THE LAST THREE DAYS LEADING UP TO IT.

AND I'M GOING TO GET TO WHAT I KNOW YOU'RE AFTER HERE IN A MINUTE.

SO THEN YOU GO IN AND DO A COUNT ON NINE, 30 OR 10, ONE FIRST PRACTICAL DAY AFTER.

IF IT'S ON A WEEKEND AND WE SEND SOMEBODY FROM FINANCE OVER TO GO THROUGH THOSE LEDGERS, WE DO THE SAME THING AT THE DOCK BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONSUMABLE, THE TENNIS CENTER. THOSE. THOSE ARE THE THREE MOST PREVALENT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

NOW, YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A CONSUMABLE, AND YOU SAY A DEPARTMENT THAT MAY HAVE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF CONSUMABLE, BUT THEY HAVE A LOT OF EQUIPMENT, RIGHT? AND EQUIPMENT IS IS ACTUALLY IT'S IN THE COMP PLAN AND GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA UP UNTIL TWO YEARS AGO.

IT SAYS EQUIPMENT THAT IS LESS THAN $5,000 IS NOT INVENTORY.

IT'S NEITHER INVENTORIED NOR CAPITALIZED. AND THERE'S IN LIES A VULNERABILITY FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT CAPITALIZING IT AND YOU'RE NOT.

AND BY PUTTING IT AND DOING THE AUDIT PER SE, YOU'RE ALWAYS AUDITING INVOICES.

BUT SOMETIMES, AGAIN, IN THE VAGUENESS OF THE DESCRIPTION IN THEM MAKES IT DIFFICULT.

AND THAT'S WHAT FELIX WAS REFERRING TO. IT'S BACK AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL TO APPROVE WHAT WAS COMING IN.

COMING OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT IN A PERPETUAL INVENTORY ON EQUIPMENT BETWEEN ZERO AND A AND A THOUSAND.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW. YOU KNEW THAT.

AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE IT'S BEEN THAT WAY, LIKE I SAID, FOR PROBABLY TEN YEARS NOW.

THE DIFFERENCE BEING IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED, I THINK TWO YEARS AGO AND SAID, WELL, YOU CAN FOR REPORTING PURPOSES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT ANYMORE IF IT'S LESS THAN 5000.

WELL, AS A CITY THIS SIZE, THAT'S TOO MUCH. SO WE STILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE THAT WAY.

SO SO AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER IS THERE ARE DEPARTMENTS THAT I THINK NOW WHEN WE WENT AND CHANGED STORMWATER, FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE, WE STARTED TO PUT IN THE CHECK VALVES, THERE WAS AT THE, THERE WAS CHECK VALVES AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAT WARRANTED A COUNT AND A INVENTORY.

THE QUESTION WILL BE, AND IN MY OPINION, IT PROBABLY DOES WARRANT IS A PERPETUAL INVENTORY FOR STORM WATER AS WELL.

BUT THAT'S I GUESS THAT'S THE BEST EXPLANATION I CAN GIVE YOU AS TO WHERE THE DELINEATION IS ON THAT, BECAUSE IT IS COST SPECIFIC IN THAT REGARD. OKAY.

SO MY FINAL QUESTION IS IF YOU HAVE AN ACCRUAL IN A CERTAIN PURCHASE THAT YOU DIDN'T MAKE IN THAT FISCAL YEAR, AND DOES IT ROLL OVER AND IS ADDITIVE TO THE CAPACITY HERE? NO, IT ACTUALLY HAS TO BE ENCUMBERED IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND IS PART.

SO WHEN I SAID 1,000,006 AND POS, THOSE COULD BE POS THAT SAY WHEN I NEED TO GO GET SOMETHING, I GOT TO PEEL ON FILE WITH THEM. BUT IF I DON'T GET AN INVOICE WITHIN THE ACCRUAL PERIOD OF 60 DAYS, THE PO CLOSES AND REVERTS TO FUND. OKAY. THAT'S THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTION ON THAT.

SO AGAIN THE MAXIMUM YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IS NINE THE NINE HIGHER NUMBER.

I'M SAYING THE 1.6 IS STILL ENCUMBERED. THAT WILL BE BAKED OUT OF THE NEXT 60 DAYS DURING THE ACCRUAL PERIOD, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE FLOAT TIME FOR INVOICES TO GET BACK.

SO. OKAY, MA'AM. AND ONE MORE THING I WANT TO ADD WITH THIS BIG LIST.

RIGHT. SO YOU SEE A LOT OF THESE NUMBERS I SAID 50.

SO THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WE MIGHT NEED TO COME FOR YOU TO CAPACITY MORE.

SO YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT. SO WHEN YOU SEE SINGULAR ITEMS THAT COME BACK TO COUNCIL, IT'S BECAUSE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THIS CARRIES AUTHORITY.

IT CAN GO UP TO 50. IF FOR SOME REASON WE NEED MORE, THAT YOU WILL SEE SINGLE ITEMS THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER NEEDS TO COME BECAUSE IT'S GOING PAST THE THRESHOLD. SO IT'S ALL OF THESE STRUCTURES ARE IN THERE RIGHT THAT WE MONITORING THIS.

SO GO AHEAD. YEAH. AND I THINK I POINTED THIS OUT TO A COUPLE MEMBERS.

BUT THE MERCY DEWATERING IS THE ONE I REFERENCED.

THERE WAS NO DEWATERING AT PRIOR TO WHEN WE INITIATED THE 17TH AVE.

WHEN WE DID THAT, THAT WAS STAYING NIMBLE. TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, I HAD IT WITHIN MY UNDER 50,

[02:35:01]

50 OR UNDER. AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT ONE IS 50 THIS YEAR, BECAUSE WE STARTED THE PILOT PROGRAM AND NEGOTIATED THE TEMPORARY EASEMENTS.

AND THEN IN THE NEXT YEAR, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO RIVER PARK AND HAVE CAPACITY, THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT AS 450, JUST GIVING YOU A LITTLE FLAVOR OF WHAT THAT WAS.

OKAY. BUT THAT'S WHAT'S FELIX TALKING ABOUT. IT CAN COME UP TOMORROW AND WE WANT TO BE NIMBLE ENOUGH.

IT'S UNDER THE 50 FOR ME TO CONTINUE TO SAY, OKAY, YEAH, THAT'S A WORTHWHILE THING.

BUT IF IT MAKES IT OVER AND WHEN YOU ADDED THE POTENTIAL TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, WE WANT TO DISCLOSE IT HERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE POSITIONING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU ASK, WHICH IS TO INCLUDE RIVER PARK. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT AS A FLAVOR OF WHAT HE JUST SAID. OKAY. SO THAT IS SO IN, IN THAT EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE ON ADDING CAPACITY TO RIVER PARK TO HANDLE THE, YOU KNOW, FOR PUMPS, PUMPS, ETCETERA. THAT IS A DIFFERENT BUCKET THAN THE KIMLEY-HORN REPORT THAT WE GOT WHERE IT DOESN'T. DOESN'T REALLY. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT WAS US TRYING TO DO TEMPORARY THINGS THAT IT IS NOT.

REMEMBER, THOSE ARE TEMPORARY EASEMENTS TO TO IF IT STARTS TO HAVE STANDING WATER TO PUMP IT OFF IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

IT'S NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ITSELF.

THAT WAS THE MONEY WE THAT THAT THE CRA INDICATED DURING THE CRA MEETING.

THEY INDICATED THEY WANT US TO YOU WANTED US TO DO.

OKAY. SO THAT'S ON THE CRA. SO THAT'S OUT OF THE OPERATING BUDGET, NOT THE CIP.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME MA'AM.

OKAY. VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. FELIX. HAVING YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT OF HOW OUR PURCHASING PROGRAM WORKS IS CERTAINLY HELPFUL. MY QUESTION IS THIS IN THE SYSTEM, WHEN WE KNOW THAT WE NEED THINGS, STUFF TO MAINTAIN THE CITY AND THE PROGRAMS THAT WE OFFER ON THE PURCHASING SIDE, ARE YOU LINKED IN AT ALL WITH A PERPETUAL INVENTORY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

FOR INSTANCE, WHEN A NEED COMES FORWARD FOR TEN COMPUTERS, DO WE HAVE A PERPETUAL INVENTORY THAT SAYS, HEY, YOU GOT NINE COMPUTERS THAT ARE STILL IN THE SYSTEM? DO WE COMPARE WHAT WE HAVE VERSUS WHAT WE'RE ORDERING? YOU WANT I CAN TAKE IT, SO I. WHAT I MEAN BY PURCHASING THERE'S NOT THERE NOW WHAT WHAT I CAN SEE.

WHAT I CAN SEE AS I'M LOOKING AT IT I'M LOOKING AT THERE'S THE VENDOR WE HAVE BOUGHT TEN 2015 BECAUSE I CAN I CAN QUERY.

SO THERE'S AN INTERNAL CHECK IN THAT YOU'RE SAYING HEY THIS IS HERE.

DO YOU STILL NEED THAT. SO THERE'S INTERNAL QUESTIONS BEING ASKED.

EVERY REQUISITION IS CHECKED. IT IS A WORKFLOW IN THERE.

AND IT CAN COME TO ME AND I MIGHT ASK THE QUESTION IT CAN COME TO GARY CAN GO TO FINANCE.

SO THERE'S INTERNAL CHECKS AND BALANCES. AND GARY CAN CAN ADD TO THAT TO TO CHECK THIS.

RIGHT. THERE'S NOT A YOU KNOW THE WORD YOU'RE USING PERPETUAL.

THERE'S NOT SUCH A THING AS A PERPETUAL THING. BUT WHAT I THINK YOU'RE DRIVING AT IS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MONITORING THE SPEND.

I SAY, YES, GARY CAN OPINE. HE'S RIGHT THERE.

YEAH. SO WE DO. BUT IT ISN'T UNIVERSALLY USED THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENTS.

AND EVEN MOST RECENTLY, WE JUST PURCHASED SEPARATE SOFTWARE FOR THE EQUIPMENT SERVICES SYSTEM TO HAVE IT MORE LIKE AN AUTOMOBILE SOFTWARE TO ENSURE THAT PERPETUAL MUNIS ITSELF, OUR ERP SYSTEM HAS IT AND A WORK ORDER THAT THE EQUIPMENT SERVICES THEY OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR AUTO MECHANICS.

AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND BOUGHT THE OTHER, AS I REFERRED TO THE CITY WAREHOUSE ONE FOR THE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER.

THEY USE THE IMMUNE SYSTEM AND TICKETS COME IN, TICKETS COME OUT, PERPETUAL INVENTORY.

BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY MISPERCEPTION.

IT IS QUANTIFIED. IT'S AN ONGOING BASIS, BUT IT'S ONLY QUANTIFIED WITH A COUNT.

ONE TIME A YEAR AS OF 930. SO THAT'S THAT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE TENNIS CENTER, I BELIEVE THEY THEY DO THEY AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY USE MUNIS. I BELIEVE THEY USE EXCEL AND JUST IN OUT QUANTITIES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT MANY THINGS.

SO I WANTED TO BE THEY EXIST IN TWO DIFFERENT CAPACITIES, IN TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. THE MOST WIDELY USED IS THE EQUIPMENT SERVICES FOR THE AUTOMOTIVE AND THE TICKETS, AND THEN THE UTILITIES USES MUNIS AND EVERY FACET OF IT FOR THE WATER, STORMWATER PARKING TICKETS. AND THAT IS WHAT COMES INTO BECAUSE WHEN YOU BUY IT NOW FROM WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO THE WAREHOUSE REPLENISHMENT, YOU DON'T EXPENSE IT FROM AN ACTUAL BUDGET, YOU EXPENSE IT FROM AN INVENTORY LINE, BECAUSE THEN IT HAS AN INVENTORY VALUE THAT EVENTUALLY ENDS UP ON YOUR FINANCIAL AS A PREPAID OR HELD INVENTORY, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T REALLY SPEND IT YET.

AND IN ORDER TO GET TO YOUR TRUE SPEND. THEN AS YOU WOULD DRAW A TICKET OUT OF THE INVENTORY, IT NOW EXPENSES IT IN THE LINE ITEM. SO I JUST WANTED SO BUT DOES THAT NEED TO BE INCREASED ACROSS ALL OF PUBLIC WORKS?

[02:40:08]

I THINK IT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO DO.

BUT BUT AND THE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF IT. BUT WE DON'T USE IT FOR EVERYTHING JUST YET.

NOW WE HAVE INCREASED SINCE WE COMBINED THE, THE OPERATIONS SIDE OF THE CLEANING OF PIPES AND VARIOUS OTHER THINGS.

THERE'S A MORE ORCHESTRATED WORK ORDER SYSTEM BEING UTILIZED IN THE LAST 15 MONTHS THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S HOW WE THEY RESTRUCTURED AND HOW THEY'RE GOING OUT AND DOING WORK ORDERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THANK YOU. AND FOR THE COUNCIL I THINK ABOUT SIX YEARS AGO I MADE THIS STATEMENT.

BUT WHEN WE START LOOKING AT HOW OUR ARE SITTING.

WE'VE GOT PROFESSIONALS, RIGHT? THESE GUYS AND GIRLS, THEY REALLY HAVE A CAPACITY FOR DRILLING DOWN AND FINDING THINGS.

BUT I'M GOING TO SHARE ONE QUICK STORY. I WAS WITH A COMPANY THAT USED A LOT OF COMMERCIAL TIRES.

RIGHT. SO WE USE A LOT OF COMMERCIAL TIRES IN THE CITY.

AND THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL KEPT PURCHASING TIRES AND WOULD TAKE THE USED TIRES THAT WEREN'T REALLY AT THE AT THE POINT THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, WOULD SELL THE USED TIRES PERSONALLY AND THEN HAVE BACKFILLED WITH BRAND NEW TIRES.

AND IT WAS JUST A MONEY MAKING MACHINE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.

SO IT'S THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT I'M ASKING.

I'M PROBING JUST TO SEE WHEN I SAY PERPETUAL INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, THERE'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH TRYING TO DISCOVER JUST HOW IN TUNE WE ARE IN WITH WHAT'S GOING OUT AND WHAT'S COMING IN.

OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FELIX. THANK YOU. MICHEL.

BUT. AND THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE. AND I'M NOT GOING TO.

THAT'S WHY I SAID, DO WE NEED TO ROLL THE PERPETUAL INVENTORY OUT IN THE WORK ORDER INTO ALL DIVISIONS? BECAUSE THERE ARE THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES. WE YOU KNOW, WE WE ALREADY HAVE A KNOWN ISSUE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT EVENTUALLY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

BUT THE POINT IS, IS WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE MIGRATING AND GETTING THOSE THINGS EXPANDED AND BEING USED WHERE THE DEFICIENCIES EXISTED.

BUT I, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I SAT HERE AND DIDN'T TELL YOU.

AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE EQUIPMENT. ONE EQUIPMENT SPECIFIC BETWEEN 0 AND $1000 PER TRANSACTION DOESN'T CAPITALIZE.

IT DOESN'T INVENTORY CONTROL IT. AND IT'S IN THIS, THIS GRAY AREA.

SO THAT'S WHERE IT FALLS ON HOW MUCH DO YOU BUY? THERE'S A REASONABLENESS TEST THAT HAS TO BE MONITORED IN THOSE AREAS AS WELL.

AND THAT IS THAT'S THE IN THE IN THE FOCUS HAS TO BE THE IMPORTANCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL AND WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE AND, AND MONITORING FROM ABOVE.

BUT IT ALSO HAS TO BE THAT THAT HAS TO BE THE FOCUS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMENTS. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO, MADAM MAYOR, ON THIS MOTION, AS WE GO THROUGH ITEM 13 D AND THERE'S FOUR SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS IN HERE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ON THIS? WE NEED FOUR SEPARATE MOTIONS BECAUSE THEY ALL DO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE FOUR SEPARATE MOTIONS.

IS IT WOULD IT SUFFICE JUST TO SAY APPROVE OR WHATEVER THE MOTION WOULD BE ON ITEM 13 D ITEM ONE, OR A LITTLE MORE INTO ITEM ONE. THAT'S FINE, BECAUSE IF YOU'VE NOTICED, A LOT OF THESE TITLES ARE ESPECIALLY ONE AND TWO ARE VERY SIMILAR. BUT FOR THE END, WHICH INCLUDES AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS, AND THEN THREE AND FOUR ARE SIMILAR TITLES AGAIN, BUT FOR THE END, THAT INCLUDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS.

SO I THINK THE RECORD HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHAT THE INTENT OF COUNCIL IS.

SO YOU CAN JUST SAY ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. OKAY, MADAM MAYOR, IF YOU'RE PREPARED, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU. I MOVE APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 13, ITEM ONE.

SECOND MOTION BY VICE MAYOR. SECOND ONE AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER.

BURTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. NO.

COUNCILMAN COUNCIL MEMBER PENNIMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. YES. MAYOR HEITMAN. YES.

IT PASSES 5 TO 1. MADAM MAYOR MAKE ANOTHER MOTION IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.

NOW, ON AGENDA ITEM 13. ITEM NUMBER TWO, I MOVE APPROVAL SECOND.

[02:45:07]

I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCILMEMBER CHRISTMAS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENNYMAN IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES.

MAYOR. HEITMANN. YES. PASSES 5 TO 1, MOVING THREE.

LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT THE FLOOR. OKAY. ON AGENDA ITEM 13 D, I MOVE APPROVAL FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OR BY VICE MAYOR.

AND I HAVE A SECOND BY BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER OF.

NO. MAYOR. HEITMAN. YES. PASSES 5 TO 1. BOARD.

MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL FOR AGENDA ITEM 13 D ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER. I MEAN BY VICE MAYOR.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENMAN IS ABSENT. AND. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU.

PASSES 5 TO 1. OKAY WITH THAT? THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU. MR.. GOMEZ. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THAT IT'S 1130. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 13 E, MR.

[13.E) A Resolution Determining Petition PRMR2504987 to Approve Filling of a Lake on Private Property Located at 2200 Gordon Drive Owned by 2200 Gordon Drive Land Trust; Requiring the Petitioner to Cap and Abandon the Well on the Property and Upgrade the Property to the Current Stormwater Codes; and Providing an Effective Date.]

[13.F) A Resolution Determining Petition PRMR2505505 to Approve Filling of a Lake on Private Property Located at 2340 Gordon Drive Owned by 2200 Gordon Drive Land Trust; Requiring the Petitioner to Cap and Abandon the Well on the Property and Upgrade the Property to the Current Stormwater Codes; and Providing an Effective Date.]

MCCONNELL. YES, MAYOR. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE PRESENTATION FOR BOTH 13 E AND 13 F AS THEY HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE, AND IT'S A SIMILAR PROPERTY OWNER.

MISS PASSIDOMO, IS THERE ONE PRESENTATION FOR E AND F? OKAY, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM. SO IF I MAY READ THEM BOTH AND THEN JUST HAVE SEPARATE MOTIONS AT THE END BECAUSE THIS IS TECHNICALLY QUASI-JUDICIAL.

THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. OKAY. RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION PR 2504987 TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE, OWNED BY 2200 GORDON DRIVE LAND TRUST.

REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO CAP AND ABANDON THE WELL ON THE PROPERTY AND UPGRADE THE PROPERTY TO THE CURRENT STORMWATER CODES AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

AND THEN 13 F A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION P RMR 2505505 TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2340 GORDON DRIVE, OWNED BY 2200 GORDON DRIVE LAND TRUST, REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO CAP AND ABANDON THE WELL ON THE PROPERTY AND UPGRADE THE PROPERTY TO THE CURRENT STORMWATER CODES AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

MADAM CLERK, AGAIN, FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? COUNCIL MEMBER BRUNTON DISCLOSURES.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF. CUSHMAN.

I KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY IS, THOUGH. I'VE NEVER VISITED THE PROPERTY.

I'VE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF. I'VE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PETITIONER OR THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVES.

KRAMER I'VE ONLY LOOKED AT WHAT'S IN THE PACKET.

PETRANOFF ONLY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HAS BEEN IN THE PACKET.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE NO CONTACT. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND NO CONTACT.

PETITIONER'S AGENT, MISS PASSIDOMO.

WHILE OUR PRESENTATION IS LOADING, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COMMENCE OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE PRESENTATION IS LOADED?

[02:50:02]

OH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE UPLOADED ALREADY. OR WAS THAT A NEW PRESENTATION? NO, NO, IT'S IT'S BEEN WITH STAFF FOR SOME TIME, I THINK.

MAYBE MR. FREILICH IS LOOKING FOR THE PRESENTATION.

YEAH, JUST GIVE HIM A SECOND. OKAY. WAS THIS A POWERPOINT SUBMITTED WITHIN? YES. YEAH. NOW.

DAVID IS WORKING ON IT. APOLOGIZE.

TO ADAM CIVICORP PRESENTATION. TESTS TO. CHECK YOUR EMAILS, DAVE.

I MAY HAVE. I JUST SENT ANOTHER COPY OF IT.

SORRY. APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING UP YOUR TIME, GUYS.

PLEASE. PLEASE LET HIM BE THERE.

I UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NOT.

OH MY GOSH. JUST FREAKING DO WHAT I'M TELLING YOU TO DO.

CAN YOU SEND IT TO HIM AGAIN? I GOT IT, I'VE SENT IT TWICE TO HIM.

IT'S NOT COMING THROUGH. DO YOU HAVE IT? YOU CAN SEND IT TO DAVID FREILICH.

I HAVE A HARD COPY. I HAVE IT HERE. I CAN GO UP TO MR. FREILICH AND SEE IF HE CAN DOWNLOAD FROM MY IPAD.

HE SHOULD. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST FORWARD THIS.

MADAM MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK.

I CAN ALSO COMMENT IF IT'S IF IT'S EASIER FOR COUNCIL.

IT'S REALLY. YOUR ELECTION IS SUBMITTED. OVER A WEEK AGO, WELL OVER A WEEK AGO.

I THINK TECHNOLOGY. OH, THE MICROPHONES OFF, MISS PASTOR, IF YOU COULD START AGAIN.

SORRY. IT'S YOUR ELECTION. HOW YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED.

THE PRESENTATION WAS SUBMITTED WELL OVER A WEEK AGO. I THINK THIS IS MERELY A TECHNOLOGY ISSUE.

IF YOU'D LIKE US TO PROCEED WHILE THE TECHNOLOGY, WE'LL JUST TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AS THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

WE'RE BACK. AND CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 13 E, IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. MY MAYOR HEITMANN 13 E AND F. GOOD MORNING, MISS HEITMANN.

VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO AND MY FIRM COLEMAN, YOVANOVITCH AND CASTRO REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY OWNER, KEVIN G. COLEMAN, TRUSTEE, OF THE 2200 GORDON DRIVE LAND TRUST.

IN THIS PETITION TO FILL TWO PONDS LOCATED SOLELY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ZONED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN. WITH ME TODAY IS TIM HALL OF TERRELL HALL AND ASSOCIATES AND BLAIR FOLEY, P.E., OF BLAIR, A FOLEY, P.E., WHO WILL EACH OFFER PROFESSIONAL TESTIMONY ADDRESSING THE CRITERIA FOR THE SUBJECT FILL PERMITS. I WILL ALSO NOTE STAFF PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS IN THEIR AGENDA MEMORANDUM DETERMINED THE

[02:55:09]

PETITION SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR THE SUBJECT FILL PERMITS.

