[7.A) A Resolution Determining Nonconformity Petition 25-N5 Pursuant to Section 46-35 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for a Change of a Nonconformity Related to parking on Property Located in the C1 Retail Shopping District at 1199 Third Street South, Suite A, Owned by DAKY, LLC, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

NOW AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING. STAGE SEVEN A, THE FIRST ITEM IS A RESOLUTION DETERMINING NONCONFORMITY. PETITION 25 AND FIVE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE OF NONCONFORMITY RELATED TO PARKING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE C-1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT AT 1199 THIRD STREET SOUTH. SUITE A, OWNED BY DACII, LLC. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PRODUCING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WITH EVERYBODY GOING TO TESTIFY ON THIS STAND UP TO BE SWORN, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. PETITIONER. OH. ANY DISCLOSURES? SORRY. NONE FOR ME. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. WHERE ARE THE BUILDING? NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. OKAY, PETITIONER, WE WANT TO PRESENT YOUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN COUGHLIN.

MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO, FOR THE RECORD.

WE'RE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A NONCONFORMITY PETITION. THIS IS DUE TO A REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY, IN PARALLEL WITH A CONVERSION OF THE SECOND STOREY TO ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON 12TH AVENUE SOUTH AND THIRD STREET. JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT TO YOU IN TERMS OF THE. THE MIXED USE BUILDING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND SHOW YOU THAT THE CONVERSION OF THE SECOND STORY SPACE ELIMINATES NINE NON-CONFORMING PARKING SPACES FROM THE PARKING POOL IN THE THIRD STREET AREA, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS AN ENORMOUS PUBLIC BENEFIT. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE NEED TO DOCUMENT THE REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY, THE CHANGE IN NONCONFORMITY AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND WE'RE IN AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, THIS IS JUST THIS MAP IS TO SHOW YOU THIS PROPERTY IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN

[00:05:01]

THE DISTRICT. IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET IS A MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN DEVELOPED AS SUCH, BUT IT ALLOWS FOR 15 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS.

ROBINSON COURT, WHERE THE OLD PUB USED TO BE LOCATED, INCLUDES ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT, PETITE SQUARE, WHERE MOSS AND HOFFMAN IS LOCATED, INCLUDES EIGHT RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY. THE SWAN COURT BUILDING INCLUDES EIGHT RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. EXCUSE ME. THE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF BROAD AVENUE SOUTH INCLUDES ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND ON 12TH AVENUE SOUTH, JUST EAST OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY INCLUDES FOUR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT TO YOU EXISTING CONDITIONS. THIS IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS 12TH AVENUE SOUTH. IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THIS AREA IS STRIPED AS A LOADING ZONE. WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED. AND THERE'S MATERIALS IN YOUR PETITION, IN YOUR PETITION PACKET, WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, PARKING NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED BY SURROUNDING PARKING SPACES. AT THE TIME THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE FIRST FLOOR ACHIEVED ITS PARKING THROUGH SURROUNDING PARKING SPACES THAT WERE AVAILABLE ON BOTH 12TH AND THIRD STREET. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE, 12TH AVENUE SOUTH WAS RESTRIPED AS AS A LOADING ZONE. THIS DOESN'T BENEFIT THE BUILDING IN ANY RESPECT, NOR WAS CAUSED BY THE BUILDING AT THAT TIME. THE SECOND STOREY DID NOT REQUIRE ANY PARKING. TODAY. THE SECOND STOREY WOULD REQUIRE 11 SPACES. BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE CODE, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF A NONCONFORMITY. THE CODE CHANGE TO REQUIRE PARKING FOR A SECOND STOREY FOR ANY USE, THE 11 PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL ARE DEEMED NON-CONFORMING. WE'RE HERE TODAY. IN TANDEM. AGAIN WITH THE REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY, I WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE IMPORTANT REGULATORY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AT ISSUE. FIRST, I JUST DEFINE FOR YOU WHAT A NONCONFORMITY IS, WHICH IS THE CITY CHANGED ITS CODE TO NOW REQUIRE PARKING FOR A SECOND STORY, USE THAT DIDN'T THAT DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED. SECOND, WHEN WE LOOK AT AN ACTUAL NONCONFORMITY IN 2010, CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. WHEN WE LOOK AT NONCONFORMITIES. SO I PRESENT TO YOU COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING POLICIES THAT TALK TO SPECIFICALLY HOW NONCONFORMITIES FACILITATE THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS. WE MUST USE CREATIVITY SPECIFICALLY WITH HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT HAVE NONCONFORMING ASPECTS. IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE NONCONFORMING ASPECT OF PARKING. THIS IS THE NONCONFORMITY REGULATION I JUST SPOKE TO IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CRITERIA BEING WHETHER HISTORIC RESOURCES ARE PROTECTED. THE PUBLIC BENEFIT I SPOKE TO AT THE OUTSET OF AT THIS DISCUSSION WAS THE REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY BY NINE SPACES. SO THAT'S A PERPETUAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE CONVERSION OF THE SECOND STORY TO A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. FINALLY, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND STAFF WILL LIKELY SPEAK TO THIS IN THEIR STAFF REPORT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OVERARCHING COMMENTARY ON NONCONFORMITY IS THAT A REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY IS, IS, IS, IS A BENEFIT, AND THERE IS NO REASON TO PRECLUDE AN ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER IF THERE IS A NONCONFORMITY, SPECIFICALLY IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION. SO WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS CONFORMITY. BUT THERE BUT WE'RE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IN MOVING TOWARD NONCONFORMITY, YOU GET THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF REMOVING THE NINE PARKING SPACES. WE'RE MOVING CLOSER TO CONFORMITY.

BUT YOU ALSO GET THE OTHER BENEFIT OF PRESERVING A HISTORIC RESOURCE. WE THINK THIS IS A INCREDIBLY LOGICAL PETITION. THE REASON THAT I'M IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY WITH THE NONCONFORMITY PETITION IS, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THAT CONDITIONAL USE, THE CHANGE IN THE SECOND STORY UNIT AND ENSURING THAT WE ARE ALL CLEAR IN THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY. SO WE HAVE TWO PARALLEL PETITIONS. ONE IS THE ACTUAL CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH WE PRESENTED A FEW A FEW WEEKS AGO, AND THAT WILL RUN IN PARALLEL WITH THIS WITH

[00:10:02]

CITY COUNCIL, SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BOTH THE USE, WHICH IS THE CONTEXT THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE MAP IN THE BEGINNING. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY, WHICH IS THE PETITION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. BUT THEY ARE THEY'RE OVERLAPPED. YOU'LL SEE IN THE RESOLUTION THAT THE REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY WILL ONLY RESULT IF THE CONDITIONAL USE IS APPROVED. SO THOSE NINE PARKING SPACES THAT THE CITY GETS BACK THROUGH, THE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION WOULD ONLY RESULT IF THE