BY WAY OF ORIENTATION, THESE ARE RELATIVELY UNIQUE PIECES OF PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS IS THE ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT. WHICH ARE THE LARGEST PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF NAPLES.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PLATTED FOR NEARLY OVER A CENTURY.

IT'S COMPRISED OF OVER FIVE AND A HALF LOTS, 11.5 ACRES AND TWO PARCELS OF LAND.

THE THE POND, EXCUSE ME, WERE DREDGED THROUGH PROPER PERMITS BETWEEN THE 1950S AND 1980S AS ESTHETIC FEATURES.

THE FONTS ARE. PONDS ARE FED BY ARTESIAN WELLS WHICH CREATE AN ARTIFICIAL AQUIFER TAPPED THROUGH GROUNDWATER SUPPLY.

THE CRITERIA FOR THESE PERMITS, WHICH ARE IN THE BUILDING PERMIT SECTION OF THE OF THE CODE AND PROCESS, ARE WHETHER THE FILL APPLICATIONS VIOLATE ANY STATUTE, ZONING LAW OR RESTRICTION.

WHETHER THE FILL WILL CAUSE A HARMFUL OBSTRUCTION TO A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

WHETHER THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL OR ECOLOGICAL DISADVANTAGE, DISADVANTAGEOUS IMPACT, WHETHER THE PETITION WILL RESULT IN EROSION, AND WHETHER THE PETITION HAS A MATERIAL INJURY OR DAMAGE TO ADJOINING LANDS.

BEFORE I TRANSITION THE PODIUM TO MR. HALL, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO PROVIDE CONTEXT.

IT IS ATYPICAL FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAKE POND PETITIONS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY ARE TO BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL.

THE LOGIC FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL IS TO ENSURE ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT IS CONSIDERED SIMILAR TO A ROAD VACATION, AS MR. HALL AND MR. FOLEY WILL DEMONSTRATE. THE PRIVATE PONDS SERVE NO PUBLIC BENEFITS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE CRITERIA.

FIRST, THE PONDS SERVE NO ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT, AS REPORTED BY MR. HALL AND AS CONCURRED BY STAFF. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PONDS UTILIZE GROUNDWATER.

THE PONDS ALSO TEND TO ATTRACT NUISANCE FEATURES.

TWO THE PONDS ARE NOT PART OF ANY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE CITY'S OWN INVENTORY.

AS SHOWN ON YOUR SCREEN, THE PONDS DO NOT CONTROL OVERFLOW OR SURFACE WATERS.

MR. FOLEY WILL CONCLUDE WITH EXPLAINING THAT A STORMWATER SYSTEM WILL BE INTRODUCED FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER RETENTION AND QUALITY REQUIREMENTS TO ELIMINATE THE CURRENT STATUS OF UNCONTROLLED DISCHARGE.

WITH THAT, MR. HALL. GOOD MORNING.

FOR THE RECORD, TIM HALL WITH TROY HALL AND ASSOCIATES.

GOOD MORNING. I WILL GO THROUGH A FEW WORDS RIGHT THERE WITH YOU.

OH, THERE. OKAY. GOT IT. SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE THE KEYBOARD BEHIND HER LAPTOP.

AS MISS PASSIDOMO SAID, THE PONDS CURRENTLY ARE ARE FILLED WITH GROUNDWATER THAT COMES THROUGH ARTESIAN WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN DUG IN THE PAST. THE 20,200 POND SITE WAS ORIGINALLY DUG IN SOMETIME BETWEEN 1940 AND 1952. TWO. THOSE ARE THE AERIALS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE CAN SEE WHEN WHEN THAT POND WAS DUG.

THE ARTESIAN WELLS AT THAT TIME WERE, WERE COMMON.

PEOPLE WOULD JUST GO DOWN TO A POINT DEEP ENOUGH TO WHERE THE WATER WOULD FREE FLOW FROM THE GROUNDWATER INTO THE PONDS.

LATER ON IN THE IN THE MID 80S, THE POND ON 2340 WAS DUG.

THE POND ON 2200 WAS EXPANDED MADE LARGER TO ITS CURRENT CONDITION.

AND THERE WERE APPARENTLY SOME VALVES PUT ON TO THE ARTESIAN WELL PUMPS TO HELP CONTROL THE WATER.

SO IT WASN'T JUST ALWAYS FREE FLOWING INTO THE PONDS.

IT CAN BE REGULATED THROUGH TURNING ON AND OFF THOSE THOSE VALVES.

AND THEN SOMETIME LATER SOME PUMPS WERE ACTUALLY ADDED.

[03:00:02]

SO NOW THEY CAN PUMP ADDITIONAL WATER THROUGH THERE IF, IF THEY SO DESIRE.

PART OF THE THE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FILLING OF THESE PONDS WOULD BE TO ABANDON AND CAP THOSE WELLS.

SO THERE IS NO LONGER A FREE FLOWING WATER SOURCE FROM THE SUBTERRANEAN AQUIFER TO THE TO THE SURFACE WATERS.

THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT THAT THAT I DID INVOLVED GOING TO THE PROPERTY, LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POND AND THE PROPERTY THAT COULD BE DISTURBED. AS PART OF THE FILLING OPERATIONS, IN THIS CASE, IT'S ALL TURF AND LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PONDS.

THERE'S NO NATIVE HABITAT THAT'S GOING TO BE DISTURBED.

THERE'S VERY FEW NATIVE PLANTS ACTUALLY WITHIN THAT, THAT DISTURBANCE AREA.

A COUPLE OF CABBAGE PALMS, SOME SOME FIREBUSH A COUPLE OF ROYAL PALMS. NOTHING THAT IS CONSIDERED RARE OR ENDANGERED HERE WITHIN THE STATE.

SO THERE'S NO ENDANGERED FLORA OR FAUNA THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS.

THERE ARE FISH IN THE POND, SMALL FISH. AND ALL THE PREDOMINANT SPECIES THAT I SAW WERE TILAPIA, WHICH AGAIN, ARE A NON-NATIVE SPECIES. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO INTO WATER BODIES AND, AND PUSH OUT THE NATIVE SPECIES.

THEY OUTCOMPETE THEM. SO GETTING RID OF THAT SOURCE OF, OF THAT OF THAT EXOTIC IS, IS ALSO A GOOD THING FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT. LUCKILY, THERE'S NO CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THOSE PONDS AND ANY OF THE CITY'S STORMWATER FACILITIES.

SO FOR THOSE FISH TO, TO BE ABLE TO MIGRATE, IT WOULD EITHER BE THROUGH MOVEMENT BY BIRDS OR WHEN WE GET STORM SURGES LIKE WE HAD IN IAN OR WHATEVER, WHERE THE PONDS WOULD OVERFLOW, THESE FISH CAN CAN MIGRATE THAT WAY AS WELL.

SO THERE'S GOING TO BE NO IMPACTS TO TO ANY NATIVE HABITATS.

THERE'S THERE'S NO IMPACTS TO ANY KIND OF NATIVE SPECIES THAT ARE THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE AREA.

THESE SHOW THE TWO PONDS. ONE OTHER THING THAT THAT SHOULD BE NOTED IS, IS THESE PONDS ARE NOT UNLIKE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES.

WITHIN THE CITY DON'T HAVE A A NATURAL SHORELINE.

THEY ARE EITHER SEEWALD WITH OLD WOODEN PRESSURE TREATED WOOD WALLS OR ROCK.

THERE WAS SOME WORK DONE ON THE ISLAND ON THE 2201, WHERE THERE'S VINYL SEAWALL AROUND THERE, BUT ALL OF THE SHORELINE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PONDS IS IS A KIND OF A MAN MADE CONDITION WHERE THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF RETAINING REVETMENT OR HARDENING OF THAT SHORELINE THAT'S BEEN DONE.

SO THAT WILL ALSO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE REMOVAL AND THE FILLING OF THESE PONDS.

AND SO JUST TO GO THROUGH THE, THE CRITERIA, LIKE FRANCESCA HAD ALREADY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT'S SPECIFIC TO ME IS THAT THAT IN MY OPINION, THE REMOVAL OF THESE WILL NOT CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL OR ECOLOGICAL ADVERSE EFFECTS. THE PONDS ARE NOT NATURAL SYSTEMS. THEY'RE THEY'RE MAN MADE ESTHETIC COMPONENTS TO THOSE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY HYDRATED THROUGH THE ARTESIAN WELLS.

THERE'S NO RARE OR ENDANGERED FLORA OR FAUNA ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

AND ANY IMPACTS TO THE, TO TO ANY OF THE TRANSIENT WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT WE HAVE WOULD BE DE MINIMIS AT BEST. THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO BLAIR NOW FOR THE STORMWATER.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS BLAIR FOLEY. I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.

I'VE PRESENTED BEFORE THIS BOARD ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOU REGARDING THIS LAKEVILLE PETITION IN REGARDS TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THERE'S A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE.

WE HAVE EXISTING LAKE SYSTEMS THAT EVIDENTLY WERE CONSTRUCTED BUT NOT ARE A COMPONENT, BUT ARE NOT A COMPONENT OF A STORMWATER SYSTEM FOR EACH LOT.

SO WE'VE WE'VE INDICATED IN OUR REPORT THAT THERE'S BEEN UNCONTROLLED RUNOFF OCCURRING ON, ON THESE LAKES DURING STORM EVENTS. SO THERE'S A AS TIM HAD MENTIONED, THERE'S A COMBINATION OF A BULKHEAD AND SOME RIPRAP.

AND TYPICALLY WHEN THE WATER ELEVATION GETS TOO HIGH, THEN WATER WILL BREACH THOSE LAKES AND THEY WILL EITHER ENTER THE RIGHT OF WAY OR IN SOME

[03:05:02]

CASES, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH OUR STORMWATER CODE THAT WE HAVE NOW.

SO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDE THE TWO LAKES WITH THIS UNCONTROLLED RUNOFF, AND THERE IS NOT ANY EVIDENCE OF OF AN EXISTING STORMWATER SYSTEM OF ANY KIND ON THE PROPERTY. TYPICALLY WHEN WE DESIGN THESE SYSTEMS, EVEN BACK IN THE 2007 CODE, WE HANDLED ROOF RUNOFF ET-CETERA AND DIRECTED IT TO LOW WATER AREAS TO PRODUCE WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ISSUES.

WE DON'T FIND EVIDENCE OF THAT HERE. ADDITIONALLY ALSO AS MENTIONED THERE ARE NO INTERCONNECTED LAKE SYSTEMS WITH THE CITY SYSTEM AT ALL. THE LAKE SYSTEMS ARE INDEPENDENT.

SO WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO HERE AS PART OF THIS LAKE FILL APPLICATION AND THE OPERATION OF FILLING THE LAKE, IT WOULD BE FILLED WITH CLEAN FILL. WE WOULD AT THE SAME TIME INSTALL A COMPLIANT STORMWATER SYSTEM WITH THE 2021 CODE ON BOTH LOTS. NOW WHAT THAT WILL INCLUDE WILL BE A SERIES OF FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEMS, CATCH BASINS, ETC.

WHERE THE WATER WILL BE DIRECTED FROM THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF A BERM, PIPES AND ROCK TRENCHES, AND THE WATER WILL BE INTRODUCED INTO A ROCK SYSTEM THAT WILL PROVIDE WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY THAT NOT ONLY MEETS THE CODE BUT EXCEEDS THE CODE.

SO WE WILL BE INSTALLING A SYSTEM THAT WILL BE COMPLETELY COMPLIANT.

ANOTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THE 2021 ORDINANCE IS THERE ARE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATES.

SO WE WILL ALSO ADHERE TO THOSE ON THIS CURRENT.

THESE CURRENT PROPERTIES, THERE'S NO CONTROL STRUCTURE AT ALL.

WHEN THE WATER GETS HIGH IT JUST FLOWS. AND THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING TO SLOW IT DOWN OR DIRECT IT IN ANY FASHION.

SO I THINK THE IMPORTANT PART IS WE WILL DO A SIMULTANEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAKE FILLING OPERATION AND INSTALL THE NEW SYSTEM.

IT WILL ALSO IN INCREASE THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTIES TO HOLD BACK SOME OF THE WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY BEFORE DISCHARGING INTO THE CITY SYSTEM, WHICH WE KNOW IS IS OVERTAXED.

SO WITH THAT, I DID DO DESIGNS FOR EACH, AND THEY'RE ALSO PART OF THE PART OF OUR SYSTEM HERE IF I CAN GET IT TO GO.

LET'S SEE HERE. YEAH, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFICULT TO READ, BUT WE DO HAVE A COMPLIANCE SYSTEM FOR EACH EACH LOT AS SHOWN HERE.

AND I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO FRANCESCA. WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE'RE HERE FOR YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER AT THIS TIME? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBER CUSHMAN.

I HAVE YOU. SORRY. YES. THANK YOU. JUST SOME QUESTIONS TO TO PROVIDE SOME MORE ORIENTATION AND CONTEXT ON THE PROPERTY. THE THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES HERE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP.

AND AT LEAST NOW UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVATION HERE FOR THIS REQUEST.

THERE ARE EXISTING HOMES ON BOTH PROPERTIES. IS THE PLAN IS IS THE MOTIVATION FOR FILLING THESE LAKES PONDS BECAUSE OF PLANS TO TO BUILD NEW HOUSING ON A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE LOCATION OF THE CURRENT PONDS. IS THAT WHAT WHAT IS THAT? WHAT IS DRIVING THIS REQUEST? THE DRIVER WAS ACTUALLY THE POTENTIAL FOR NUISANCE FEATURES, SO REDEVELOPMENT MAY OCCUR LIKELY IN A WELL, YES, IN A THREE LOT CONFIGURATION.

ALL OF THE LOTS IN IN THIS VICINITY ARE UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP.

IF THERE'S REDEVELOPMENT, THIS IS NOT WHAT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S DRIVING THIS PETITION.

IT'S THE POTENTIAL FOR NUISANCE FEATURES. IT'S THE ABILITY TO THE POTENTIAL FOR FOR NUISANCE FEATURES, NUISANCE FEATURES. IN OTHER WORDS, TO REMOVE NUISANCE FEATURES.

EXACTLY. YEAH. SO THAT REALLY IS THE DRIVER OF THESE PETITIONS.

BUT I WILL SAY, TO THE EXTENT REDEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THE INTENTION IS NOT TO TO GO SO FAR AS TO WHERE THESE PONDS ARE.

THEY'RE THEY'RE FRONTING IN THE PROPERTY. IF ANYBODY IS IS FAMILIAR WITH THESE PROPERTIES, THEY'RE VERY PRIVATE. THE THE INTENTION IS TO TAKE A HOME, IF ANY HOME IS REDEVELOPED AS FAR TOWARD THE WEST AS POSSIBLE.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SO WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS WAS UP FOR SALE, WITH THE INTENTION OF SUBDIVIDING IT SO THAT WE COULD HAVE MULTIPLE HOMES ON THIS LOT. SO IS THERE A HOME OWNER?

[03:10:06]

THE PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY BY A FAMILY, AND THE INTENTION IS TO RETAIN THIS AS THREE LOTS.

SO I'VE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO TELL YOU THAT THE INTENTION IS TO RETAIN THIS AS AS THREE PARCELS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY ARE TWO.

THREE ARE UNDER THE FAMILY'S OWNERSHIP. SO THERE IS NO INTENTION TO SUBDIVIDE TO TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU'RE THAT THAT I THINK MAY BE YOUR CONCERN.

WELL, EVEN IF YOU SUBDIVIDED, WE WOULDN'T KNOW BECAUSE THAT'S NOW WHAT USED TO COME BEFORE US WOULD NOW BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

SO. WELL, I DID WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT THE CRITERIA ARE FOR THE POND FILL.

SO I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE IN.

I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE HONORING THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

HOWEVER, I DID WANT TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S PROBABLY ON THE FRONT OF COUNCIL'S MIND.

SO I DID WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, THAT THE INTENTION IS TO RETAIN THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITES.

RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, THESE PONDS, I DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS.

IT DOES PROVIDE A BENEFIT TO THE ECOSYSTEM, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT IT DOESN'T.

IN BOTH OUR PROFESSIONAL TESTIMONY AND IN STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL REPORT, THERE IS NO ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT OF THESE PONDS.

AND IN FACT, THEY ARE TENDING TO ATTRACT INVASIVE SPECIES.

OH, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. WHAT? MR. HALL NOTED THAT IN HIS REMARKS.

WHAT WERE THEY? TILAPIA. AS AN EXAMPLE. MR. HALL, DO YOU WANT TO EXPAND? THANK YOU. SURE. THE THE THE REPORT THAT I PRESENTED THAT I BELIEVE IS A PART OF THE PACKAGE GOES THROUGH SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE DID, IN OUR OPINION THAT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE AN ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT TO THE TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND ALL THE INVASIVE SPECIES THAT FRANCESCA WAS TALKING ABOUT IS TILAPIA.

IT'S A FRESHWATER FISH SPECIES THAT IS NOT NATIVE TO THE AREA.

IT PUSHES NATIVE SPECIES OUT OF COMMUNITIES SO IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE NATIVE FAUNA THAT WE HAVE HERE IF IT DOES GET INTO OTHER WATER BODIES.

SO IF THERE'S TILAPIA THERE AND THERE'S NO DRAINS IN THIS POND, THAT WOULD CREATE AN EBB AND FLOW.

WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS PLACED IN THE POND? THEY CAN BE IT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE FEATURES BY BIRDS OR BY EXTREMELY HIGH WATER EVENTS. THE FISH CAN CAN MOVE THROUGH OVERLAND SYSTEMS WHEN WE FLOOD, LIKE IN HURRICANE IAN.

FISH THAT WOULD BE IN THAT POND COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED TO OTHER, YOU KNOW, CITY WATERWAYS OR OFFSHORE.

AND, AND SO NATURE HAS A WAY OF POPULATING AREAS THAT, THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES, BUT YES, THEY CAN MOVE AROUND. AND I'LL ASK MISS PASSIDOMO OR AND STAFF THE SAME QUESTION IS TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS THIS PROPERTY HAS RETAINED DURING FLOODS AND IAN RETAINED WATER AND DIDN'T RECEIVE FLOODING FROM IN THIS AREA. SO IT WAS A BENEFIT TO HAVE THAT STORM WATER POND THERE ON THAT LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I'LL LET STAFF ADDRESS THIS AS WELL AND THEIR STAFF REPORT.

HOWEVER, THESE PONDS ARE NOT STORMWATER PONDS, SO WE NEED TO BE CLEAR IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE CHARACTERIZING THESE PONDS.

INDEED, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE NOTE THAT THEY'RE PULLING WATER FROM THE AQUIFER.

THAT'S GROUNDWATER SUPPLY. THAT'S ALSO SUBSISTENCE.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO PRESENT THIS AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT IN TANDEM WITH FILLING THE PONDS AND CAPPING THOSE WELLS.

WE WILL BE CREATING A COMPLIANT STORMWATER SYSTEM.

SO TODAY THEY'RE NOT COLLECTING STORMWATER FROM ANY OTHER PROPERTIES, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CITY'S INVENTORY, THERE'S NO EASEMENTS. AND INDEED, IF THERE IS AN OVERFLOW EVENT, THEY WOULD WATER FROM THE PONDS WILL SHEET FLOW INTO GORDON DRIVE.

AND THAT'S JUST A FACT OF THE WAY THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE SITUATED.

THEY WERE DEVELOPED SO LONG AGO THAT THEIR TOPOGRAPHY IS A BIT HIGHER THAN GORDON DRIVE.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC BENEFIT THROUGH THIS PETITION.

BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE, AND I BELIEVE STAFF CONCURS THAT THE CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED.

RIGHT. WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT STORMWATER THAT GOES INTO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM AT THIS POINT.

[03:15:06]

THERE'S NO CONNECTIVE OR CONTROLLED DISCHARGE RATE.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO ANYTHING IN THE PONDS IN A STORMWATER EVENT WOULD JUST OVERFLOW INTO INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

RIGHT. SO AND REDEVELOPING THESE THIS PROPERTY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONNECT TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM IN FILLING THE PONDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH FILLING THE PONDS, WE WILL BE CREATING A STORMWATER SYSTEM.

THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. BUT I WILL SAY THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT MAYBE FOR THE OWNERS.

BUT IT'S ALSO FOR, I THINK, FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THERE IS BEAUTY.

AND IN THOSE PRIVATE AREAS. AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES NAPLES VERY SPECIAL.

BUT WITH THAT, I HAVE VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MISS PASSIDOMO. I'M JUST I THINK I HAVE 2 OR 3 QUESTIONS.

QUICK. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE EVALUATION THAT THE REPORT IN THE PACKET.

IT'S IT'S AN EVALUATION OF THESE MAN MADE LAKES ON PAGE 12 UNDER THE CONCLUSIONS, THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE WORDING USED ON PAGE 12.

SIXTH PARAGRAPH. FILLING THE PONDS WILL NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL OR ECOLOGICAL ADVERSE IMPACTS. SO LET'S ALL AGREE THAT THEY'RE NOT SIGNIFICANT.

IFICANT ARE THEY GOING TO CREATE OTHER THAN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE BIOLOGICAL OR ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS? THAT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE CRITERIA. I'LL LET MR. HALL RESPOND IN GREATER DETAIL, BUT THAT LANGUAGE WAS USED BECAUSE THAT IS THE CRITERIA.

I WAS HOPING THAT WAS A RESPONSE. RIGHT. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T IF YOU YOU GO IN AND YOU FILL OR YOU CHANGE AN AREA, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE CHANGE. SO THERE WILL BE SOME TEMPORARY IMPACT.

LOOKING AT THE THE EXTENT OF THAT VERSUS WHAT THE WHAT THE PROPOSED CONDITION WILL BE, IN MY OPINION, THE PROPOSED CONDITION WILL BE BETTER BECAUSE OF THE YOU'LL BE GETTING RID OF THE THE GROUNDWATER FREE FLOWING GROUND AQUIFER.

WATER INTO THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM WILL BE ELIMINATING THIS REFUGIA FOR EXOTIC SPECIES.

THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITH THE ADDING TURF OR OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER LANDSCAPING TO THAT MATERIAL.

THE STORMWATER HAS MORE CHANCE FOR FOR, FOR NATURAL TREATMENT BEING TAKEN UP BY THE BY THAT VEGETATION.

AWESOME. A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU HERE.

AT WHAT DEPTH ARE THE WELLS PULLING ARTESIAN FLOW AND THEREFORE HYDRATING THE PONDS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEPTH OF THE WELLS ARE.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT LEVEL OF INVESTIGATION ON THIS ONE.

I CAN TELL YOU ON THE PROPERTY REAL CLOSE BY THE ARTESIAN WELL THAT THAT WE DID DO, THERE WAS 180FT. OKAY. AND THEN TALKING ABOUT THE WELL ITSELF.

RIGHT. WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL CONSTITUTES THE BELOW SURFACE? WELL CASING WHAT'S UNDER THE GROUND AND CASING THE WELL.

YOU'RE ASKING ME IF IT'S ASBESTOS OR NOT OR. NO.

IT'S IMPORTANT. YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF JUST CAPPING THE WELL AND JUST LEAVING SOMETHING IN PLACE.

IN MY OPINION, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE LEAVING IN PLACE.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE TYPE OF CASING THAT WAS THAT WAS USED.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THAT COULD BE INVESTIGATED.

YEAH. THOSE OLD WELL CASINGS, MOST LIKELY THERE'S SOME TYPE OF STEEL, BUT I COULDN'T.

COULD BE LEAD. YOU DON'T KNOW IS THE ANSWER. I DON'T KNOW.

AND THE NORMAL. THE NORMAL WAY OF CAPPING THOSE IS IS NOT TO PULL ALL OF THAT OUT.

IT'S TO PUT CONCRETE DOWN IN THEM AND IT GETS CAPPED.

THAT'S THAT'S HOW THE OTHER ONES THAT WE HAVE CAPPED IN THE CITY HAVE BEEN DONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CASANOVA? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU. HELLO. THE PROJECT PROPOSES CAPPING THE ARTESIAN WELL.

NATALIE HARDMAN, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER. SORRY. THE PROJECT PROPOSES CAPPING THE ARTESIAN WELLS.

AS PER THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND FILLING THE LAKES, WHICH ARE WHOLLY CONTAINED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY DOES NOT CONTAIN A STORMWATER SYSTEM AND NO STORMWATER IS DIRECTED INTO THE LAKES.

[03:20:03]

THE LAKE BANKS ARE HARDENED, CONTAINING RIPRAP AND OR A BULKHEAD, AND VEGETATION IS NOT PRESENT.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT WITHOUT THE CONSTANT FLOW OF WATER, THE LAKE WATER LEVELS WILL DROP SIGNIFICANTLY.

AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF ABANDONING THE ARTESIAN WELLS, THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD UPGRADE THE PROPERTY TO CURRENT STORMWATER CODES.

THE PROJECT MEETS CODE REQUIREMENTS AND STAFF DOES NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE PROJECT.

WELL, ANY. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE DISCUSSION ON FILLING OF LAKES, AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE COMING BEFORE COUNCIL.

SO I FIND THAT INTERESTING. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO IT.

BUT ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE GOING INTO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE AT THE PRESENT TIME.

SO RIGHT NOW IT CURRENTLY FREE FLOWS ACROSS THE PROPERTY, SO THERE'S NO TREATMENT OR CONTAINMENT FOR THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.

SO BY THEM PROVIDING A STORMWATER SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY, THAT WOULD HELP OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPERTY IN THE RUNOFF ONTO THE STREETS? I'M NOT SAYING OTHER PROPERTIES. I'M NOT SAYING THERE'S A PROBLEM. I'M SAYING THAT THERE IS UNCONTROLLED RUNOFF THAT FLOWS ACROSS THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONTAINED NOR TREATED PRIOR TO DISCHARGING INTO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM.

BUT IT'S NOT ON OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM AT THE TIME RIGHT NOW.

THAT AREA IS A SWALE AREA. THERE'S NO CURB OR GUTTER.

AND THE WAY THAT A STORMWATER SYSTEM WOULD OPERATE IS SO MUCH WATER WOULD BE RETAINED ON THE PROPERTY, AND THERE WILL BE A CONTROL STRUCTURE AT THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT ONCE THE WATER LEVEL IN THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM REACHES A CERTAIN LEVEL, IT WILL THEN OVERFLOW INTO OUR RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO CONTROL OVER THAT.

IT'S JUST WHATEVER LANDS ON THE SURFACE. IF IT FLOWS TOWARDS THE SWALE, IT FLOWS TO THE SWALE.

UNCONDITIONALLY UNCONTROLLED. WELL, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I PULL OUT OF MY STREET EVERY DAY.

AND EVEN DURING FLOODS. AND IT'S NEVER FLOODED AREA FROM FROM THAT PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. THEN THE STORMWATER SWALE SYSTEM MUST BE DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB THEN TO CONVEY THAT WATER.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. BOB, DO THESE PONDS BENEFIT OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM? THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. ARE THEY BENEFITING STORMWATER IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER? NOT. NO. ALL RIGHT. NOW, BRINGING THIS THIS SITE TO OUR 2021 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE.

THAT WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO STORMWATER ONCE THAT SYSTEM IS IN PLACE.

THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY IN PLACE IN LIEU OF THESE PONDS.

THESE PONDS ARE GOING AWAY. AND THEN THEY'RE BRINGING THE WHOLE SITE UP TO COMPLIANCE UP TO 2021 COMPLIANCE FOR STORMWATER.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO THAT'D BE AN IMPROVEMENT FOR STORMWATER FROM THIS CHANGE.

YES. IF I COULD ADD ONE MORE THING. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF IT.

WE HAVE TWO WELLS ON THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW THE DIAMETER.

ONE OF THEM IS 180FT THAT ARE USED TO MAINTAIN AN ARTIFICIAL LAKE.

THAT'S WHAT THESE ARE. THESE ARE ARTIFICIAL LAKES. THESE ARE NOT NATURAL LAKES, OR THEY'RE MAN MADE LAKES.

AND THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT DESIGNED WITH THE PROPER SLOPES TO HOLD WATER.

THAT'S WHY THE WELLS ARE THERE IS TO KEEP THE LEVEL OF THE LAKE LEVELS AT A CERTAIN LEVEL.

THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DOES NOT LIKE THESE TYPE WELLS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED.

THEY'RE PROBABLY LARGE WELLS. THEY MAY BE 8 TO 10 INCH DIAMETER CASINGS.

SO AND WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORD ARTESIAN, THAT'S A TERM THAT MEANS THAT THEY FREE FLOW, THAT THE PRESSURE BELOW GROUND AT WHERE THE WELL IS CASED, IT'S ENOUGH PRESSURE TO PUSH IT UP THAT CASING AND OUT.

AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE NOW PUMPS IN THERE.

SO DOES THAT TELL ME THAT THE WATER LEVEL IS NOW DROPPING, THAT IT CAN'T MAINTAIN AN ARTESIAN FLOW, THAT IT HAS TO BE PUMPED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PONDS.

THE WELLS ARE, ARE ARE THE CONCERN IN MY OPINION, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, I DOUBT IT'S FRESH WATER.

IT MAY NOT BE FRESH WATER AT 180FT. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE, BUT THEY MAY BE PUMPING SALT WATER SINCE THEY'RE RIGHT THERE ON THE GULF.

I DON'T KNOW IF TIM KNOWS ANY OF THE WATER QUALITY DATA, BUT REGARDLESS OF THE THE OF THE PONDS, THE WELLS SHOULD BE CAPPED IN AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT METHOD TO ABANDON WELLS.

OKAY. AND I FRANKLY I AGREE WITH MAYOR. THEY ARE VERY PRETTY. BUT THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THEY CAN FILL THEIR I MEAN THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND WHAT I'M GETTING FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONALS HERE ON HAND IS THAT THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT

[03:25:08]

AROUND THE HORN TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. SO YEAH, I THANK YOU FOR THAT.

BUT I DON'T SEE IF IT'S NOT GOING INTO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S FLOODING AND IT'S CAUSING ANY ISSUES WITHIN FLOODING IN THAT AREA? DOES THIS PROPERTY HAVE IS IT IRRIGATION BY THIS POND? THEY THEY USE RECLAIMED WATER FOR IRRIGATION.

THIS PROPERTY? YES. THERE ARE THREE. THERE ARE THREE PROPERTIES.

AND FROM WHAT I RECALL, THERE ARE THREE RECLAIMED WATER METERS, ONE FOR EACH PROPERTY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. COUNCILMAN KRAMER.

SO. JUST FOR KIND OF A LINEAR LOGICAL FROM MY SIMPLE BRAIN.

ONE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANECDOTAL TALKING ABOUT IF IT FLOODS OR DOESN'T FLOOD OR WHATEVER FOR WHOEVER DROVE BY WHEREVER.

I DO KNOW IF IT'S NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO HOW WE ARE HANDLING STORMWATER IN THAT AREA, WHATEVER IT SHEDS IS GOING WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY HOW WE HANDLE STORMWATER IN THAT AREA.

IS THAT THE CASE? YES. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT THING SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT WOULD LOVE TO SEE THESE THINGS CAPPED.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE CAN ALL USE OUR IMAGINATIONS.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE LITTLE BODIES OF WATER WHEN THEY GET CAPPED? THE LAKES WILL PROBABLY DRY UP. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE NO LONGER A PRETTY THING NOW.

AN EYESORE. SO IF WE DO THE RIGHT THING, ACCORDING TO WHICH, BY THE WAY, IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS ANYWAY.

IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. IF WE DO THE RIGHT THING, ACCORDING TO SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT.

NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A STINKY MUCK HOLE. YES.

SO THAT JUST COMMON SENSE WOULD DICTATE THAT YOU WOULD FILL THOSE HOLES.

SO AS SIMPLE AS THAT LINE OF THOUGHT, I THINK THE YES HERE SHOULD BE JUST THAT SIMPLE.

THEY NEED TO BE KEPT, WHICH MAKES THE LITTLE PONDS GO AWAY.

WE NEED TO FILL THE LITTLE PONDS. THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY IS THEY'RE THERE GOING TO COME UP TO CODE ON EVERYTHING? THAT'S FANTASTIC. YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIKE THEM. TURN IT INTO THREE LOTS OR WHATEVER. IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT THE FACT THAT WE GET THE BENEFIT OF HOW THEY RETAIN THE STORMWATER SHOULD BE. YES, WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT, IN MY VIEW.

THANKS. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF WORK ON THIS.

AND I, I BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THESE PONDS AND AND THE.

WELL, CAPPING THE. WELL MY QUESTION IS THIS IN THE, WELL, ABANDONMENT PROCEDURES.

RIGHT. IS THE CASING GOING TO BE FILLED OR IS IT JUST GOING TO BE CAPPED? NO, IT HAS TO BE FILLED. AND THERE'S A PROCEDURE HOW THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WANTS IT DONE.

WE'VE DONE SEVERAL OF THEM. THERE'S IT'S JUST NOT POURED WITH CONCRETE.

BLAIR MAY HAVE THE EXACT UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEDURE, BUT IT IS FILLED WITH THE TOP OF IT WILL BE CAPPED IN CONCRETE, BUT THERE'S OTHER MATERIAL THAT WILL BE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ALL THE WAY DOWN SO THAT IT WILL BE SOLID WILL AS THAT CORRODES AND COLLAPSES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT FILLED WITH BENTONITE CLAY OR WHATEVER THE MATERIAL IS.

OKAY, THAT ANSWERS MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

IS THERE ANY I DIDN'T SEE ANY INFORMATION IN HERE THAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT IS IT DID I MISS IT? AGREES TO THIS. THEY THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

IT'S A BLANKET RECOMMENDATION TO ABANDON ARTESIAN WELLS IN THE THEIR DISTRICT, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

THEY HAVE GUIDELINES ON LINE FINE FOR THAT. OKAY.

I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THOSE GUIDELINES WERE IN IN THE INFORMATION.

I APOLOGIZE, I GUESS I JUST DIDN'T THINK TO TO ADD THEM.

AND I DON'T THINK THE PETITIONER THOUGHT TO. BUT THEY ARE.

IT'S JUST AN ONLINE. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST A BLANKET.

IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, YOU CAN'T JUST GO FILL A WELL KNOW THE WHAT.

YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT THROUGH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO ABANDON THAT.

WELL, AND THEY THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE TO DO THAT TO LEGALLY AND OFFICIALLY IN THAT.

WELL. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I DO NOT HAVE

[03:30:04]

PUBLIC SPEAKERS. MISS PERDOMO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR PETITION.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF OF THE. AND THEY ARE COMPANIONS.

I UNDERSTAND THEY'LL NEED TO BE VOTED SEPARATELY. HOWEVER, THEY THEY'RE A SINGLE ACTION.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL FURTHER DISCUSSION OR.

MADAM MAYOR, IF I COULD, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 13 TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION.

PR MR. 2504 987. TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE, SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. MAYOR.

NO. PASSES 5 TO 1. NEXT RESOLUTION. MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM F, A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION PR MR. TWO 55,505.

TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2340 GORDON DRIVE.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. COUNCIL. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMANN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENMAN IS ABSENT. MAYOR. HEIDEMANN. NO. THANK YOU.

IT PASSES 5 TO 1. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE AT 520, AT 1223, AND WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN. I THINK MAYOR WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IF WE COULD, IF WE COULD GET THROUGH THE SPECIAL EVENTS.

I KNOW WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE. WOULD BE LOVELY.

THANK YOU. LAST TIME I TRIED TO DO THAT, THERE WAS AN OPPOSITION.

SO IF WE COULD HAVE MR. MAYOR COME FORWARD AND WE WILL GO TO ITEM 13 G.

[13.G) Consideration and Discussion of the New Special Event Applications Enumerated Below:1. The Great Canoe Races of Naples – Baker Park 2. Celebration Beach Church – Cambier Park ]

CORRECT. WHAT'S THAT? THERE'S NO WAY. WELL, I HOPE SO.

IF WE HAVE TO STOP, WE CAN STOP AND. SOUNDS GOOD.

THANK YOU. MR. YOUNG, WE'RE GOING TO 13 G. YEAH.

I'LL TURN. THIS IS JUST TWO SPECIAL EVENTS THAT REQUIRED COMING BACK TO COUNCIL AND HAVING DISCUSSION ON AN ACTION FROM YOU.

SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO CHAD MERRITT. OH. WELCOME BACK.

I MEAN, SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAD MERRITT, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR.

LET DANIELLE JUST DO AN INTRODUCTION. WE'LL START OUT WITH THE CANOE RACE OF NAPLES.

WELCOME BACK. OR CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY, DANIELLE. SPECIAL EVENTS AND MARKETING. SUPERVISOR.

SO THE FIRST EVENT IS THE GREAT CANOE RACES OF NAPLES.

THE APPLICANT IS YOUNG PROFESSIONALS OF NAPLES.

THEY ARE A NONPROFIT. THE EVENT DATE IS MAY 16TH.

THE EVENT LOCATION IS BAKER PARK. THE ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE IS 2500.

THE SETUP TIME IS GOING TO BE FROM 6 A.M. TO 9 A.M..

THE EVENT TIME IS 9 A.M. TO 4 P.M., AND THE TAKE DOWN TIME WILL BE FROM 4 P.M.

TO 5 P.M.. THEY WILL BE HAVING AMPLIFIED SOUND.

THERE WILL BE ALCOHOL, THERE WILL BE TENTS, THEY WILL BE HAVING ADDITIONAL SANITARY FACILITIES.

AND THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED 120 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT DATE AND MAYOR I'LL ADD WITH THE STAFF FEEDBACK.

THERE WERE NO CONCERNS AND I ACTUALLY APPLAUD THEIR EFFORT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ATTENDED LAST THIS LAST EVENT, BUT WELL ORGANIZED.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT ATMOSPHERE. WHICH IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE THOSE TYPES OF COMMUNITY EVENTS.

AND THIS WAS THE ONLY REASON IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR THE CITY TO CO-SPONSOR. I'LL LET THEM KIND OF WALK UP SO THEY CAN SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.

BUT THIS DOES INCLUDE FEES THAT WOULD BE WAIVED.

MPD COSTS IN NAPLES, FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS, SOLID WASTE COST AND THE PARK COST AS WELL.

[03:35:05]

THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES TO BE WAIVED WOULD BE 21,645.

THE ORGANIZER HAS PROVIDED A LETTER. ATTACHMENT ONE IS THE BREAKDOWN OF FEES.

ATTACHMENT TWO IS THE LETTER IN WHICH THEY HAVE PROVIDED.

SO I'LL ALLOW THEM TO COME UP IF YOU UNLESS YOU WANT TO DO A DIFFERENT ORDER.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MY NAME IS MORGAN WHEATON, I'M EDWARD LARSON.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO FIRST OFF, THE BUTTON FOR YOUR.

NEVER MIND. WE JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR APPROVAL LAST YEAR.

THIS TURNED OUT TO BE QUITE A SUCCESSFUL EVENT.

EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED FOR THE FIRST YEAR.

VERY WELL ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNITY. SO WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON THAT FIRST AND THEN SAY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SPONSORED BY THE CITY IN THE PAST. WE HAVE A COPY OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FROM 2017.

I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT WITH ME, BUT AT THE TOP OF IT, IT LISTS THE ROLLOVER EVENTS THAT ARE APPROVED FROM PREVIOUS YEARS.

SO WE JUST WANT TO CONTINUE THAT TRADITION. RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO OUR BENEFICIARIES.

AND IT'S IT'S A COMMUNITY EVENT. IT'S NOT TICKETED.

IT'S FREE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO COME TO IT. WE EXPLORED HOW WE COULD MAKE IT A TICKETED EVENT, AND I THINK THAT GOES A LITTLE BIT AGAINST THE EVENT.

AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH AT BAKER PARK AS WELL.

BEING THAT IT IS A PUBLIC PARK AND SO IT HELPS US TO THEN HAVE BENEFICIARIES BE, YOU KNOW, TRULY BENEFICIARIES AND, AND NOT CEREMONIOUS AND ACTUALLY GETTING A CHECK AT THE END OF THE EVENT.

IF WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE SOME OF THESE CITY COSTS WAIVED.

THANK YOU. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. WITH THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT EVENT, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU SELL MORE HATS AND T SHIRTS, BUT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, IN MY OPINION, FOR US TO WAIVE THE COST FOR THIS EVENT.

WE'VE BEEN VERY SELECT AND IF WE EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT BE WORTHY, EVERYONE MIGHT BE WORTHY.

THEN THAT'S BURDENING THAT COST ON THE CITY RESIDENTS.

AND I THINK YOU'LL MAKE YOU'LL, YOU'LL MAKE IT UP AND YOU'LL DO GREAT.

SO THANK YOU. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT EVENT.

I THINK THE COMMUNITY LOVED IT. THERE WERE A LOT OF COUNTY PEOPLE THERE ALSO.

SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S A CITY SPONSORED EVENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KRAMER. THIS IS FOR STAFF.

DO WE CO-SPONSOR IT IN THE PAST? THAT I THINK THEY'VE PULLED SOME OF THE INFORMATION.

THERE USED TO BE A A PROGRAM THAT WAS DONE BY THE CITY.

I THINK THE MAYOR CAN PROBABLY SPEAK ON BEHALF. THAT USED TO BE. WAS IT CITY FEST OR SOMETHING? AND THERE WAS A LOT OF EVENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THAT.

AND I THINK THAT WAS THE THING THAT WAS KIND OF OVER AND DONE WITH A FEW YEARS BACK BEFORE I GOT HERE.

SO BUT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, HOW MUCH I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WHAT OUR CONTRIBUTION WAS TO THAT AND IF WE WERE A CO-SPONSOR.

OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION JUST THAT YOU FIRST IS THE APPROVAL OF THE EVENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY. AND THEN I THINK THAT IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO DO RESEARCH, TO COME BACK TO YOU JUST TO. BUT I THINK IN ORDER TO IN ORDER TO AT LEAST APPROVE THE EVENT AND THEN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON.

OKAY, WELL, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT WHENEVER YOU ALL WANT TO. OKAY.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMAN. OH, CRISPIN, JUST JUST A POINT I WANT TO ADD TO TO THAT IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER, IN MY OPINION, OF HAVING STAFF COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION ON PRIOR CITY SPONSORSHIP IF ANY OF THIS EVENT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT CURRENT SPECIAL EVENTS ARE CITY SPONSORED.

I MEAN, I GUESS THE, THE THE BAND, YOU KNOW, THE WHAT DO WE CALL IT, THE NAPLES BAND AT CAMBIER PARK IS.

BUT WHAT ELSE, IF ANYTHING. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME NOW, BUT BUT THE POINT IS THAT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THESE FOLKS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE TO BE SPONSORED BY THE CITY AND HAVE AND NOT HAVE TO PAY FEES.

AND WHO ELSE ARE WE GIVING CITY SPONSORSHIP TO BY WHAT CRITERIA? AND THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE INFORMATION I WOULD WANT ANY WAY TO MAKE A DECISION IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP WE MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH THESE FOLKS. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION. GREAT.

THANKS. I JUST WANT TO. I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT.

YEAH. VICE CHAIR. NO, SIMILAR TO THAT. IF IF WE STILL MOVE DOWN THE PATH OF STAFF COMING BACK TO US,

[03:40:09]

BUT IF WE, IF WE DO HAVE STAFF COME BACK SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN SAYS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE CRITERIA IS, HOW FAR IT CAN REACH AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF THAT GOES WITH IT.

BUT THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU WANT THE EVENT TO GO FORWARD, REGARDLESS OF SPONSORSHIP, AND TO BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YES, SIR. JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CRAMER KRAMER FOR APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EVENT, AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BARTON. DO I NEED TO HAVE A ROLL CALL? THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGN BY I OPPOSED. GREAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE MORE REQUEST.

WE'D LIKE TO SEE COUNCILMAN BARTON PARTICIPATE IN THE RACES NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU. THIS PARTICIPATION MEAN BEING THERE AND DRINKING A BEER.

BECAUSE I CAN DO THAT. YOU CAN DRINK A BEER ON THE CANOE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. DOES THAT NEED A VOTE TO MAYOR? IT IS. IT IS 1232 NOW. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO CONTINUE THE SECOND HALF OF THIS OR YOU WANTED TO HAVE IT.

OKAY. OKAY. THE SECOND EVENT OR THE SUNDAY SERVICES? THE APPLICANT IS CELEBRATION COMMUNITY BEACH CHURCH.

THEY ARE NONPROFIT. THEIR EVENT DATES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING IS NOVEMBER 23RD, 2025 TO NOVEMBER 23RD, 2026. THE EVENT LOCATION IS CAMBIER PARK. EACH DATE.

THE SETUP WILL BE 7 A.M. TO 9 A.M. THE EVENT TIMES WILL BE 9:30 A.M.

TO 10:30 A.M., AND THERE TAKE DOWN TIME IS FROM 10:30 A.M.

TO 11 A.M. THEIR ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE IS 500 TO 1500, WHICH WILL VARY THROUGHOUT THE SEASONS.

THIS IS A COMMUNITY EVENT. THEY WILL HAVE AMPLIFIED SOUND.

THERE WILL NOT BE ALCOHOL, THERE WILL NOT BE TENTS, NO ADDITIONAL SANITARY FACILITIES.

AND THEIR APPLICATION WAS NOT SUBMITTED 120 DAYS PRIOR TO THEIR FIRST EVENT DATE.

AND MAYOR AGAIN, CHAD MERRITT, COMMUNITY SERVICE DIRECTOR.

THE STAFF FEEDBACK, AS YOU NOTED HERE, THE BIG ISSUE THAT WE HAD WAS THE TIMELINE.

IT WASN'T SUBMITTED IN TIME. BUT THE CHALLENGE IS IS ANOTHER TOPIC THAT WILL COME UP AT A LATER DATE ABOUT HOW WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION INCLUDES MULTIPLE DATES THAT SPAN OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR? IT PUTS US IN A BIND BECAUSE BASED ON OUR 120 DAYS.

NONE OF THEIR DATES FOR 2025 MET WITHIN THAT 120 DAYS, IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW JANUARY 10TH WOULD BE THE THE START OF THAT EVENT. SO IF THEY WERE INDIVIDUALLY SUBMITTED PER EVENT, THEN WE'D BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THOSE PER.

BUT INSTEAD WE HAD TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, ALLOW YOU ALL TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO MOVING FORWARD.

THEY DID NOT MEET THE DEADLINE FOR THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE DATES THAT THEY SUBMITTED.

AND THE OTHER CAVEAT IS THAT THERE IS A REQUEST FROM MPD TO FOR CLOSING. LET'S SEE, EIGHTH STREET, SOUTH CAMBIAR WAY IN PARK STREET.

SO THAT'S AND I THINK THAT. YEAH, PASTOR HENDERSON'S HERE AS WELL.

SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE HIM TO COME UP. EXCUSE ME.

OKAY. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? PASTOR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD.

MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JAMES HENDERSON, AND I'M HONORED TO BE THE LEAD PASTOR AT CELEBRATION BEACH CHURCH.

AND ON BEHALF OF OUR SENIOR PASTOR, GENE SCOTT, AND ALL OF OUR CONGREGATION AT CELEBRATION BEACH CHURCH, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. WE WE MADE A MISTAKE.

WE MISSED A TIMELINE. BUT THE THING THAT I WOULD CLING TO, AND THE THING THAT I WOULD ASK YOU FOR, IS TO LOOK AT OUR REPUTATION AND THE WAY WE HAVE HANDLED OURSELVES CONTINUALLY OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, OVER A NUMBER OF DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. THE NEXT DAY AFTER PRIDE FESTIVAL, WHO GETS TO CLEAN THAT UP? WE DO, BUT WE DON'T. WE DON'T TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED.

WE DON'T LOOK AT US BEING ABLE TO BE IN CAMBIER PARK AS A GIVEN.

WE LOOK AT IT AS A GIFT. AND SO WHILE WE MADE A MISTAKE AND ANYONE WHO DEALS WITH US ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL, ANYONE WHO DEALS WITH US ON THE LEVEL WITH WHICH WITH WHICH WE HANDLE OURSELVES IN THE PARK WILL TELL YOU THAT WE DON'T MAKE THOSE KIND OF MISTAKES, AND WE HAVE ENOUGH OF A TRACK RECORD, AND WE HAVE ENOUGH OF A REPUTATION THAT WE WOULD JUST ASK YOU TODAY,

[03:45:02]

THAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT OUR APPLICATION AS IT HAS BEEN GIVEN.

AND AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THE LAW.

WE DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THOSE THINGS. BUT SOMETIMES THE EFFORT AND SOMETIMES THE SOMETIMES THE BENEFIT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE BRING TO DOWNTOWN NAPLES, OUR EFFORT AND WHAT WE BRING WOULD JUST CIRCUMVENT THE LETTER OF THE LAW. AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO ACCEPT THAT APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. AND I'LL SAY I. EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID I HAVE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY.

YOUR BENEFIT WITH CLOSING EIGHTH. UNLESS IT'S GOING TO HURT THE I MEAN, I'M SURE THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO WORK WITH YOU BEING ABLE TO LOAD THOSE CHAIRS BACK AND FORTH OR HOWEVER I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A HINDRANCE AT ALL.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND WE DID CHANGE THE RULES. HOW YOU DIDN'T GET THE NOTIFICATION.

I'M SORRY. IT'S OKAY. PLEASE CHECK YOUR VOICEMAIL AND CALL DIRECTLY FROM MASTER SERVICE, WHATEVER IT IS.

SO IT'S A TRANSITION PERIOD, AND I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THIS MOVING FORWARD.

COUNCILMAN. CHRISTMAN. YEAH. JUST I'M. REVEREND HENDERSON, FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. OBVIOUSLY HEARTFELT AND I THINK VERY ACCURATE.

AND YOU KNOW, TO ME, THESE WE INSTITUTED THESE TIMELINES.

WE YOU KNOW, WE SAID AT THE VERY BEGINNING, AT LEAST SOME OF US, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, HOW ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS, HOW RIGIDLY, YOU KNOW, HOW HOW LIBERALLY. AND TO MY OPINION, IN MY OPINION, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THESE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK IN EACH CASE WHERE THERE'S A FAILURE TO MEET THEM, YOU KNOW, THE CONTEXT AND WHETHER PEOPLE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT DELIBERATELY OR DOING IT CONSISTENTLY VERSUS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ON A ONE OFF, ONE TIME BASIS. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PERSONALLY.

WHAT I AM MORE FOCUSED ON, AND I THINK WE SHOULD SPEND A MINUTE TALKING ABOUT, IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON ROAD CLOSURES, WHICH I GATHER WERE NOT PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION BEACH CHURCH.

IN THE PAST, HOW MANY YEARS HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON NOW IN CAMBIER PARK? 25. I THOUGHT IT'S BEEN. IT'S LONGER THAN I THOUGHT.

AGAIN, IN THE IN THE IN THE SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY IF WE NOW BECAUSE OF OUR AND PERHAPS CHIEF DOMINGUEZ OR LIEUTENANT O'REILLY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS IF IF WE NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PUTTING NEW SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ON ALL PUBLIC EVENTS. WE KNOW THAT, RIGHT? AND THEY HAVE A COST.

AND WE'RE PASSING THAT COST ALONG TO ALL OF OUR SPECIAL EVENT SPONSORS.

SO IF THE CLOSURE OF ROADS IS WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THINKS IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR CELEBRATION BEACH CHURCH. THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES WHAT'S THE COST? HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT? DO YOU KNOW? I DO KNOW. AND IS IT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CHURCH AND ITS SPONSORS CAN CAN CAN AFFORD TO PAY? WELL, THE FIRST I WILL SAY I'VE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION WITH LIEUTENANT O'REILLY.

WE'VE DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF THE STREET CLOSURES.

BUT WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED SOME OTHER MITIGATING IDEAS THAT MIGHT NOT PRECIPITATE CLOSING THE STREETS.

SO THAT HASN'T COME TO A CONCLUSION. WE HAVEN'T COME TO A TO A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON THAT, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH LIEUTENANT O'REILLY AND HOPEFULLY AT SOME POINT IN TIME, CHIEF DOMINGUEZ, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE AND WE JUST AS WE ALWAYS HAVE AND JUST AS WE ALWAYS WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT WE COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN TERMS OF THE COST LONG TERM.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO GET TOGETHER AS A CHURCH, ETC.

BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, WHATEVER THAT WE'RE ASKED TO DO IN TERMS OF AS LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CITY IS ASKED TO DO THAT, THEN WE WILL DO THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, LIEUTENANT O'RILEY OR CHIEF DOMINGUEZ, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? GOOD AFTERNOON, LIEUTENANT O'RILEY, NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT. EXCUSE ME.

[03:50:03]

YES, SIR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT THE THE EVENT ITSELF IS FANTASTIC.

WE WORKED WITH THE CHURCH IN THE PAST. WE'RE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE CHURCH.

BEING ON THE PROPERTY, THE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH CAMBIER PARK ITSELF AND THE VULNERABILITIES OF THE PARK.

SO WHEN THE PASTOR SAYS AS LONG AS IT'S APPLIED TO EVERYBODY ELSE, HE'S CORRECT.

WE HAVE THOSE SAME CONCERNS WITH ANY EVENT OF ANY SIZE BEYOND THE CASUAL USE OF THE PARK, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 500 PEOPLE, ACCORDING TO THE PARK'S PERSONNEL. SO WHEN WE SEE EVENTS OF THAT SIZE, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR RECENT THREAT ASSESSMENT IS THAT WE EITHER USE BOLLARDS TO CLOSE THE PARK, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE, OR WE CLOSE THE STREETS SURROUNDING IT TO PREVENT VEHICLES FROM COMING IN, WHICH HAS TO BE DONE THE NIGHT BEFORE TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM PARKING THERE OVERNIGHT AS WELL.

BECAUSE ONCE A VEHICLE COMES IN, IT'S NO LONGER SECURED.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE COST COMES IN.

FOR THE OFFICERS AND SECURITY ALONE, IT'S APPROXIMATELY $7,000 PER WEEK TO THE CHURCH.

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE COST OF THE BARRICADES FOR CLOSING THE STREETS THEMSELVES, WHICH WOULD ALSO BE BORNE BY THE CHURCH OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION HAVING AN EVENT AT THE PARK. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY $10,000 PER DAY TO CLOSE THOSE ROADS.

SAY THAT AGAIN, APPROXIMATELY $10,000 PER DAY TO CLOSE THE ROADS AROUND THE PARK, 10,000 PER DAY.

YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS.

EVERYBODY HAS EYES WIDE OPEN ON THIS, AND IT'LL BE WORKED OUT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS THAT KIND OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMMUNICATION GOING ON, AND LOOK, I. REVEREND HENDERSON, THIS IS A NOW WE KNOW 25 YEARS.

THAT'S A LONG TIME. IT'S REALLY BECOME A LEGACY EVENT HERE IN NAPLES.

IT'S A WONDERFUL EVENT. I WALK THROUGH THAT PARK ON SUNDAY MORNINGS OFTEN AND STOP AND LISTEN AND SOAK UP A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR WISDOM AND THE CHURCH'S WISDOM.

AND I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL EVENT FOR NAPLES.

SO. SO I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ADDRESSING ALL THESE ISSUES PROPERLY.

THANK YOU. QUICKLY. VERY, VERY QUICK TO HAVE YOUR TIME.

YEAH. THIS IS TOUGH FOR ME BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MORE THAN 500 PEOPLE IN THE PARK FOR ANY EVENT.

I'VE SAID IT. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. I KNOW MY SISTER WHO WENT WHEN SHE LIVED HERE, WENT FAITHFULLY AND LOVED IT.

SHE'S BACK VISITING NOW. SHE PROBABLY WON'T TALK TO ME IF SHE KNOWS I SAID THIS. NONETHELESS, I HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT. AND WE. I'M ONLY ONE VOTE.

EVERYBODY ELSE MAY SAY 1500 IS FINE. I DON'T KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

WE CAN MOVE EVERYTHING TO BAKER PARK WHERE IT'S WAY CHEAPER.

WAY SAFER. IN TALKING TO THE POLICE, THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT THE SECURITY IS SO MUCH EASIER THERE.

AND WE DON'T BURDEN ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO USE THIS AS A PARK.

WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT PRETTY SOON, THAT THERE'S NO REFUGE FOR KIDS IN THE PLAYGROUND BECAUSE THE PLAYGROUND IS GOING TO BE SHUT DOWN AND RECONSTRUCTED AND ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS ANYWAY IS MY GUESS.

MAYBE THEY SAY 18 MONTHS. WE'LL SEE. SO AND I SAY THAT APOLOGETICALLY, APOLOGETICALLY, BUT BUT VERY HONESTLY, THAT THE NATURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE PROTECTION OF IT HAS CHANGED.

AND SO WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME CHANGES ALONG WITH IT IN THE NAME OF, OF SAFETY FOR THE PUBLIC.

AND IN THE NAME OF GIVING THE FOLKS WHO VOTE FOR US AND TO PAY THE TAXES HERE, USE OF THE FACILITIES THEY PAY FOR.

THANKS. THANK YOU. AND COUNCIL VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU, PASTOR HENDERSON.

THANK YOU FOR COMING. JUST THREE QUICK STATEMENTS.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO DETAILS ABOUT HOW YOU MANAGE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS EVENT, BUT PLEASE, JUST MAKE SURE YOU REALLY TIGHTEN UP ON THAT AND HAVE A BACKUP PROCESS.

NUMBER TWO EVERYONE HEARD YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT CLEAN UP FROM PREVIOUS EVENTS ON CERTAIN DATES.

THOSE PREVIOUS EVENTS SHOULD NOT BURDEN SUBSEQUENT PARK USERS.

AND THE FACT THAT YOUR CHURCH AND THE PARISHIONERS ARE AND THE WORKERS ARE WILLING TO CLEAN THAT UP AND NOT SAY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE THAT THAT REALLY SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF YOUR CONGREGATION, BUT WE NEED TO TIGHTEN UP ON THAT OURSELVES.

WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT BURDENING SUBSEQUENT PARK USERS.

AND NUMBER THREE, THE ROAD CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS SAFETY FOR THE RESIDENTS, THE ATTENDEES AND ORGANIZERS OF EVENTS. WHAT? THESE ARE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. THEY ARE BURDENED WITH OR RESPONSIBLE WITH VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THINGS.

[03:55:04]

WHATEVER COMES FORWARD IN A RECOMMENDATION, I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU.

DO I HAVE A PETRANOFF? THANK YOU FOR YOUR APPLICATION.

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOVING IT TO BAKER PARK? IS THAT WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER? WELL, QUITE FRANKLY, THE THE NEW RESTRICTIONS HAVE COME DOWN.

AND WHAT'S BEEN REALLY QUITE RECENTLY I WAS I WAS HERE TWO WEEKS AGO TO DO THE INVOCATION.

AND I HAD JUST HEARD ABOUT THAT THE DAY BEFORE.

AND ACTUALLY, I HEARD ABOUT IT BECAUSE LIEUTENANT O'REILLY CALLED THE OFFICE JUST TO ASK ABOUT THE NUMBERS ON OUR APPLICATION.

SO WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY TO REALLY DELVE INTO LOOKING AT AN ALTERNATIVE SPOT.

BUT WE'VE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THERE AND OUR PLANS HAVE BEEN TO BE IN GAMBIER.

AND SO EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE IS PLANNED THAT WAY. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF USING IT AS A AS A ONE TIME WHEN WE'RE OFF, WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS IN THE PARK WHETHER IT BE THE ART FESTIVAL OR SOMETHING LIKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT FOR LONG TERM WE HAVE NOT REALLY SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE IT REALLY JUST CAME UP.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? MADAM MAYOR, ON THIS MOTION FOR THIS THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE BOTH EVENTS HAVE WE HAVE WE ALREADY DEALT WITH THE BOAT RACES? YES, WE'VE DEALT WITH THE BOAT RACES. SO IN APPROVING THIS EVENT, WOULD WOULD WE BE APPROVING IT ADHERING TO ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE OR ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS IN THE MOTION? I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE IS, IS THAT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU WANT THE FULL SLATE OF EVENTS, DESPITE THE THE NOT COMPLYING WITH 120 DAYS? I MEAN, THAT WAY STAFF HAS TO SAY WE TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME.

WENT TO COUNCIL. YOU APPROVED IT. I THINK THAT'S THE WAY. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK SO, SIR. GOT IT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST NEEDED THAT BEFORE WE MADE A MOTION.

THANK YOU. SO IS THAT A MOTION? SO, IF APPROPRIATE.

NOW, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE CELEBRATION BEACH CHURCH.

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE APPLICATION IS COVERING THE ENTIRE CALENDAR OF EVENTS AND RECOGNIZING THAT THE APPLICATION CAME IN LATE BEYOND THE 120 DAY REQUIREMENT, IS THAT THAT'S SUFFICIENT? THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BY VICE MAYOR, I SECOND, I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISTMANN. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGN BY I. AYE. OPPOSED? NO. OKAY, SO WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH? FOUR OF US, 4 TO 2.

BUT IT PASSES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES ITEM 13 G. MR. MCCONNELL.

[13.A) Executive Session regarding Compagnone, Richard v. City of Naples, Case No. 23-CA-003045, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida (12:30pm Time Certain).]

YES. SO AT THE SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2025 PUBLIC MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 286 .011, SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT, FLORIDA STATUTE. CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN CASTILE.

CAMPENON RICHARD VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES, CASE NUMBER 23, CA 003045, AND IN FOUR.

COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL AGREED TO MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AT 1230 ON OCTOBER 15TH. IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL.

PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS POSTED ON OCTOBER 2ND, 2025.

THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR.

HOWEVER, WE WILL CONVENE ONCE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS OVER, EVEN IF IT'S EARLIER THAN THAT.

DISCUSSIONS DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS LIMITED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES.

THE ENTIRE SESSION IS COURT REPORTED. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE SESSION. DURING THE SESSION, IF ANY ACTION IS REQUIRED BY COUNCIL, IT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE RECONVENE OR AT A SUBSEQUENT FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING.

FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS TERRY HUTCHISON, RAY CHRISTMAN, BETH PETRANOFF, BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENMAN WILL NOT BE PRESENT TODAY, BURN BARTON, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY JEFFREY HARCOMBE AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DINSMORE REPORTING. AND IT IS 1251.

AND THEN WE WILL RETURN AND GO BEGIN WITH ITEM 13 E OKAY.

WITH THAT? THANK YOU. H 13 H WITH THAT, WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[04:00:09]

OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND WE'RE MOVING TO 13 H.

JUST FOR HOUSEKEEPING. THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 14 A AND LEAVE THE 13 II FOR RIGHT BEFORE CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS.

SO WITH THAT, MR. MCCONNELL. AND JUST FOR RECORD PURPOSES, MAYOR, BEFORE WE START 13 H.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WHEN I ANNOUNCED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION BASED ON THE AGM IN 13 A, I INITIALLY SAID THAT IT WAS THE SEPTEMBER 3RD MEETING THAT I CALLED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY THE OCTOBER 1ST MEETING. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE PUBLIC BEFORE WE MOVE ON.

AND WITH THAT, 13 H IS A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC ART PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE,

[13.H) A Resolution Approving a Public Art Partnership Agreement Between the City of Naples and Gulfshore Playhouse, Inc. To Combine Required Escrowed Public Art Funds From the Permits for Building the City Parking Garage and the Gulfshore Playhouse to Procure One Joint Piece of Public Art to Be Located on City Property; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and Providing an Effective Date.]

INC. TO COMBINE REQUIRED ESCROWED PUBLIC ART FUNDS FROM THE PERMITS FOR BUILDING THE CITY PARKING GARAGE AND THE GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE TO PROCURE ONE JOINT PIECE OF PUBLIC ART TO BE LOCATED ON CITY PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MADAM MAYOR, I DO WANT TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS.

SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR TO DIFFERENTIATE. WE ARE THE DEVELOPER HERE.

AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS AGREEMENT, IT'S THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC ART FUND.

BECAUSE IN THE END ONCE THEY ARE SATISFIED THAT ESCROW WOULD BE RELEASED BACK AND WE WOULD BE DISPERSING IT BACK TO OURSELVES, OSTENSIBLY. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT SO THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO SPENDING THE PUBLIC ART FUNDS IN THIS PROCESS AND OR HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. THIS IS MERELY THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO DEVELOPERS TO TRY TO DEVELOP ONE PIECE OF ART.

AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MARTY.

BUT I DID WANT TO GIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, HIGH LEVEL DESCRIPTION AT THAT POINT.

YES. THAT MEANS IT'S NET ZERO REGARDING THAT FUND.

AND I BEG YOUR PARDON. IT'S NET ZERO AS FAR AS TO THAT FUND.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO SAY THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, BECAUSE WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT EXERCISING THE USE OF ANY PUBLIC ART FUND IN THIS AS THE DEVELOPERS. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. THAT WAS A GREAT INTRODUCTION TO THIS ITEM THAT MR. YOUNG JUST GAVE US. SO I DON'T NEED TO REMIND YOU THAT BUT I WILL REMIND YOU THAT AS DEVELOPER, WE WERE REQUIRED TO MEET OUR OWN CODE, SECTION 4642, WHICH REQUIRES PUBLIC ART ON BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SITES.

THE TWO PROJECTS THAT RECENTLY GOT TKO'D WERE THE CITY'S FIRST AVENUE SOUTH PARKING GARAGE AND THE NEW GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE THEATER.

EACH HAS DEPOSITED FUNDS IN ESCROW WITH THE CITY.

THE CITY HAS 123,146 AND THE PLAYHOUSE HAS 40,000.

SO WHEN THESE PROJECTS WERE COMING ALONG, THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS HAD.

AND IN FEBRUARY, YOU COUNCIL ASKED US TO UNANIMOUSLY ASKED US TO SEEK OUT A PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM TO DEVELOP SOMETHING JOINTLY.

WHAT WE WOULD DO THEN IS COMBINE THOSE ESCROWED FUNDS.

WE'D HAVE A TOTAL OF 163,146 WITHIN THE AGM, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE REITERATED THE PROCESS OF USING A FIVE MEMBER SELECTION PANEL AND GIVING THE PROPORTIONATE SHARES THAT WE REPRESENT IN A COMBINED PIECE.

THREE MEMBERS WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES AND TWO MEMBERS WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE.

THE PANEL. THE PANEL'S RESPONSIBILITY WOULD INCLUDE SELECTING THE ARTIST AND OR THE ARTWORK AND RECOMMENDING PLACEMENT WITHIN CITY PROPERTY.

THE AGREEMENT THAT WE WORKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND OBVIOUSLY THE PLAYHOUSE IS VERY SPECIFIC AS TO THE TERMS OF WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVERYTHING WILL COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

THE OTHER THING TO HIGHLIGHT IS THE TERM THERE'S AN 18 MONTH WINDOW OF THIS AGREEMENT.

SO OUR GOAL IS TO COMPLETE SOMETHING JOINTLY WITHIN 18 MONTHS.

AND IF WE DO NOT MEET THAT DEADLINE OR IF FOR ANY REASON THE AGREEMENT CEASES, THEN THE PLAYHOUSE MUST SATISFY THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS SEPARATELY FOLLOWING OUR CODE. SO WITH THAT, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THIS PARTNERSHIP.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. AND, MADAM, MADAM MAYOR, CAN I JUST ADD ONE OTHER ONE OTHER ITEM? THE KEY TO PUTTING IT ON CITY PROPERTY WHEN WE SAT DOWN, IF YOU REMEMBER, CAME TO YOU IN FEBRUARY AND SAID, ARE YOU OPEN TO DOING THIS? AND IF WE WILL, WE'LL MEET WITH THE PLAYHOUSE.

THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS, IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY SAW THAT THEY HAD ANY PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE AREA WITHIN THEIRS TO PLACE THE ART.

[04:05:01]

THEY AGREED FROM THE OPENING STATEMENT THAT THEY DON'T THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A PLACE WITHIN THEIR OWN.

SO THEN YOU LOOK AT THE WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IT ON THE GARAGE, IT'S SOON TO HAVE A BUILDING IN FRONT OF IT OR ON THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THE GARAGE OR THE GARAGE PROPERTY. AND THAT IS SUSPECT. AND THEN THERE HAS BEEN CONVERSATION ON THE DAIS THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WAS IN BAKER PARK, OR THERE WAS SOMETHING EXPLORED THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHY THE AGREEMENT HAS THE LANGUAGE TO SAY CITY OWNED PROPERTY, BECAUSE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S NOT GOING ON THEIRS.

AND WE WANTED TO LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR FOR EVALUATION.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY, LIKE, LIKE MARTY INDICATED, IT'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT COMPONENT IS THAT'S PROTECTED IN THERE FOR THOSE OBVIOUS GIVING THOSE THOSE POSSIBILITIES OF PLACEMENT.

COUNCIL QUESTIONS? NO, CRISPIN. THE WHOLE PROPOSED PROCESS AND APPROACH SOUNDS FINE TO ME. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANSWERED IN THE MATERIAL THE SELECTION OF THE COMMITTEE. YEAH. THREE BY THE CITY. IS THAT ARE YOU ARE YOU SELECTING THEM? YEAH. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS BRING BACK A DISCUSSION ITEM ON NOVEMBER 5TH.

AND THAT I WILL BE PROPOSING HOW OUR THREE COULD BE SELECTED.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE TO DO THEIR SELECTION, BUT I AM BRINGING IT BACK.

I WANT TO DO IT AS A CITY MANAGEMENT LIKE WE DO EVERY OTHER BID EVALUATION WHERE WE.

BUT I WANT TO HAVE THE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT YOU AGREE THE MAKEUP UPON WHICH I'M DOING IT.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING IT BE DONE.

ADMINISTRATIVELY, I'M JUST ONE. YEAH. ONE ONE PERSON ON ON THAT.

OTHERS MAY DISAGREE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING IT BACK TO US WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT'S FINE. YEAH. I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME SPECIFICS AND NOT MAKE IT THAT IT'S DONE IN A VACUUM, THAT WE ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT IT. JUST KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.

YES, SIR. MY GUIDANCE. YES, SIR. YES, VICE MAYOR.

JUST CLARIFICATION. I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF THIS AS THE FIRST AVENUE SOUTH GARAGE.

AND THE ACTUAL ADDRESS IS 150 12TH STREET GARAGE.

IT'S THAT. THAT'S THE ADDRESS. I BELIEVE IT IS, YES.

IT'S JUST THE WAY WE REFER IT WAS REFERRED TO FOREVER, BUT.

YES. JUST CLEARING IT UP. THANK YOU. OKAY. NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

MOTION. MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE A.

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLIC ART PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE.

YES, I MOVE THAT SPECIFICALLY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON.

YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGAIN. THANK YOU. MR.. MOLATE THAT COMPLETES 13 H.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE 13 I AT THE BEGINNING JUST AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE ARE GOING TO ITEM 14 A AIM,

[14.A) First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Dock Regulations in the Port Royal Neighborhood. An Ordinance for the Purpose of Amending Regulations Relating to Pier Location and Dimension Regulations in the R1-15A Residence District; Amending Paragraph (C)(5) of Section 56-93, Piers and Boat Lifts, Siting and Dimensions, of Article III, Standards Applicable to Residential Districts, of Chapter 56, Supplemental Standards, Amending Section 58-121, Pier Location and Dimensions, of Chapter 58, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener's Error; Construction; Publication; and Providing an Effective Date.]

MR. MCCONNELL? YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO RELATING TO PIER LOCATION AND DIMENSION REGULATIONS IN THE R ONE DASH 15, A RESIDENCE DISTRICT AMENDING PARAGRAPHS C FIVE OF SECTION 5693 APPEARS IN BOTH LIFTS.

SITTING AND SITING IN DIMENSIONS OF ARTICLE THREE.

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF CHAPTER 56.

SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS AMENDING SECTION 50 8-1 21 PIER.

LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF CHAPTER 58 ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY.

CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A ORDINANCE AND THIS IS AMENDING THE DOC REGULATIONS IN THE PORT ROYAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THIS IS THE R 115 ZONING DISTRICT. UNLIKE OTHER DOCS IN THE CITY, THE DOC REGULATIONS FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE PROVIDED WITHIN THEIR ZONING DISTRICT.

SO WITHIN THEIR ACTUAL DISTRICT AND NOT IN CHAPTER 56.

THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS THE PORT ROYAL ASSOCIATION, IF YOU REMEMBER.

[04:10:05]

WELL, THE PETITIONER IS THE CITY OF NAPLES, BUT THE PORT ROYAL ASSOCIATION CAME BEFORE COUNCIL. ROUGHLY A YEAR AGO INITIALLY AND REQUESTED THAT COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PORT ROYAL ASSOCIATION ON THIS.

THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF ITERATIONS OF THIS.

WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY IS SIMPLY ONE CHANGE TO THEIR REGULATIONS.

CURRENTLY, THEY ARE LIMITED TO A PROJECTION. SO THE DISTANCE INTO THE WATERWAY FROM THE TOE OF THE RIPRAP IS 22FT.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO EXTEND THAT TO 25FT. THIS DID GO BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, ON THEIR FIRST HEARING OF THIS ITEM, CONTINUED THE ITEM REQUESTING THAT THE PORT ROYAL ASSOCIATION PROVIDE INFORMATION RELATED TO THEIR OUTREACH TO THEIR RESIDENTS, THEIR MEMBERSHIP. SO YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET THERE IS A A DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDES SURVEY INFORMATION AND SOME MEETING INFORMATION RELATIVE TO HOW THEY DISTRIBUTED THIS TO THEIR MEMBERS AND OBTAIN THE FEEDBACK FOR THIS REQUEST.

THE REQUEST TO EXTEND TO 22FT OR FROM 22FT TO 25FT IS RELATED.

THE PORT ROYAL HAS A VERY SPECIFIC REGULATION THAT IS UNLIKE OTHER DISTRICTS, THAT REQUIRES THAT A BOATLIFT BE PLACED ON THE INSIDE OF A DOCK.

SO YOUR BOATLIFT CANNOT BE ATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE DOCK.

SO ESSENTIALLY, IN ORDER TO PUT THAT BOATLIFT BETWEEN THE RIPRAP, IT'S A RIPRAP SHORELINE HERE TOO, NOT A SEAWALL. SO IN ORDER TO FIT A BOATLIFT BETWEEN THE RIPRAP AND THE DOCK, THAT IS ONLY ALLOWED TO EXTEND CURRENTLY 22FT, THAT'S A VERY TIGHT SQUEEZE. AND SO THEY'RE ASKING TO ADD THOSE THREE FEET. I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE CITY.

THE MOORINGS ALLOWS A 30 FOOT PROJECTION. AQUA LANE ALLOWS 25FT.

SO THIS IS THIS IS CONSISTENT OR DOES NOT EXCEED WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN OTHER DISTRICTS.

SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OUR STAFF HAS PREPARED THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

AFTER THE FIRST HEARING AT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, IT WAS CONTINUED.

THEY HEARD THIS AGAIN WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER.

AND ON THEIR SECOND HEARING, THEY DID RECOMMEND A VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF, DID YOU SAY THAT THERE IS A A MINIMUM WIDTH IN THE MIDDLE THAT THEY HAVE TO LEAVE SO THAT IT WILL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC? SO THAT IS A GENERAL REGULATION FOR ALL DOCKS IN THE CITY.

IT'S A NAVIGATIONAL STANDARD, SO IT'S A 50% OF THE WIDTH OF THE WATERWAY HAS TO BE OPEN FOR NAVIGATION.

OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT WE DID HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. AND IF YOU LOOK AT MOST OF THE CANALS IN PORT ROYAL ARE WIDER CANALS.

SO THIS WOULDN'T IMPEDE THAT. I THINK THERE WAS ONE LOCATION THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A TIGHTER SQUEEZE, MAYBE 1 OR 2 PROPERTIES THAT THE THAT 25%. SO WHEN I SAY 25%, 50% HAS TO BE OPEN, WHICH LEAVES 25% OF THE WATERWAY FOR EITHER PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE, I THINK THERE WAS ONLY ONE LOCATION. WE DO HAVE A DOCK EXPERT HERE WHO CAN PROVIDE BETTER TESTIMONY, BUT THERE WAS ONE LOCATION THAT THE 25% WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE 25FT THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, BUT IN GENERAL, THE 25FT WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THAT.

OKAY. SO WHAT DO WE DO IN THAT CASE OR WHAT THE 25% SUPERSEDES SUPERSEDES IT? OKAY. AND THAT'S JUST A STANDARD. AND THAT'S A NAVIGATIONAL STANDARD THAT'S IN IN YOUR CODE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND THE TWO JUST FOR THE PORT ROYAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION ON THIS, BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR PROPOSAL.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR. VICE MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS. CLAY BROOKER, 820 ONE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, REPRESENTING PORT ROYAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

NOT A WHOLE LOT I CAN ADD. ERICA DID A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO YOU TODAY.

THERE IS AN AGENDA ITEM ON YOUR IN THE PACKET THAT'S CALLED THE PRESENTATION.

IT'S NOT A PRESENTATION FROM THE ASSOCIATION.

THAT WAS PART OF THE MATERIALS THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REQUESTED IN TERMS OF OUR SURVEY OF THE PORT ROYAL RESIDENTS TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY.

AND THERE IS A LITTLE SIDE NOTE TO THAT WAS THERE WAS ALSO PUT FORWARD TO THE RESIDENTS WHETHER THEY WANTED TO EXPAND THE SHORE PARALLEL DIMENSION. RIGHT NOW IT'S LIMITED TO 100FT TOTAL OF DOCK ON YOUR ALONG THE SHORELINE, ALONG YOUR SEA, ALONG YOUR RIPRAP. THERE WAS A TALK ABOUT EXPANDING THAT A BIT MAYBE EXPANDING THE POSSIBILITIES OF A TWO DOCK SCENARIO.

[04:15:01]

THE SURVEY DETERMINED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF OF EXCEEDING THAT 100 FOOT LIMIT.

SO THE ASSOCIATION HAS BACKED OFF OF THAT, THAT PROSPECT OR THAT CONCEPT.

SO THE ONLY THING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS EXPANDING THE SHORE NORMAL PROTRUSION INTO THE WATERWAY BY FROM 22 TO 25FT.

AND IF YOU IMAGINE YOUR TYPICAL T DOCK OR DOCK, THE BOAT LIFT MUST GO ON THE INSIDE.

SO THIS JUST GIVES AN EXTRA THREE FEET FOR A BOAT LIFT TO BE SITUATED ON THE INSIDE OF THAT DOCK AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE WORKABLE AND SAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF PORT ROYAL. AND MISS MISS HEDERMAN, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PORT ROYAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AND MR. ALEX GARLAND FROM GARLAND AND GARLAND, WHOSE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN DRIVING BOATS AROUND THIS YEAR.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. I JUST HAVE TO GIVE A DISCLOSURE THAT I FILLED OUT THIS SURVEY, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT ENTAILS OR WHAT THOSE OBLIGATIONS ARE.

IF I SHOULD RECUSE MYSELF FROM VOTING OR SO. SO I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.

BUT UNLIKE A QUASI JUDICIAL SITUATION, THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE MATTER THAT WILL IMPACT MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO AS LONG AS YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED ON THE MERIT AND WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY, THEN I DO APPRECIATE THE DISCLOSURE, BUT I THINK YOU'RE FINE.

JUST WANT TO BE OPEN. AND YES, I CAN BE FAIR.

THANK YOU. OKAY, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF FOR APPROVAL OF.

YES. WE'LL GET THERE. OKAY. AN ORDINANCE. OKAY TO APPROVE 14 A THE OR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOC REGULATIONS IN THE PORT ROYAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. SECOND WAIT, I ALREADY HAD A SECOND.

YEAH, I STILL MY SECOND IS STILL THERE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRISMAN.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON.

HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. MAYOR. HEITMAN. YES.

THANK YOU. PASSES. UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.

THAT TAKES US NOVEMBER 5TH. SORRY. THE SECOND READING OF THAT ORDINANCE WILL BE ON NOVEMBER 5TH.

NOVEMBER 5TH IS THE SECOND READING. YEAH. SPEAKING OF SECOND READINGS, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 15,

[15.A) An Ordinance Relating To Boards And Committees Of The City Of Naples, Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article II City Council Division 3 Board Of Appeals Section 2-84 Appeals Of Administrative Decisions Of City Manager Relative To Land Development Code; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 3 Citizens’ Police Review Board Sections 2-451 Created; Composition, And 2-452 Jurisdiction, Powers And Duties; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 4 Design Review Board Sections 2-474 Organization; Quorum; Rules Of Procedure, 2-475 Applicability Of Design Review; Prohibitions; 2-476 Procedure For Review Criteria; Review; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 5 Community Services Advisory Board Sections 2-502 Officers; Meeting Dates; Minutes, 2-503 Duties, 2-506 Soliciting And Receiving Gifts Or Bequests; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 7 Planning Advisory Board Sections 2-552 Jurisdiction; Powers And Duties, And 2-553 Organization; Rules Of Procedure; Testimony Or Contacts By Council Members; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 8 Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board Sections 2-572 Composition; Term Of Office; Quorum, And 2-573 Duties, Of The Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples For The Purpose Of Updating The Powers And Duties Of These Boards And Committees Of The City Of Naples; Providing For Codification, Conflicts, Severability, Correction Of Scrivener’s Error, Construction, Publication And An Effective Date.]

A SECOND READING ORDINANCES. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOARDS AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION.

ARTICLE TWO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL. DIVISION THREE BOARD OF APPEALS.

THANK YOU. THAT'S A FIRST. WHERE WAS I? ARTICLE TWO, CITY COUNCIL, DIVISION THREE.

BOARD OF APPEALS, SECTION TWO. DASH 284 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF CITY MANAGER RELATIVE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE FIVE. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION THREE. CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD SECTION TWO, FOUR, FIVE ONE CREATED COMPOSITION AND 2452 JURISDICTION, POWERS AND DUTIES.

AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.

COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION FOUR DESIGN REVIEW BOARDS. SECTIONS TWO, FOUR, SEVEN, FOUR ORGANIZATION QUORUM.

RULES OF PROCEDURE TWO, FOUR, SEVEN, FIVE APPLICABILITY OF DESIGN REVIEW PROHIBITIONS 2476 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW CRITERIA REVIEW AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION FIVE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD, SECTIONS TWO FIVE, ZERO TWO OFFICERS. MEETING DATES MINUTES 2503.

DUTIES 2506 SOLICITING AND RECEIVING GIFTS OR REQUESTS.

AMENDING. CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION SEVEN PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. SECTIONS TWO, FIVE, FIVE, TWO JURISDICTION, POWERS AND DUTIES AND TWO FIVE, 2553 ORGANIZATION, RULES OF PROCEDURE, TESTIMONY OR CONTACTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION.

ARTICLE FIVE. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION EIGHT. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADVISORY BOARD SECTIONS TWO, FIVE, SEVEN, TWO COMPOSITION. TERM OF OFFICE QUORUM AND 2573 DUTIES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THESE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES.

PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK

[04:20:05]

YOU. SO WITH THIS MR.. GO AHEAD. OKAY.

SO WITH THIS, THERE WERE TWO ORDINANCES PRESENTED. THE OTHER ONE IS BEING WORKED BECAUSE THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO MISS MARTIN'S ORDINANCE.

BUT IN THIS ONE, NOTHING'S CHANGED. BUT FOR IF WE SWIPE THROUGH IT ON PAGE 11, THERE WAS A REQUEST, A REQUEST FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER TO SUBPARAGRAPH D, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON CRAFTED SOME LANGUAGE.

SO INSTEAD OF IT SAYING TWO SENTENCES IN PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY AND TO PERFECT IT, IT SAYS FOR THE BETTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.

SO THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE FROM FIRST READING TO SECOND READING BASED ON THE REQUESTED CHANGES FROM COUNCIL. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY. OKAY. COUNCIL.

ANY DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC. MAYOR YES, I DO HAVE YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMAN. SO AGAIN TO. REPEAT WHAT I SAID LAST TIME.

THERE IS A SECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT, AND THAT IS THE SECTION RELATING TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND MR. MCCONNELL AND MISS MARTIN, YOU KNOW MAKE SURE I'M CORRECT ON WHAT I'M SAYING HERE. THIS WOULD AMONG OTHER THINGS, CHANGE THE CURRENT PROCESS INVOLVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM TWO MEETINGS, A PRELIMINARY AND A FINAL TO HAVING A SINGLE MEETING.

CORRECT. AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY SAY I HAVE TWO, TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS.

AND I THINK BOTH OF THEM CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE DIMINISHING THE ROLE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN DESIGN IN OUR CITY.

THE FIRST IS THAT I MEAN, IT'S THE IT'S THE OLD SAYING ABOUT IF SOMETHING AIN'T BROKE, DON'T TRY TO FIX IT.

THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW WORKS WELL. AND IN FACT, I'VE TAKEN THE LIBERTY OF HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ABOUT IT.

AND THE YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SAY I'VE DONE AN EXHAUSTIVE SURVEY.

IT'S BEEN LIMITED TALKING TO INDIVIDUALS. BUT THE UNANIMOUS RESPONSE I GET IS THAT THEY LIKE THE PROCESS THE WAY IT IS, AND IT HELPS THEM. IT, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SUGGESTED, I THINK, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PERHAPS IN THE NAME OF CREATING GREATER EFFICIENCY IN HELPING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

BUT I THINK THE RESPONSE IS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE MORE PROBLEMATIC THAN HELPFUL.

AND THE SECOND PROBLEM WITH IT IS EVEN IF YOU SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO A SINGLE MEETING, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE NOW AS TO WHERE AND WHEN THAT MEETING IS GOING TO OCCUR, IS IT GOING TO OCCUR EARLY IN THE PROCESS. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS.

THE END OF THE PROCESS IS IT, IS IT? YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT WHAT WHERE WILL THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WHETHER. THAT'S INFORMATION BEING HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY OR COMING TO COUNCIL.

WHERE DOES THAT WHERE WHERE IS THAT PROCESS WHEN WHEN YOU GO BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.

AND I THINK THAT LEVEL OF VAGUENESS IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT'S PROBLEMATIC FOR US IN APPROVING THIS.

AND BUT IT'S ALSO PROBLEMATIC UNTIL IT GETS RESOLVED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

THE PETITIONER COMMUNITY, IN TERMS OF HOW THIS THIS IS GOING TO WORK.

SO I FEEL LIKE AGAIN, JUST TO SUMMARIZE TWO THINGS.

I DON'T THINK THE I THINK WHAT WE HAVE NOW IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IS PERFECTLY FINE AND IS WORKING WELL.

NUMBER ONE AND PARTICULARLY WHAT PROBLEMS WE APPARENTLY HAD WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE HAVING A PERCEPTION THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WAS ISSUING DEVELOPMENT ORDERS.

WE CORRECTED THAT THROUGH OTHER ACTION THAT WE TOOK.

SO I THINK IT WORKS FINE NOW, BUT BUT IF WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE IT, WE'VE CHANGED IT TO, TO SOMETHING THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IT IS.

AND SO I HAVE TROUBLE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS YOU KNOW, NOT CLEAR AND AND CERTAIN IN TERMS OF WHAT IT IS.

[04:25:01]

SO I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THE REST OF THIS ORDINANCE IS, YOU KNOW BENIGN, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMPONENT. SO I WILL RESPOND BACK AND THEN STAFF OR CAN CLARIFY WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT STOOD UP AND SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT THE PROCESS TO CHANGE. AND THAT WAS MATT. MATT. CRAIG AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? OH. MR.. FROM PASSIDOMO THE ONLY TWO THAT STOOD UP AND SAID THEY WERE OPPOSED TO IT WHEN I WAS AT THE MEETING.

IT WAS THIS WAS ALL DEVELOPED TO MAKE THE PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT.

SO WE'LL GO TO DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. I MEAN, WE'LL GO TO EFFICIENCY THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED NOW THAT IT WOULD GO TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FOR THE COMPLETE PACKAGE AT THIS POINT.

RIGHT NOW IT GOES TO PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. THE ONLY THING AT FINAL THAT IS APPROVED IS LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE AND A CONFIRMATION THAT OF WHAT I MEAN. SO YEAH, THE SUBMITTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL INCLUDE THOSE FINE TUNED DETAILS LIKE LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, ETC.

WHICH ARE NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE AT PRELIMINARY BECAUSE THAT'S A YOU KNOW, THE FIRST STEP. THAT'S A MORE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, RIGHT? SO HAVING ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, WHICH WE'VE BEEN TOLD HAS BEEN SUBMITTED PRIOR ANYWAY, ISN'T REALLY CHANGING IT OR MAKING IT ANY MORE BURDENSOME BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS ARE ALREADY DOING THAT.

AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. THE COUNCIL ONLY SEES LESS THAN 10% OF ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL AND THE DRB SEES ABOUT 90%, AND THEY WERE SEEING IT PRELIMINARY WITH A RESOLUTION AND AT FINAL WITH A RESOLUTION. THE RESOLUTIONS WERE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS.

WE CAN ARGUE YES. NO, MAYBE. BUT WE DISCUSSED IT IN THE CHARTER THAT WE COULD NAME IT SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN A RESOLUTION.

BUT THAT THEIR OPINION WOULD COUNT AS FAR AS THE REVIEW FROM DRB AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DRB RECEIVES THE FIRST PRELIMINARY. THEY CAN HAVE A SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH MEETING FOR DRB.

SO CHANGING THAT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT IT. THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO DO ONE, TWO, THREE PRELIMINARIES.

AND TO THAT NOTE, IF COUNCIL RECEIVES IT AND THEY DO NOT THINK THAT THE DESIGN IS GOING IN THE WAY THAT THE DRB HAS RECOMMENDED OR THE COMMUNITY, OR WE THINK WE CAN SEND IT BACK TO DRB, THAT'S OUR OPTION.

SO I DON'T I THINK I COVERED ALL YOUR POINTS.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL WITH ALL YOUR COUNTERPOINTS, BUT WE MAY JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE ON SOME OF THESE, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY. AND PERHAPS OUR PUBLIC SPEAKER, I DEFINITELY WANT TO TAKE THE PUBLIC SPEAKER.

SO. BUT, COUNCILMAN KRAMER. YEAH, YOU. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO GOES.

YOU WANT TO GO, MARK, OR YOU WANT WHATEVER. WHATEVER.

YOU GUYS READY? MAYBE I CAN GIVE SOME INSIGHT.

WELL, I THINK IT'S BEST THAT YOU GO IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT. KRAMER. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH YOU ROLLING, MR. MCLEAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MARK MCLEAN MHK ARCHITECTURE.

JUST TRY TO KIND OF KEEP THIS KIND OF CASUAL.

I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONAL NOTES HERE.

THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. MADAM MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

THE CORE MESSAGE HERE TODAY IS WE CAN WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN.

THERE'S AN OLD SAYING. THERE IS NO COW ON THE ICE.

RIGHT? SO I THINK WHAT'S WHAT'S BEING MISSED HERE IS THAT THE PROCESS, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SAYING THE PROCESS IS TOO LONG IS NOT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BECAUSE WE CAN SUBMIT FOR A PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TODAY, START THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION. AND THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION CAN TAKE A YEAR.

AND THEN WE GO TO FINAL DRB. SO PRELIMINARY DRB IS NOT HOLDING ANYTHING UP FOR US.

[04:30:05]

THE LAST TIME THIS ISSUE WAS WORKSHOPPED THAT YOU REFERRED TO MADAM MAYOR WAS OCTOBER OF 2024.

AND NOW THAT THESE ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN DRAFTED, I THINK THE DESIGN COMMUNITY OR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THIS. AS I READ THROUGH THIS, SOME OF THIS, WHAT I SEE IS THAT THERE'S A SINGLE HEARING MODEL AND IT'S FLAWED BECAUSE IT'S LIMITING THE DRB PROCESS TO A SINGLE FINAL HEARING.

AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT STEP BACKWARDS, BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS TWO STEP PROCESS HAD SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES.

I'VE BROUGHT PLANS IN FRONT OF THE DRB IN THE PAST THAT ARCHITECTURALLY THEY WEREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH OR THEY DIDN'T LIKE, AND WE WENT THROUGH A REDESIGN PROCESS BEFORE WE EVEN GOT INTO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOES FROM THAT, AND I'LL JUST USE A PORTICO SHARE AS AN EXAMPLE.

IF WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND WE HAVE APPROVAL AND WE GO TO FINAL DRB AND THEY SAY, HEY, THAT'S THAT PORTICO SHARE TWO FEET BIGGER OR TWO FEET SMALLER WOULD BE BETTER.

WELL, NOW THEY'VE CHANGED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S A LOT. COVERAGE CALCULATION. DOES THAT RETRIGGER A FULL SITE PLAN REVIEW BECAUSE THEY'RE IN.

WHERE'S LIES OUR LENGTH IN OUR REVIEWS IF I'VE GONE THROUGH THREE SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND IT'S BEEN 7 TO 9 MONTHS AND I MOVE A PORTICO CHAIR TWO FEET, DO I HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT 7 TO 9 MONTH PROCESS AGAIN? THAT'S STILL WHAT'S UNDEFINED HERE FOR US. ONE OF THE UNDERLYING DEFINITIONS IS THE NEW GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

AND THAT'S BEFORE DRB. SO AGAIN CLARIFYING WHAT IS THAT PROCESS IN THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THAT GIVING MORE STAFF MORE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

WHERE DOES ALL OF THIS FALL? I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A MANDATORY WORKSHOP FOR CLARITY ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO.

IS THIS BEFORE GDP OR IS THIS AFTER GDP THAT WE'RE DOING FINAL DRB.

I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT STEP BACKWARDS. THE UNCERTAINTY IS WHAT HARMS THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

THEY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY AND RISK TIED INTO PROPERTY.

AND IF WE CAN'T DEFINE THAT RISK FOR THEM, HOW LONG THIS PROCESS TAKES.

THAT'S WHAT'S COMPLICATED. SO AGAIN, THE PRELIMINARY DRB IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

IT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE OF PROCESS OR THE BUREAUCRACY PROCESS OF GETTING A SITE PLAN APPROVED, GOING THROUGH DRB AND THEN STILL HAVING TO PERMIT IT.

AND WE CAN STILL MAKE SITE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS. SO IF THERE'S A WAY TO FIX THE PROCESS, IT'S TO FIX THE SITE PLAN REVIEW TO MAYBE A 60 DAY REVIEW, IF I MAY HAVE ONE MORE MINUTE, MADAM MAYOR. YES, PLEASE.

THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS IS THEY MAKE A REFERENCE IN THIS TO A 120 DAY REVIEW.

WE CURRENTLY SUBMIT SIX WEEKS BEFORE DRB FOR A DOCTOR.

SO WE SUBMIT ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF THE MONTH FOR THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH, WHICH IS ABOUT 45 DAYS. THEY MAKE A REFERENCE IN HERE TO 120 DAY REVIEW.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOME SORT OF NOD TO THE NEW FLORIDA STATUTE.

A FLORIDA STATUTE, 125 .022 IS A REVIEW GUIDELINE THAT'S MANDATED BY FLORIDA STATE STATUTES THAT IT'S 120 DAYS FOR NON QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS AND OR NON QUASI JUDICIAL REVIEWS AND 180 DAYS FOR QUASI JUDICIAL REVIEWS.

THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED IT IN A COUNTY AND IT'S A NIGHTMARE BECAUSE NOT ONLY DOES IT GIVE YOU, THE APPLICANT, A SUBMITTAL WINDOW THAT GIVES STAFF 30 DAYS TO REVIEW, WHEN THEY KICK IT OUT, THE APPLICANT HAS TEN DAYS TO RESPOND AND IT'S ALL ON A CLOCK.

THE COUNTY'S POSITION IS WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THAT AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A WAIVER AND YOU CAN WAIVER THIS TIMELINE.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT AMBIGUOUS AS TO HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE ROLLED OUT.

BUT EVEN IN YOUR OWN VERBIAGE HERE, YOU MAKE REFERENCE TO 120 DAY REVIEW.

THAT COULD OCCUR AFTER WE HAVE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

SO WHERE'S DRB FALLING IN THAT GUIDELINE? THE WE COULD BE 120 DAYS AFTER A SITE PLAN REVIEW BEFORE WE SEE THAT.

SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THE SITE PLAN PROCESS BEING DONE, THEN DRB THEN PERMITTED AND REVIEWED AGAIN, THAT'S THE LENGTH THAT WE'VE GOT TO TRY TO SHRINK HAVING THE ABILITY TO ALLOW DRB TO LOOK AT SOMETHING PRELIMINARY DOESN'T WORK ON DOESN'T AFFECT OUR TIMELINE, BECAUSE WE DO THAT CONCURRENT TO REDUCE THE TIME FRAMES.

IF WE COULD PERMIT OUR BUILDINGS CONCURRENTLY THAT WE CAN'T COME OUT.

YOU KNOW, WE NEED FINAL DRB TO GET OUR BUILDING PERMITS, BUT WE CAN'T DO ANY OF THIS CONCURRENTLY NOW.

SO WHEN WE LINE IT UP END TO END, THESE PROJECTS ARE TAKING A YEAR AND A HALF, AND THE DEVELOPERS ARE SITTING ON THE FINANCING OF THIS PROPERTY FOR A LONG TIME.

SO I, I THINK THE COMMUNITY APPRECIATES WHERE EVERYONE WENT HERE AND TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

I JUST DON'T THINK WE FIXED THE PROBLEM HERE.

SO OUR SUGGESTION IS, IS TO, AS COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN MAY HAVE ALLUDED TO, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO PULL THE DRB OUT OF THAT SECTION, WE'RE FINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT MAYBE IF WE COULD WORKSHOP THE DRB PORTION WITH THE GDP PORTION AND MAYBE COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY,

[04:35:02]

WE JUST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

OKAY. THIS WAS DONE WITH STAFF AND IT WAS WORKSHOP BEFORE.

IT'S COME BEFORE COUNCIL. IT'S BEEN NOTICED. I WANT TO GO SLOWLY WITH WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO HAVE FINAL DRB APPROVAL IN ORDER TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

YES, MA'AM. WELL, THEY ARE LOOKING AT COLOR AND ARCHITECTURE.

SO WE GET THAT COLOR, THAT ARCHITECTURE, THE LIGHTING AND THE SIGNAGE.

YOU GET IT RIGHT UP FRONT. THEY WANT TO DO IT TWICE.

THEY CAN DO IT TWICE. BUT THERE'S NO REASON FOR A A BOARD OTHER THAN COUNCIL WHO'S ELECTED TO GIVE YOU THE FINAL SO THAT YOU CAN GO AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM LIED, IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RESOLUTION GIVING YOU THE PERMISSION TO GO GET A BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH THAT SHOULD BE FROM COUNCIL. I'M JUST SAYING.

SO LET ME GO BACK TO GDP. IF WE COME OUT OF GDP, CAN WE SUBMIT FOR OUR BUILDING PERMIT CONCURRENTLY WITH THE DRB APPLICATION? SINCE, AS YOU SAID, IT'S ONLY PAINT AND LIGHTING.

OKAY. SO THE SITE PLAN I WOULD AGREE. SOME OF THE CRITERIA.

BUT THAT STAFF LOOKING AT MAKING THAT PROJECT BETTER THROUGH ALL DEPARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S ALL STAFF IF THE SITE PLAN IS TAKING A LONG TIME THAT STAFF REVIEW AND I'LL LET ERICA ANSWER WHAT THIS G THE DEVELOPMENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT, I HAD TO ABBREVIATE IT BECAUSE I WAS DOING THE SAME THING IN MY PREPARATION.

I COULDN'T SAY IT THREE GDP. SO I DID GDP. YEAH.

SO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE REASON WE CHANGED IT.

AND I'LL LET ERICA SUGGEST IT WAS HER SUGGESTION.

YEAH. SO JUST THE CHANGE TO THE WHAT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN AS THE SITE PLAN PROCESS WAS TO CHANGE THE NAME.

AND IT WAS REALLY JUST TO KIND OF THERE TENDS TO BE SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND THE DRAWING THAT IS KNOWN AS A SITE PLAN.

SO THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE THERE. AND I WOULD SAY, I KNOW THERE IS FRUSTRATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WITH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND THAT THAT CHUNK TAKES TOO LONG AND I KNOW THEY'D LIKE TO SHORTEN THE STAFF REVIEW, BUT I WOULD SAY WE PUBLISH FOR YOU THE SITE PLAN.

SUMMARY EVERY MONTH. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU WILL FIND THERE'S A LOT OF TIME.

IF YOU LOOK AT A PROJECT, A LOT OF THAT TIME IS IN THE DEVELOPER'S HANDS WHERE WE ISSUE AN RHI, AND THEN THEY DON'T RESUBMIT FOR MONTHS OR MONTHS OR MONTHS, AND THEN IT IS RESUBMITTED AND THEN OUR CLOCK STARTS AGAIN.

SO I WOULD SAY IF WE ARE CONSIDERING CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, IF THERE'S A MOVE TO REDUCE THE STAFF REVIEW TIME, I WOULD SAY THEN ALSO PUT A A LIMITATION ON IF IF WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO REVIEW IT AND WE KICK IT OUT FOR AN RA.

YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO SUBMIT IT BACK TO US, OR YOU START OVER.

BECAUSE WHAT WE FIND IS THAT THE SITE PLANS ARE IN OUR HANDS FOR A LOT LESS TIME THAN THEY'RE IN THE DEVELOPERS HANDS, AND THEN THEY'LL COME BEFORE YOU AND SAY, WE'VE BEEN IN THIS PROCESS FOR TWO YEARS.

YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT NOT ALWAYS ON THE STAFF END.

SO BUT I AGREE THAT THAT THAT COULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS.

AND THAT'S WHERE I MENTIONED THE REFERENCE TO FS 125, BECAUSE IN THERE IT MAKES A REFERENCE TO 120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD.

AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING TO THEN YEAH, THERE ARE GUIDELINES TO THAT.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN FS 125 TO WHERE IF YOU GET TO THAT 120 DAYS, STAFF HAS ONE OF THREE OPTIONS THEY CAN APPROVE, THEY CAN DENY OR THEY CAN APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.

AND IF IT'S A DENIAL BASED ON THE LEVEL OF DENIAL, THERE'S LIKE REFUND POLICIES BACK TO THE DEVELOPER BASED ON WHAT FS 125 DECLARES AS A DEVELOPER PROBLEM OR A STAFF PROBLEM IN A REJECTION THAT YOU COULD BE REFUNDING FEES BACK TO THE DEVELOPER.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I KNOW THIS IS WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT IN A COUNTY RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE ABOUT A MONTH AHEAD OF YOU ON THIS. SO IF THERE'S SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO THE FS 125 OR THE TIME FRAME. AND AGAIN, IF WE COULD IF WE COULD STICK WITH THE SAME DRB TIME FRAMES THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND IF WE COULD PERMIT CONCURRENTLY COMING OUT OF GDP, I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT LESS RESISTANCE TO THIS.

IT'S JUST THERE'S NO DEFINITION IN THIS IN THIS ORDINANCE YOU'RE READING TODAY IS A SECOND READING.

THERE'S NO DEFINITION TO WHEN DRB TAKES PLACE, WHETHER IT'S BEFORE OR AFTER GDP.

AND THERE'S NO TIME FRAMES. IF WE'RE STICKING WITH THE EXISTING DRB TIMELINES OR IF WE'RE ON THAT 120 DAY CLOCK.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S THE BIG AMBIGUITY TO EVERYONE RIGHT NOW.

I HAVE SITE PLANS RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE BEEN AN RA WAS ISSUED IN 2023, AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RESUBMITTAL.

I HAVE ONE AT AN RA WAS ISSUED IN APRIL OF 2025.

WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RESUBMITTAL JULY OF 2025.

WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RESUBMITTAL. SO I MEAN, AND FROM THAT STANDPOINT, IF IF STAFF PUSHES OUT A RAY AND A DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO

[04:40:06]

RESPOND, I MEAN THAT THAT CAN SIMPLY BE A CONDITION.

IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO 90 DAYS, YOU'RE DEEMED WITHDRAWN.

AND THEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HAS A RIGHT TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE GOING THROUGH SOME CHANGES HERE, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK FOR A YEAR. SO STAFF'S NOT SITTING THERE WAITING FOR THAT. BUT AGAIN, I HATE TO REFER TO THE COUNTY ON EVERYTHING, BUT THEIR POLICY IS YOU'RE NOT BACK IN 90 DAYS. YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY WITHDRAWN. THAT'S PART OF THIS. YEAH. RIGHT. SO AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S REALLY IT'S NOT IN THERE.

IT'S NOT IN THIS NOW. NOT THIS ONE. YEAH. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT WELL DEFINED IN HERE.

MADAM MAYOR, WHEN WE TALKED WHEN WE TALKED IN CHARTER MEETINGS AND WE'RE, WE MADE THE DISTINCTION THAT WE HAD SOME OUT THERE FOR YEARS AND SAID, WELL, IRREGARDLESS, WE NEED TO BRING DATES BACK AS, AS, AS WAS JUST INDICATED THERE TO SAY THAT SOMETHING GOES AWAY IF THAT'S NOT BEING RESPONDED TO. BUT IT IS NOT IN THIS, MA'AM. OKAY.

THIS IS YOUR BOARDS AND COMMITTEES, WHICH IS WHERE YOUR DRB IS.

THIS IS THIS IS NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE SITE, PLAN, PROCESS OR ANYTHING IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THAT ORDINANCE WAS ESSENTIALLY PASSED ON FIRST READING, BUT 80%, 85% OF IT WAS STRIPPED BY COUNCIL.

SO I'M STILL WORKING WITH STAFF ON THAT. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROCESS, THIS DRB MEETING, THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED NOW WILL HAPPEN BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF ANYTHING, INCLUDING CITY STAFF.

SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE KICKOFF MEETING BECAUSE CITY STAFF, CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS NO ON STAFF, ARCHITECTS, COULD USE THE INSIGHT FROM THE DRB IN REVIEWING WHAT THEY DO.

SO THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED. IF WE NEED TO MAKE THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW. BUT I'M HAPPY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES COUNCIL WANTS. MR. MCCONNELL, I APOLOGIZE.

I DIDN'T READ IT THAT WAY. I READ IT THAT IT CAME AFTER SITE PLAN, NOT BEFORE SITE PLAN.

SO LET'S CLEAR UP. SO COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IS, WHICH IS WHY WE JUST CHANGED THE NAME. AND I'LL LET ERICA DO THAT.

SO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IS APPLICABLE TO PRETTY MUCH ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT OR LARGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT SITE PLAN PROCESS IS WHERE THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THE PROJECT TO STAFF AND WE DISTRIBUTE THAT TO ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY.

FIRE, FEMA REVIEW BUILDING DEPARTMENT, TREE PROTECTION.

I MEAN, EVERY DEPARTMENT SEES THIS POLICE FIRE, EVERYONE SEES IT.

THEY GIVE US THEIR COMMENTS. IT'S A LEVEL OF SERVICE CHECK.

AND IT'S ALSO REVIEWING THIS PROJECT AGAINST ALL APPLICABLE CODES.

I ONLY LOOK AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT'S THOSE ARE THE REGULATIONS THAT YOUR ZONING REGULATIONS.

HOWEVER OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE DIFFERENT PLANS, DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, ORDINANCES DIFFERENT.

YOU KNOW, THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. SO EVERYBODY REUSE THESE PROJECTS. NOW THAT REVIEW CAN TAKE A LONG TIME BECAUSE THE WAY THE PROCESS IS SET UP, THEY SUBMIT IT TO US. EVERY DEPARTMENT DOES A REVIEW.

THERE'S A WINDOW OF TIME IN WHICH WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

THEN WE EITHER ISSUE A SUFFICIENCY LETTER OR WE ISSUE WHAT WE CALL AN RA, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS SENDING IT BACK TO THE PETITIONER AND SAYING, WE PROVIDE ALL THE COMMENTS FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN WAYS THAT THIS PLAN NEEDS TO BE REVISED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OUR VARIOUS REGULATIONS.

THEY GET THAT RA, THEY THEN RESUBMIT BACK TO US.

NOW, WHETHER CURRENTLY THAT HAPPENS CONCURRENT WITH DRB, THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR CODE THAT SAYS WHICH ONE HAS TO HAPPEN FIRST.

YOU CAN SUBMIT THEM AT THE SAME TIME. YOU CAN SUBMIT SITE PLAN FIRST OR YOU CAN SUBMIT PRELIMINARY DRB FIRST.

THEY YOU KNOW, THEY KIND OF RUN THE SAME TIME.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE'S NO TIMELINE ON SITE PLAN IN THE SENSE THAT I, YOU KNOW, THE WAY OUR CODE READS RIGHT NOW, IF THEY SUBMIT A DESIGN REVIEW PETITION WITHIN 44 DAYS, I PUT THAT ON AN AGENDA.

YOU HAVE A DETERMINATION SITE PLAN. COULD TAKE ONE ROUND OF REVIEW TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE.

SO THERE'S NO TIMELINE, SO THERE'S NO TELLING WHICH ONE WILL END FIRST.

WHICH ONE HAPPENS FIRST? I THINK THAT'S I MEAN, IT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT CLEAR THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

WRITTEN HERE. I GUESS WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

CURRENTLY, YOU OFTEN HAVE DESIGN REVIEW FIRST, JUST BY NATURE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S A GUARANTEED TIMELINE ON THAT, BECAUSE 44 DAYS AND IT'S HEARD OFTEN SITE PLANS TAKE LONGER.

BUT I IT'S. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION JUST FOR POINT OF CLARITY, JUST TO MAKE SURE I HEARD AS I WAS IN THE ROOM AS THIS WAS BEING DISCUSSED, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS SUCH AND IT WAS TRYING TO BE ARTICULATED.

AND AGAIN, I'M COMING IN LATE ON THIS, BUT THAT THOSE HAPPEN CONCURRENTLY.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SITE PROCESS MAY TAKE LONGER, DRB WAS GOING TO GIVE IT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WOULD SERVE AS ITS ONLY TIME, BUT IT WOULD BE SO BY THE TIME YOU'RE DONE WITH THE SITE PLAN, YOU HAVE DRB COMMENTS. EVERYTHING ELSE AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, IF THERE WAS ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE DRB MEETING AND THE DRB

[04:45:10]

IDENTIFIED SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO NEEDED TO SEE AND THE FINAL IN THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAD THE ABILITY, THEN IF IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TO REFER IT BACK TO DRB FOR A FINAL VIEW.

I DON'T I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU BELIEVE THAT IS SET UP BY VIRTUE OF THIS OR NOT. YES. WHAT WE FIND THE MOST IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SEE LARGE CHANGES TO A PLAN, IT'S OFTEN COMING OUT OF SITE PLAN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL SEE SOLID WASTE WILL SAY YOU HAVE TO COMPLETELY RELOCATE YOUR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE OR, YOU KNOW, LARGE CHANGES TO THESE PLANS OFTEN COME OUT OF SITE PLAN.

SO YES, IF THEY HAVE THE DRB APPROVAL AND THEN SOME, THERE'S A MAJOR CHANGE COMING OUT OF SITE PLAN.

THERE'S THE ABILITY TO REFER IT BACK TO DRB. OKAY.

SO SO FRAMING IT THAT WAY IS DO YOU SEE. BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT THE PRESUMPTIONS YOU WALK UP WITH THIS WAY THAT THAT SOUNDS MORE APPROPRIATE.

BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE WAY WE UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT DRB GOES AFTER YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

SO AS LONG AS THESE CAN RUN CONCURRENTLY, THEN THEN CAN YOU GIVE ME THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW. I'LL READ WHAT'S WRITTEN.

PROCEDURE, DESIGN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS THAT OTHERWISE REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY STAFF, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OR THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO I THINK BY INCLUDING CITY STAFF, THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE DRB PRIOR TO SITE PLAN BECAUSE THAT PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE CITY STAFF APPROVAL. HAPPY TO WORD THAT DIFFERENTLY. IF NEED BE, BUT I THAT'S WHAT I LOOK AT TO DETERMINE B1 IT'S B1 CORRECT. SO IN THAT CASE THAT'S SAYING WE NEED FINAL DRB BEFORE STAFF CAN ISSUE SITE PLAN. YEAH THAT'S BEFORE THE STAFF APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN.

RIGHT. BUT I DIDN'T WE CAN DRAFT IT THAT WAY.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT THEY CAN RUN CONCURRENT.

I THINK IT'S GENERAL ENOUGH TO SAY AS LONG AS YOU GET DRB APPROVAL PRIOR TO STAFF APPROVAL, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. YEAH. WE CAN BE MORE DIRECT AND SAY WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS.

IF WE NEED TO CLEAN IT UP. WE'LL CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

SO IT DOESN'T SAY THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS IT SAYS DESIGN REVIEW.

APPROVAL BY THE BOARD IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BY CITY STAFF.

SO WHAT HE'S SAYING IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE IRB APPROVAL BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE YOUR SITE PLAN, BUT NOT BEFORE WE CAN REVIEW YOUR SITE, BECAUSE THAT SAYS BEFORE CONSIDERATION.

SO I COULD SEE STAFF SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE DRB, SO I'M NOT EVEN CONSIDER REVIEWING THIS YET.

THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF THEY COULD RUN CONCURRENTLY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THEN IT ELIMINATES THE BIG TIME LAPSE THAT WE HAVE. AND SO IF IT CAN JUST BE STAFF CAN'T ISSUE THEIR SITE PLAN SUFFICIENCY SUFFICIENCY LETTER WITHOUT FINAL DRB, THAT WOULD BE FINE BECAUSE THEN AGAIN IT'S RUNNING CONCURRENTLY. IT'S NOT STICKING A POTENTIAL 120 DAYS ON THE BACK END OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

THAT'S THAT'S THE SCARY PART. AND MADAM MAYOR, I'M A I'M A VISUAL LEARNER.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS FLOWCHART WHICH JUST LOOKING AT THE FLOWCHART ALONE WOULD SUGGEST THAT DRB IS HAPPENING AFTER.

AND IF WE SIMPLY MOVE IT UP. SO IT'S A NEXT TWO THAT WAS JUST SUBMITTED, THE ONE THAT THE PROPOSED WHERE IT'S STILL ONLY ONE, IT'S STILL ONLY ONE DRB MEETING. I'M SORRY IT'S HERE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS WOULD SUGGEST THAT ALL OF THIS HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THIS CAN TAKE PLACE. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS MOVING THIS UP TO HERE.

TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S NOT IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE THAT'S RELATED TO THE OTHER ORDINANCE.

THAT'S CORRECT. SORRY. YES. I DIDN'T SEE I LITERALLY HAD TO GO DIG THIS OUT.

SO I WAS LIKE BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, I'M LISTENING TO THIS GOING ON AND I'M LIKE, WHAT AM I? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? SO SORRY. OKAY.

AND AND I'LL GET OUT OF THE WAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.

NO. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE PORTE COCHERE.

SO HERE'S HERE'S WHERE I SEE PROBLEMS. OKAY. DRB SAW THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL.

DRB. AND THAT WASN'T THE PURPOSE OF MY. WELL, I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THAT WAS.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU. THEY ALSO SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE PORTE COCHERE.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, SO THEY CREATED A PROBLEM THERE.

OKAY. AND THEN WE HAD TO GO THROUGH REVIEWING IT, AND THEY BLAMED IT ALL ON US.

OKAY. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE DRB. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE ARCHITECTS TO MAKE THIS TRANSPARENT.

AND WHAT WASN'T TRANSPARENT WERE THESE RESOLUTIONS AS DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, AND WE WANT TO MAKE IT SO THAT STAFF HAS DRB EXPERTISE. THEY WANT DRB EXPERTISE. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.

I AGREE COMPLETELY, IF WE COULD JUST CHANGE THE WORD TO CONCURRENT, I THINK THAT ELIMINATES.

[04:50:03]

AND THEN I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IS THE SITE PLAN ACTUALLY COMPLETE? WHEN THEY ISSUE A LETTER OF SUFFICIENCY, WHICH WOULD BE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL BY COUNCIL? NO, NO. SO SITE PLAN C, SOME SITE THE ONLY SITE PLANS THAT ARE COMPLETE BY COUNCIL'S REVIEW ARE WITHIN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

NO. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE PROBLEM BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING COMPLETE.

WE JUST SEE PDS. AND BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN IN ANY PROJECT.

DOES A SITE PLAN? GET APPROVED BY STAFF AFTER YOU'VE DONE ALL YOUR.

BUT THERE'S A TIMELINE. THERE'S NOT A THERE'S NOT A TIMELINE.

THERE'S A TIMELINE ON HOW LONG WE HAVE TO REVIEW EACH SUBMITTAL, EACH ROUND OF OF SUBMITTALS.

SO IF IT'S A PD THAT COMES TO COUNCIL, IT GOES THROUGH NAPLES BEACH HOTEL PROCESS AND THEN IT GOES TO YOU.

SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

THERE'S NOT A TIMELINE IN THE SENSE OF YOU SUBMIT IT ON THIS DAY AND YOU'RE GUARANTEED A SUFFICIENCY LETTER ON THIS DAY.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING COUNCIL WOULD SEE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN.

YOU WOULD SEE A SITE PLAN THAT WAS FOUND SUFFICIENT BY STAFF, BUT THAT WOULD NOT ON ITS OWN BECAUSE IT'S IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT CITY COUNCIL'S REVIEW OF THAT SITE PLAN.

RIGHT. AND IF IT'S NOT CITY COUNCIL, WHAT'S THAT PROCESS? IT GOES TO DRB AND THEY WOULD APPROVE THINGS LIKE DESIGN.

YES. AND THEN STAFF WOULD REVIEW. AND TO BE CLEAR, STAFF'S REVIEW OF THIS SITE PLUS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SITE PLAN IS I ALMOST WANT TO CALL IT A TECHNICAL REVIEW BECAUSE IT IS REVIEW OF LEVEL OF SERVICE.

ARE THEY PROVIDING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE? DO THEY MEET, YOU KNOW, OUR SOLID WASTE TRUCKS ACCESS THEIR DUMPSTER LOCATION.

IT'S A IT'S A REVIEW. IT'S IT'S THAT STAFF LEVEL REVIEW.

IT GOES A LITTLE BEYOND A PERMIT REVIEW BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DEPARTMENTS THAT MAYBE DON'T LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE BUILDING PERMIT, BUT THEY YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A PRELIMINARY LOOK FOR ALL THE STAFF, ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS TO SAY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS FEASIBLE ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE TO BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY.

BUT UNDERSTAND, NOTHING GETS BUILT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW.

SO AT THE BEFORE ANYTHING IS BUILT, EVERY DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO REVIEW THIS AGAIN AT A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO HAVING SITE PLAN AT THE BEGINNING ISN'T ISN'T NECESSARILY YOU'RE NOT LOSING ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DO THIS REVIEW AGAIN IN A MUCH MORE TECHNICAL LEVEL BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS PROVIDED OR ISSUED. SO CAN I ASK MISS MARTIN A QUESTION? OF COURSE. SO PUTTING PDS TO THE SIDE, LET'S SAY SOMEONE WANTS TRANSIENT LODGING, WHICH REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WOULD APPLY FOR LIKE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW BEFORE THIS CHANGE IT WOULD APPLY FOR SITE PLAN.

THEY WOULD GET A SUFFICIENCY LETTER. CONCURRENTLY THEY WOULD GO TO PRELIMINARY.

THEN THEY WOULD GET FINAL. THEN THEY WOULD GET A SUFFICIENCY SUFFICIENCY LETTER FROM SITE PLAN SAYING YOU'VE MET THIS.

THEN THEY GO TO PLANNING BOARD AND THEY GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

AND WE WOULD NOTE, YES, THAT'S THAT'S THE PROCESS.

BUT THEN AFTER CITY COUNCIL, THEN THEY GET FINAL, FINAL, FINAL.

DRB RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER THAT IS WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH IS A MORE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC REVIEW. CORRECT. HOWEVER, A SITE PLAN REVIEW HAPPENING AGAIN AT THAT POINT.

NO. OKAY. SO MANY MANY OF THE ITEMS ARE, BUT IT'S NOT A FULL SITE PLAN REVIEW.

FOR EXAMPLE, UTILITIES GOES BACK THROUGH AGAIN.

AND THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, UTILITIES MAY LOOK AT IT FROM A SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE. YEAH THERE'S UTILITIES ON THE SITE AND THEY'RE FINE. BUT WHEN IT COMES BACK THROUGH THE SECOND TIME, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO HAVE THE NUMBER OF FIXTURES COUNTED THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. WE GOT TO HAVE OUR ALL OF OUR METER SIZE AND EVERYTHING. SO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT, AS ERIC IS SAYING, GETS TO A MUCH, MUCH MORE DEFINED LEVEL IN THE BUILDING PERMIT.

SO WE'RE REALLY NOT GIVING ANYTHING UP IN THE SITE PLAN.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO FROM A FROM A DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS CONDENSE THAT SITE PLAN TIMELINE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE SEEM TO BE LOSING THE MOST AMOUNT OF TIME.

IT'S NOT DRB AND IT'S NOT BUILDING PERMIT. IT'S THAT SITE PLAN APPLICATION TIME THAT STILL GETS REVIEWED ON SOME LEVEL IN THE BUILDING TIME FRAME.

SO SO THEN I HAVE A QUESTION, IF I MAY, JUST KEEPING THIS THE CONCURRENT ASPECTS AND EFFICIENCY IN WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, BECAUSE THE TRANSIENT LODGING USE COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL USE.

RIGHT. THE TRANSIENT LODGING USE. SO TECHNICALLY, WHY COULDN'T ALL OF THEM RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH SITE PLAN.

JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. THAT WOULD BE AMAZING.

WELL, I'M JUST I'M AGAIN JUST ASKING BECAUSE IF CAN I.

YES, WEIGH IN HERE BECAUSE THIS IS WHEN I FIRST CAME ON COUNCIL.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. WE HAD THAT PROJECT FOR $72.5 INTO IT, AND I'M LIKE,

[04:55:02]

SO MIKE AND I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN IN COMMENTS, I MEAN, COMMUNICATIONS, BUT IN TERMS OF EFFICIENCY, IF IT'S A VARIANCE, IF IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE VACATING, IF IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ENCHILADA.

THERE'S SO MUCH THAT CAN BE DONE BY RIGHT THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY SEE. BUT IN THAT INSTANCE, I THINK IT SHOULD COME TO US FIRST, OR AT LEAST IF IT'S IF THAT'S MORE BURDENSOME, GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF COMING TO US FIRST.

BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO KILL A PROJECT, IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY YOU'RE NOT HAVING TRANSIENT LODGING THERE, LET THEM KNOW BEFORE THEY GET DOWN THE ROAD. AND SO, ACCORDING TO BURNS, AND WE DIDN'T EVEN DISCUSS THIS. IT'S MY FAULT FOR KIND OF GIVING IN BECAUSE NOBODY HAD ANY INTEREST.

BUT I LIKE YOUR FLOWCHART. BURN AND I BURNS FLOWCHART.

IF IT'S ONE OF THOSE USES AND IT HAS TO COME TO US ANYWAY.

AFTER ALL THAT, THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT IS PUNITIVE, THAT YOU'RE WASTING ALL THIS TIME AND MONEY.

AND TO PREVENT THAT, I THINK IT SHOULD COME TO US FIRST.

AND THEN IF WE GIVE THEM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE APPROVED.

IT MEANS, YEAH, WE AGREE THAT TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE OR YES, WE WOULD VACATE THAT FOR THAT USE THOSE TYPES OF WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND WE HAD THE DISCUSSION OF THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS JUST A SKETCH, AN IDEA KIND OF LIKE PRIME SOCIAL.

IT STARTS OFF A SMALL PLACE, AND THEN BY THE TIME IT EVOLVES, IT'S A PRIVATE CLUB.

WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT, RIGHT? WELL, WAIT, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW.

BUSINESS MODEL? NO, NO, I'M NOT TALKING. WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU GO THROUGH THAT CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THEY HAD TO GET PARKING TO GET CONDITIONAL USE. THAT'S WHAT SHOULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO A BUSINESS MODEL RIGHT NOW. MADAM MAYOR, ON, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SITE PLAN WAS COMPLETE, THE DRB WAS COMPLETE.

EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETE BEFORE IT CAME IN FRONT OF YOU FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT ONE. LOOK. LOOK AT IT IN REVERSE, MADAM MAYOR.

LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO KILL IT IMMEDIATELY.

NIP IT IN THE BUD. AS OPPOSED TO. OH, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE.

WHAT? NO YOU'RE NOT. WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS SEE WHAT YOU WILL NOT ALLOW. I AGREE, BUT WE HAD OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN WAS VERY OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE IT COULD CHANGE.

WE COULD SAY YES. THEY THINK THAT WE'RE FOR IT.

AND THEN IT COMES BEFORE US AS IT EVOLVES AND WE SAY, NO.

IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS COUNCIL HAS TO GET MORE COMFORTABLE WITH LEANING INTO YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT IF SOMETHING DEVIATES FROM SOMETHING THAT YOU APPROVED, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, THAT'S MINOR.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. OR YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL AND YOU NEED TO LEAN INTO YOUR STAFF ON THAT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE'S MINOR CHANGES. AND AGAIN, I'LL USE THE PORTE COCHERE. IF IT'S A TWO FOOT CHANGE, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. BUT BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW THAT CHANGES THE CALCULATIONS IN THE SITE PLAN AND THE WAY WE OPERATE TODAY, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT 2 OR 3 MONTH PROCESS.

SO THAT'S THE FEAR OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHERE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THIS, IF A CONCURRENT SYSTEM WOULD BE THE BEST.

BUT THAT CONCURRENT SYSTEM DOES RELY ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF, WHICH HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY NO, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT CHANGE IS SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH. WELL, THE OTHER THING IS I'M TALKING ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL USE.

FUNDAMENTAL USE WHERE FOR TRANSIENT LODGING IS THE BEST IN MY VIEW.

EXAMPLE OF THIS. NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE TRANSIENT LODGING.

LET THEM KNOW. MATT CRAIG SAID THAT. YOU SAID THAT.

EVERYBODY SAID THAT WE ALREADY HAD SOMEBODY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COME FORWARD AND SAY, WE WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT.

AND MR. MCCLAIN'S BEEN COMING AND COMING AND COMING.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT PRIORITY IS GOING TO COME.

SO THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT THERE. ANYBODY CAN COME BEFORE US AT ANY TIME AND ASK, DO YOU THINK A GOING TO BE CAREFUL A PROJECT I WON'T USE SPECIFICS IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THIS LOCATION.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO DO THAT FIRST. THEY CAN DO IT NOW. IT MEANS NOTHING IF THEY DO IT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, BECAUSE I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO NOT GIVE THEM AN ANSWER.

SO LIKE THEY COULD COME HERE. I MEAN, EVEN I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, A TEXT AMENDMENT. JUST BECAUSE YOUR CODE DOESN'T ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO DO IT ON ITS OWN, WHICH IS THE WAY IT IS, RIGHT? OR ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT ON THEIR OWN AND PROPOSED IT TO YOU ALL FOR BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. BUT THIS ISN'T A VOLUNTEER.

I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS IT'S IT'S UNCOMMON TO HAVE A FINAL BUILDING READY SITE PLAN PRIOR TO ADDRESSING A CONDITIONAL USE THAT IS NOT COMMON ANYWHERE THAT I'VE REPRESENTED.

JUST SAYING. AND I THINK TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS, I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE LIKES TO LOOK AT PICTURES AND BUILDINGS AND THOSE THINGS MATTER, BUT LEGALLY YOU ARE GRANTING THE USE OF TRANSIENT LODGING.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.

THAT IS WHAT THE CRITERIA YOU'RE REVIEWING ARE ARE IS THE USE.

IT'S NOT THE PORT. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT TO WHAT YOU, BUT IT'S REALLY JUST THE USE ITSELF.

[05:00:07]

AND SOMETIMES THAT GETS FORGOTTEN BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION PROVIDED TO YOU ALL AND THERE'S SO MANY DIAGRAMS AND ALL OF THIS OTHER STUFF THAT THE FOCUS BECOMES THAT WHEN IN REALITY THE FOCUS IS CAN THIS USE WITH CONDITIONS BE APPROVED OR DENIED? AND HONESTLY, WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS GOING BACK TO WHEN WE MADE THE MAJOR CHANGES OF GIVING ALL THE COUNCIL WORK TO DRB, AND THAT HAPPENED IN OH 8 OR 13.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD GO BACK TO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

YOU WANT ME LOOKING AT COLOR PALETTES. I'M SORRY.

DO YOU WANT ME LOOKING AT COLOR PALETTES? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COLOR PALETTES.

IT HAS TO DO. DRB DOESN'T LOOK AT COLOR PALETTES.

IT HAS TO DO WITH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. AND WHO APPROVES PROJECTS? WHAT DOES DRB LOOK AT THAT? YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT 90% OF THE PROJECTS IN THIS COMMUNITY? WHAT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PROJECTS? 100% GO TO DRB.

THAT'S RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS TOO. TO, WELL, NOT RESIDENTIAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS REGARDING DRB AND THIS SPECIFIC ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

LIKE YOU MAYOR HEITMAN I AND IT WASN'T THE TWO THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT, BUT WHO ARE TWO VERY RESPECTED PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF OF BUILDING PROJECTS. BERN HAD SOME FOLKS THAT TALKED TO HIM.

I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE, TOO, WHO I'VE KNOWN FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND COACHED THEIR KIDS AND ALL THAT, AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMBIGUITY HERE, THAT IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE'RE SAYING ABOUT WHAT DOES MORE BURDENSOME MEAN? AND THEY HAVE THE SAME FEELING. AND IT COMES BACK TO AND QUITE HONESTLY, I TRIED TO TAKE SOME NOTES WHEN YOU FIRST YOU SAID THAT THE FINAL DRB IS EVERYTHING BUT LIGHTING, SIGNAGE AND LET LET ERICA TELL YOU THE TRUTH, NOT ME.

WELL, I'M I'M YOU'RE TALKING. YOU WERE COMPELLING ME.

SO. SO OF COURSE I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND LANDSCAPE.

AND SO MY QUESTION SO SHOULD WE PUT THAT IN THERE THAT THAT'S WHAT IF IT'S GOING TO BE ONE REVIEW.

AND THEN AFTER THAT YOU SAID WELL THEY COULD HAVE ONE 2 OR 3 REVIEWS.

AND ALL I'M SAYING IS WHATEVER IT IS, ALL OF THAT VERBIAGE, IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE DOCUMENT WE NEED.

IT'S JUST SPECIFICITY. SPECIFICITY THAT GIVES EVERYBODY IS SAFE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW TO WHAT THEY'RE GAMBLING ON.

HOW MUCH MONEY AM I GOING TO INVEST HERE? IS THIS JUICE WORTH THE SQUEEZE? WHEN WE HAVE SPECIFICITY AND IT'S OBVIOUS FROM THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD FOR THE LAST HOUR OR WHATEVER, THAT THIS ISN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH.

WELL, I WILL JUST SAY I AGREE WITH WITH MAYBE YOUR PERCEPTION, BUT I HAD ERICA, THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY. THIS HAS BEEN A TWO YEAR IN PROGRESS.

WE HAD A FORMER CITY MANAGER, NOW A NEW CITY MANAGER, WHO WAS TRYING TO BRING THIS REQUEST TO A COMPLETION RUN BY YOUR STAFF. OKAY. NO ONE WAS LISTENING IN. WHATEVER I WANTED.

BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK TO WHERE IT WAS.

AND THAT'S THAT. COUNCIL DOES THEIR JOB AND DOESN'T PAWN IT OFF ON ANOTHER COMMITTEE.

SO THEY WEREN'T LOOKING AT ME AND SAYING WHATEVER THE MAYOR WANTS.

OKAY, SO I'M A LITTLE OFFENDED THAT YOU'RE COMING IN AT THE LAST HOUR BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A FIRST READING.

WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT BEFORE. AND IT'S JUST IT'S IT'S LIKE, LET'S THROW A WRENCH IN THE WORK THAT PEOPLE HAVE DONE AND NOT LET IT GET APPROVED BY THE SECOND BY SAYING WE'RE GOING TOO FAST AND IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT.

IF THERE'S SPECIFIC THE OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN THE FIRST READING AND TODAY, WELL, WE HAD A WORKSHOP ABOUT IT BETWEEN THE FIRST READING AND TODAY, WE HAD A WORKSHOP BEFORE WE CAME UP WITH THE FIRST READING.

WELL, THE BUT THE WORKSHOP WAS A YEAR AGO. NO SUGGESTING TO ABBREVIATE THE PROCEDURE.

THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO, AND THAT WAS A MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW WE WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IN MAKING SURE THESE POLICIES WENT FASTER.

MADAM MAYOR, JUST TO. SO THERE'S BEEN SOME VALUABLE INFORMATION LEARNED IN THE DIALOG.

ONE IS THE MISPERCEPTION THAT THEY WERE FLIPPED AND THAT THEY WERE.

BUT IF THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT TO GIVE THAT COMFORT, I THINK THAT'S A THAT'S AN IMPORTANT NUANCE, BECAUSE THE ONLY CLARITY AND THAT'S WHY I SPOKE UP TO MAKE SURE THE FORM IS FOLLOWING FUNCTION.

RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT THE WORDSMITHING IS THE PART TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS, THAT IS COMFORTABLE NOW GETTING WE KIND OF GOT SIDETRACKED BECAUSE WE WENT OFF CONDITIONAL USE AND BUT BUT MR. MCCONNELL SAID SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THESE INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS.

WE HAD THEM THEN THE KEY TO THAT IS RECOGNIZING AND I'M ONLY GOING TO SAY IT THEN I WANT TO SET IT TO THE SIDE FOR A MINUTE.

IS, IS THAT IF YOU'RE SAYING CONDITIONAL USE COMES IN UPFRONT, YOU CAN'T APPLY THE SAME CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE DOING TO EVERYTHING AT THIS TIME,

[05:05:05]

BECAUSE, AS MR. MCCONNELL SAID, AT THAT CONDITION.

CONDITIONAL USE ISN'T ALL AVAILABLE IF IT'S ON THE FRONT END.

NOW, THAT BEING SAID, I JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON CODE.

IS ANYTHING PROHIBITING ANYBODY FROM DOING CONDITIONAL USE NOW UP FRONT.

I JUST WANT TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE GET BACK TO THIS. THE WAY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, IF YOU LOOK IN HERE AND THEN IGNORE THE STRIKE THROUGH AND UNDERLINE THE CODE CURRENTLY REQUIRES THAT YOU DO PRELIMINARY, THEN ANY OF YOUR ENTITLEMENTS AND THEN FINAL.

AND THE REASON I WANTED TO ASK THAT IS BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH IT, I WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER WE HAD MORE WORK TO DO IF WE IF WE GOT TO THAT POINT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU VOTE ON THIS OR YOU DON'T, OR WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT. OKAY. SO TO LEVEL SET, I DON'T THINK I MEAN, THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY SECOND READING FOR FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND AND AGAIN I APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE IT BROUGHT CLARITY TO WHAT IS IN THE, THE THE ORDINANCE. I THINK IF WE. AND I GUESS I'M ASKING THIS FROM THE GENERAL, IF THE INTENT IS THERE, AND WE MODIFY THE LANGUAGE THAT GIVES IT THE COMFORT LEVEL AND INCLUDE THE FLOW CHARTS, THAT'S THERE.

THAT IS STILL A STEP IN THE POSITIVE DIRECTION, I THINK.

I THINK ULTIMATELY, AND THIS MIGHT SATISFY THE MAYOR'S REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S REQUIREMENTS HERE, IF THE TERM CONCURRENTLY IS APPLIED, THAT ANY OF THESE CAN HAPPEN CONCURRENTLY WITH DRB, THEN IF YOU SEE A CONDITIONAL USE PACKAGE OR YOU SEE A SITE PLAN PACKAGE, IF IT'S CONCURRENT WITH DRB, IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE FULL GAMUT OF PACKAGE.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE ALL THE RENDERINGS, ALL THE DRAWINGS, ALL THE LIGHTING IT'S GOING TO HAVE.

IT'S GOING TO BE A FULLY DEVELOPED PACKAGE THAT YOU SEE FOR CONDITIONAL USE, BUT IT CAN ALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.

IF YOU SAY CONCURRENT AND WITH DRB, I THINK IT TIES IT ALL TOGETHER THAT YOU GET A FULL PACKAGE FOR NO MATTER WHAT REVIEW YOU'RE DOING.

AND CAN I GET JUST ONE OTHER? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BUY IN OR DISSENTING OPINION, WHATEVER IT IS.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT. IF IT DOES HAPPEN CONCURRENTLY, IT THEN FINISHES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROVIDED THAT WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS WERE GIVEN AT THE ONE DRB MEETING AND IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT WHETHER IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND HAS CONDITIONAL USE OR A VARIANCE, THAT'S THAT'S EXTRA STUFF. BUT LET'S ASSUME JUST THE ONE.

IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVED AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TO WHAT SHE REQUIRES YOU TO GO BACK TO DRB, THAT'S FINE, BECAUSE YOU'VE ELIMINATED A FINAL DRB.

CORRECT. BUT IF THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT OR, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE WORKED WITH STAFF AND I DON'T THINK THAT COMPLIES, YOU HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT SHE CAN REFER IT BACK TO DRB FOR OSTENSIBLY WHAT WOULD BE A SECOND REVIEW.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT MECHANICS DOWN SO THAT I KNEW WHETHER YOU FELT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT OR. WE ARGUE WITH ERIC ALL THE TIME, BUT SHE ALWAYS WINS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET THOSE DOWN BECAUSE THAT CREATES SUBSTANCE WITHIN THE RESOLUTION TO GIVE IT CREDENCE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THOSE THINGS IN PLACE.

AND THEN I'LL STOP THERE AS TO WHETHER WE NEED OUR OTHER COMMENTS.

YEAH. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG, BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROCESS TO ME WOULD BE THAT YOU COME AND TELL US WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNING AND EXACTLY WHAT MR. YOUNG WAS TRYING TO DO, AND MAKING THIS SAUSAGE HERE SO THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE.

WE'RE COMFORTABLE. BUT THIS IT'S ALWAYS THE PATTERN.

LOW DOWN. YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST. LOOK, WE HAVE TO DO SOME THINGS AROUND HERE.

WE COMPLETELY AGREE. AND I THINK JUST BASED ON WHAT WE WHAT, WE KIND OF MADE A LITTLE SAUSAGE HERE TODAY OURSELVES, THAT IF WE CAN DO CONCURRENT AND WITH DRB, I THINK IT SOLVES THE MAJORITY OF THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT COMING IN TODAY.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS TODAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WAIT. I'M SORRY. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAD TO.

NO, MA'AM. THERE WAS ONE THING THAT YOU SAID, AND THAT WAS ABOUT THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

YOU WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT, OR YOU WERE CONCERNED, I DON'T.

THAT ORDINANCE IS COMING BACK ON NOVEMBER 5TH. YEAH, THAT ORDINANCE IS STILL COMING BACK. AND AND DRB AND DRB IS KIND OF TIED TO THAT, IS IT NOT? WE CAN TALK OFFLINE. YEAH. SO IT'S KIND OF JUST WE JUST GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THAT'S GOING TO, IF RIGHT NOW WE'RE TYING DRB TO SITE PLAN, WHETHER IT'S CONCURRENT BEFORE OR AFTER, WHATEVER IS THAT GDP GOING TO PLUG IN WHERE SITE PLAN IS AND EVERYTHING IS GOING TO STILL ALIGN OR IS GDP A MONTH FROM NOW GOING TO CHANGE THIS DRB THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OUT HERE TODAY? THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY REMAINING COMMENT THERE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU. I HAD KRAMER AND THEN VICE MAYOR AND THEN PETRANOFF.

I'LL LET THEM GO FIRST. I, I HAVE TO SORT IT OUT IN MY HEAD.

OKAY. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'M. I'M ONE.

[05:10:01]

THAT'S ALL FOR STREAMLINING THINGS, RIGHT? BUT AFTER HEARING WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY I HEARD THE. I'M GOING TO JUST KIND OF REGURGITATE A FEW THINGS, AND THEN I HAVE A STATEMENT.

AND THIS WAS PRIOR TO MR. MCLAIN COMING UP WITH THE WORDS CONCURRENTLY.

OKAY. BUT HIS STATEMENTS WERE PRELIMINARY. DRB NOT HOLDING UP PROJECTS.

THERE WERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. HE MENTIONED FLORIDA STATUTE 125.

WHAT? 175 OR 125? 125 IS FOR COUNTIES, 022 FOR COUNTIES.

SO IT'S 166 .033 FOR CITIES. YEP. HE TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IN THE FLOW OF THINGS WHETHER THAT'S BEFORE THE GDP GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR AFTER GDP.

THE ISSUE IS THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS IS WHAT HE SAID.

AND WHEN WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT DATES, DATES THAT COULD BE EXTENDED DATES THAT TRIGGERED CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WORK ON BEHALF OF STAFF AND, AND THE PETITIONER THEN IT STARTS CHECKING OFF A BOX FOR ME, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT TRIGGER MORE BURDENSOME, MORE RESTRICTIVE.

IN OTHER WORDS, HERE WE ARE TRYING TO STREAMLINE SOMETHING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT BEING APPROACHED BY OUR OUR DESIGN COMMUNITY FOR BEING MORE, MORE RESTRICTIVE OR MORE BURDENSOME.

SO I'M LAYING THAT OUT THERE JUST TO I'M NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT.

I BELIEVE OH BEFORE I SAY THIS, AND I'LL SAY THAT LAST.

WE WE'VE IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS JUST IN THE SAUSAGE MAKING THAT MIGHT MITIGATE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

AND THAT WAS IN WORDSMITHING. AND WE HAVE COUNCILMAN BARTON'S FLOWCHART CONSIDERATIONS.

SO HERE'S THINGS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED JUST DURING DISCUSSION THAT INDICATES THIS WASN'T READY FOR PRIME TIME TODAY.

OKAY. AND THEN THE WORD CONCURRENTLY. THE ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE INTO AND I DON'T I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE GO INTO IT TODAY, BUT IF THIS COMES BACK, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE WAY OUR PLANNING PROCESSES AND WHAT WE'RE DESCRIBING, HOW THAT HOW THAT TIES IN TO NAPLES AIRPORT PROJECTS.

OBJECTS, OKAY, IF AT ALL. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OVER OUR SKIS.

AND WE'VE THOUGHT IT THROUGH CRITICALLY BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION.

SO FOR ME AND THIS IS MY LAST STATEMENT, WE COULD ALL BENEFIT FROM A ONE MORE BITE AT THE APPLE ON A WORKSHOP ON THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. OKAY. I THINK WE HEARD THE INFORMATION FROM THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK GOING BACK AND CLARIFYING THESE THINGS IS ABSOLUTELY NEVER GOING TO HURT.

NOT TO, BUT WE SHOULD JUST RESCIND IT. REALLY? COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. YES. SORRY. DID WELL, I DID, YEAH, I YOU'RE GOING TO THE NEXT ITEM YOU'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS PRIORITIES. AND I'M JUST GOING TO REMIND YOU OF TWO WORKSHOPS BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH. SO I THINK THIS I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE BE DELAYED SUBSTANTIALLY.

AND WHAT I RECOMMEND IS WE WE GO BACK. WE'VE HEARD THE CONVERSATION.

THAT'S WHY I PROBED A LITTLE TO SEE ABOUT THAT.

LET'S HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND COME UP WITH A DRAFT.

BUT I THINK WE SHOULD NOT WORKSHOP IT. I THINK WE SHOULD BRING IT BACK.

IF IT'S SUBSTANTIAL, WE WOULD HAVE FIRST READ AGAIN.

IF IT'S MINIMAL, THEN WE WOULD. WE WOULDN'T START THAT OVER.

BUT I THINK WE JUST CONTINUE THE ITEM, BRING IN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BACK, ADVERTISE IT AS A SECOND READING.

AND AND I DEFER OBVIOUSLY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TELL ME WHETHER NO THEN PULL OFF FACE.

BUT I DON'T I THINK WORKSHOPPING IT AGAIN WOULD DO A DISSERVICE, AND IT WOULD SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN TO THE POINT THAT IT WOULD IT WOULD ALMOST MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO FINISH ANY TIME BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH, THAT'S ALL.

YEAH. AND I NOTICED A TYPO IN THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE IN DESIGN REVIEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CAME IN BECAUSE THAT THAT'S INACCURATE. IT'S JUST SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE IN THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND THAT'S THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP.

SO I'M WITH YOU, PETRANOFF. YES. THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS.

[05:15:05]

ONE IS, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE CHANGES ARE BEING MADE TO MAKE THE PROCESS BETTER AND NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE WE HAVE ALLOWED OURSELVES AND OTHERS TO BE CONFUSED THAT THE DRB KICKS OUT A DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

WHEN IT WHEN IT NEVER DID. AND BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE.

I'M SORRY. IS THAT LEGALLY, THAT'S 100% TRUE.

AND I'VE SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES. I'M SORRY. MR. DICKMAN TOLD ME THAT WASN'T TRUE. SO I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU HERE.

SO. SO. OKAY, SO ASSUMING THAT THAT THAT IS TRUE, I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS A TAKE THIS LEAP.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE OFTEN USED IT. YOU KNOW, THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY HAVE OFTEN SAID, WELL, WHEN WE GOT FULL APPROVAL FROM THE DRB, THERE'S BEEN THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF VERBIAGE THAT MAKES YOU MAKES THE PUBLIC AND MAKES SOME OF US THINK THAT THIS DOES KICK OFF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SOLVING THE RIGHT PROBLEMS. AND IF THERE ISN'T ONE, THEN THEN THERE'S JUST THERE'S A DIFFERENT WAY TO, TO SOLVE THAT, THAT AND THAT'S COMMUNICATION. THE SECOND IS REALLY TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH THIS CHANGE AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I SEE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS BETTER IS ONE INCREASED SPEED YOU KNOW, BE MORE NIMBLE TO DEVELOP GETTING. OH, OKAY. IS SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS DEATH FROM A THOUSAND CUTS.

AND I'LL GO BACK TO THE NAPLES BEACH CLUB WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY WOULD COME AND ASK FOR SOMETHING INCREMENTALLY AND THEN COME BACK AND ASK FOR SOMETHING INCREMENTALLY AGAIN. AND WE, YOU KNOW, THE PORTE COCHERE WAS WELL KNOWN IN ADVANCE.

WE KNEW IT WAS HANGING OUT THERE. WE KNEW IT.

YOU KNOW, WE ALSO KNEW THAT THE RESIDENTS, NUMBER ONE THING WAS NOT TO CREATE CANYONS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THOSE LITTLE TINY INCREMENTAL THINGS COME IN, IT IT SOUNDS SO HARMLESS, BUT THEY CAME IN FRONT OF US 15 TIMES, AND THOSE 15 CHANGES MAKE IT NOT SO.

NOT SO NOMINAL OF A CHANGE OR CHANGES. SO THAT THAT'S ONE PROBLEM I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOLVED.

THE OTHER I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOLVED IS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE ALMOST DONE WITH SOMETHING, AND WE'VE DONE IT FOR YEARS, LIKE TAKE THE ROOFTOP RESTAURANT, FOR EXAMPLE.

ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS REVEALED TO US THAT THIS ANIMAL THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR TWO YEARS IS NOW A PRIVATE CLUB.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS IN FRONT OF US WAS SOMETHING FOR TO APPROVE WAS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

AND WE WE WERE KIND OF FORCED INTO A DECISION, I GUESS, TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS THING, ON AN ANIMAL THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAD INITIALLY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE, AND WE DIDN'T EVEN GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHETHER IT MATTERED OR NOT.

ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE GIVING PUBLIC PARKING SPOTS FOR PRIVATE CLUB.

ANOTHER IS DEVELOPERS SPENDING A BOATLOAD OF MONEY.

IN THE CASE OF THE TRANSIENT LODGING WHERE THEY GET, YOU KNOW, SPENT, YOU KNOW, OVER A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS GETTING PLANS, ETCETERA, OVER A MILLION AND ONLY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT USAGE.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.

AND THOSE, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE MY MAIN, MY MAIN POINTS IS THAT WHATEVER THIS, WHATEVER THIS CHANGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THE PROCEDURE, WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.

THANK YOU. SO, MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION REAL QUICK, IF I MAY? YES. MR. MCCONNELL. SO ALTHOUGH THIS ORDINANCE TOUCHES ALMOST EVERY BOARD IN CHAPTER TWO, THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN CENTERED AROUND DRB. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S AN OPTION HERE TO APPROVE THIS ON SECOND READING WITHOUT TOUCHING DRB, BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SEEMS THAT DRB NEEDS ITS OWN ORDINANCE AND ITS OWN DISCUSSION, SO THAT WE'RE NOT WASTING 90% OF THIS ORDINANCE AND HOLDING IT UP FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG. AND I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE.

AND AT LEAST WE CAN CLEAN UP AND GET RID OF THE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD AND THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS, AND THEN NARROW THE FOCUS ON DRB IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING AT A LATER DATE.

YES, I LIKE THAT IDEA. IF YOU KNOW IF. OKAY. MR. YOUNG. YEAH. THE ONLY QUESTION IS THE EXACT WORD THAT GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT WHETHER IT'S NOT THE WORD CONCURRENT, BUT THAT STAFF COULDN'T BEGIN TO REVIEW THE SITE PLAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHETHER WE AGREE THAT VERBIAGE SAYS WHAT WE AND HOW WE INTEND TO DO IT.

[05:20:03]

THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION. THAT'S THE ONE WORD THAT I WANT WHEN YOU READ IT.

COULD YOU READ THAT SECTION IN DRB, WHICH IS COMPLETELY NOT WE'RE NOT DOING ANY CHANGES TO.

SO YOU'RE STRIKING IT FROM THIS RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE.

NOW SECTION THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE ALL THE WAY TO AS LONG AS YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT IT BE STRICKEN.

OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ADOPT THAT AS IS, THEN COME BACK AND CHANGE THAT.

THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT. SO SECTION FOUR, WHICH IS ALL OF SECTION FOUR IN THE ORDINANCE, WILL BE REMOVED AND EVERY OTHER CHANGE WILL TAKE PLACE IN OUR CODE.

AND THEN WE WITHDRAW WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT. THANK YOU. SO, MADAM MAYOR, JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF WE STRIKE THAT, DOES IT STILL PASS MUSTER AND IS WE'RE ENABLED, WE'RE ABLE TO IF WE WANT TO DO SO, TO VOTE AFFIRMATIVELY ON THIS ORDINANCE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE INTENDING TO STRIKE SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE PORTION OF IT, WE'RE OKAY. WE ARE OKAY. I WOULD MUCH RATHER THIS AT FIRST READING, BUT LEGALLY YOU ARE FINE BECAUSE WE ADVERTISE THE WHOLE THING WE HAD.

WE GAVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING IT.

WE JUST DECIDED AS A COUNCIL, IF YOU DO VOTE THIS WAY, IS TO ADDRESS IT SEPARATELY BECAUSE IT DESERVES THE ATTENTION.

OKAY. SO MR. YOUNG, I MEAN, I DEFER TO COUNCIL.

I'M. I'M FINE WITH THAT. IF IF YOU ARE THAT THE POINT BEING IS IF DRB IS STRICKEN FROM THIS, WE'RE NOT OPERATING UNDER SOMETHING OR A PERCEPTION OF.

IT'S NOT EXACTLY WRITTEN AS IT IS, SO BY STRIKING IT, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN AND AND JUST CONTINUE DOWN THAT.

BUT WHILE TRYING TO CIRCLE BACK AND SAY, WHEN CAN WE WORK ON DRB SPECIFICALLY? WELL, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY YOU COULDN'T COME BACK.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE GIVEN BEEN GIVEN DIRECTION.

MR. YOUNG SAT THERE AND WEAVED THAT RECOMMENDATION IN, TAKES ONE MEETING TO REVIEW THAT AND COME BACK PRESENTING TO COUNCIL. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO JUST DRAFT.

I MEAN, MY POINT IS, IS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE IT NOVEMBER 5TH.

MAYBE I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE A TIMETABLE YET. I WOULD SUBMIT THAT BY THE NOVEMBER 5TH WE WILL HAVE ALL HAD A DISCUSSION, INCLUDING YOURSELF, MADAM MAYOR, AND AND WORKED ON WHEN THAT ORDINANCE SCHEDULE WOULD BE COMING BACK.

I'M NOT PROFESSING TO LEAVE IT. SIT. I'M JUST SAYING, I CAN'T AT THIS MOMENT TELL YOU WHAT THAT EXACT DATE WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THAT'S ALL. IF I MAY. COUNCILMAN. SO I JUST WANT TO ASK OUR.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE. YOU'D LIKE TO TIE A BOW ON THE STUFF THAT WE KNOW IS GOOD.

IT'S ABOUT 90% OF THIS. AND THEN THAT'S DONE.

AND NOW THE 10%. THAT'S NOT. YOU'RE GOING TO YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND THEN BRING US BACK SOMETHING IN THE, IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. IS THAT THE CASE IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS ME TO DO.

YEAH. THE REQUEST WAS LIKE I DON'T WE DON'T NEED TO THROW OUT EVERYTHING WITH THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER.

RIGHT. DIDN'T KNOW THE EXPRESSION, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING OF IN MY HEAD. CORRECT.

THE COW ON THE ICE. THERE'S A COW ON THE ICE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT HONESTLY, I MEAN, PRIORITIES ARE COMING UP. I, I PERSONALLY, I CAN WORK WITH STAFF ON DRAFT.

I THINK THIS IS ALL COUNCIL DISCUSSION. I THINK THIS SHOULD ALL HAPPEN IN PUBLIC.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, SO I'LL PUT WORDS ON PAPER.

BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY THESE ARE POLICY DECISIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE. YEAH, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A LEGAL SUFFICIENCY THAT MR. MCCONNELL, YOU'VE GOT A LOT ON YOUR PLATE. THIS IS MR. YOUNG AND STAFF COMING UP WITH THAT POLICY. SO I MEAN, IT'S NOT YOU JUST NEED TO KNOW THE ONLY THING MAYOR THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T JUST POLICY.

THIS IS CODE. THIS IS US WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND I'M GRATEFUL HE HAS A LOT ON HIS PLATE AND THAT I DON'T.

IT'LL WORK OUT PERFECTLY THAT WAY. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I CERTAINLY DID NOT MEAN THAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THE CODE CHANGES ARE REFLECTIVE.

NOW, MY ONLY POINT ON ON THE WORKSHOP IS, AND I THINK THAT IS, IS IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE CHANGE, LEAVE EVERYTHING IN. IF THERE WAS TWO CHANGES, ONCE YOU'RE REMOVING DRB, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO A SEPARATE WORKSHOP, I DEFER TO TO YOU AT THAT POINT. BUT I CERTAINLY BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT WHERE IT'S ALL GOING TO FALL ON MATTHEW.

OR HOPEFULLY IT'S NOT GOING TO ALL FALL ON ON ERIC OR ME EITHER.

I THINK WE CONTINUE TO WORK IT SO WE GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT AS EXACTLY AS WE'VE DONE.

THAT'S MY HOPE. MY FOLLOW UP TO MATTHEW. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE FAR APART ON ON FIXING IT.

ARE WE? I MEAN, IF WE'RE BASING IT ON THE COMMENTS WE HEARD, IT'S LITERALLY ADDING ONE WORD.

BUT AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A WORKSHOP. AND OBVIOUSLY, COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMANN FEELS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE 2 TO 1 MEETING.

SO THAT'S DIFFERENT. BUT AGAIN, CITIZEN, I MEAN, THESE SOME OF THESE LAWS CHANGED A WHILE AGO.

[05:25:05]

I, I DO WANT TO REMOVE SOME OF THIS STUFF FROM THE CODE.

I DO WANT TO HAVE PLANNING BOARD RULES HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS THAT I DON'T WANT TO JUST PUT ON PAUSE UNTIL DECEMBER OR JANUARY.

RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THAT. SO. OKAY. COUNCILMAN CHRISTMANN.

YES. I STARTED THIS CONVERSATION A WHILE BACK.

AND BUT NUMBER ONE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A, A VERY GOOD IDEA TO ACT TODAY ON APPROVING THIS ORDINANCE MINUS THE DRB SECTION. WE THEN HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING AND, AND AND, AND AND THE DRB CONVERSATION DOES DESERVE MORE WORK. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION HAS HAS RANGED FAR AND WIDE FROM DRB, AND IT'S REALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU STEP BACK, IT'S ABOUT THE OVERALL PROCESS.

RIGHT. AND, AND THAT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PETITION PROCESS AND, AND I GUESS WHAT I WOULD, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND MR. YOUNG AND MR. MCCONNELL, MISS MARTIN, IS THAT IN GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE DRB SECTION, I THINK FOR US TO HAVE OUR NEXT CONVERSATION ON IT, WHETHER IT'S A WORKSHOP OR A NEW FIRST READING.

YOU KNOW, I'M I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING, BUT I THINK WHATEVER WE SAY ABOUT DRB HAS TO BE PUT, AT LEAST IN CONVERSATIONAL TERMS, IF NOT IN THE ORDINANCE IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OVERALL PROCESS.

AND YOU KNOW, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT COMES.

ARE WE TALKING YOU KNOW, WHERE IT FITS. SO THE OTHER ORDINANCE, WHICH WE APPROVED ON FIRST READING, WHICH DEALS WITH THE CHANGE, YOU KNOW, THE SITE PLAN TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S INTERRELATIONSHIPS THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST ENCOURAGING JUST TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU CAN LAY OUT THE PROCESS.

WE HAVE THE FLOW CHART THAT WAS PREPARED EARLIER.

MAYBE THERE'S AN UPDATED VERSION OF THAT OR SOME OTHER FORM IN EITHER NARRATIVE AND OR VISUAL THAT CAN SAY THIS.

THIS IS HOW WE THINK IT MIGHT GO. I WOULD URGE YOU TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

MR. MCLEAN IS HERE, I THINK. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT HE'S NOT JUST REPRESENTING HIMSELF OR EVEN THE MHK.

I THINK HE IS TRYING TO CHANNEL THE VIEWS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN COMMUNITY.

HE'S TALKED TO, AND IT MAY BE USEFUL TO TOUCH BASE WITH HIM BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO US OR OTHERS IN THAT COMMUNITY JUST TO YOU KNOW, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, BUT WE WANT TO HAVE THE INPUT FROM THAT, THAT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL.

SO THOSE ARE MY SUGGESTIONS. WELL, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU WERE ELECTED TO MAKE POLICY.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. IT WENT TO THE OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAD THE ONE ONE ARCHITECT COME AND GIVE US THEIR OPINION.

I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AND I THINK MR. YOUNG WEAVED IN SOME OF THE CONCERNS TO BE ADDRESSED, AND WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, QUITE FRANKLY, WITH TAKING SECTION FOUR COMPLETELY OUT.

AND WHEN DOES IT COME BACK? IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME.

BUT RESPECTFULLY, I'LL SAY, EVERY CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT IN STATING MY VIEW THAT IT'S A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR PLANNING FUNCTION, AND IT NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED AT A HIGH LEVEL.

AND AND I'VE RESISTED EFFORTS TO DIMINISH IT.

AND I CONTINUE TO AND YOU AND I MAY JUST HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ON THAT.

PLEASE BE CAREFUL WITH DIMINISHING BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT DIMINISHED.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN DIMINISHING. ANY BE CAREFUL WITH THE WORDS THAT PLEASE.

WELL, AGAIN, YOU AND I HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW.

OKAY WITH THAT? COUNCIL. CAN I MAKE A MOTION? GO RIGHT AHEAD. THANK YOU. MA'AM. I'M GOING TO TRY HARD.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR ITEM 15 A. DO I HAVE TO READ THAT WHOLE THING? NO, NO. SO? SO LET ME JUST WHAT THE MOTION ESSENTIALLY WOULD NEED TO ENCOMPASS.

IS A MOTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AMENDING CHAPTER TWO RIGHT ON SECOND READING,

[05:30:02]

WITHOUT INCLUDING ANY CHANGES TO THE DRB. OKAY.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN DO THAT. A MOTION TO TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO OUR BOARDS AND COMMITTEES MRS AMENDING CHAPTER TWO WITHOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE DRB.

SECTION. HOW'S THAT? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. GOT A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR HUTCHISON.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PERRY. YES. MAYOR.

HARTMAN. YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. STAFF.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG.

THAT TAKES US TO. ITEM 15 B,

[15.B) An Ordinance Amending Section 26-3 – Firearms Discharge, Chapter 26 – Offenses, of the Code of Ordinances, City Of Naples for the Purpose of Updating the Code of Ordinances Pursuant to Florida Statutes; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication and an Effective Date.]

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 6-3 THREE FIREARMS DISCHARGE.

CHAPTER 26 OFFENSES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION CONFLICTS.

SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR, CONSTRUCTION PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS? MOVE FOR APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 6-3.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KRISEMAN AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR.

ALL. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL THAT.

TAKES US TO PUBLIC COMMENT. OH 13 OH 13 I SORRY.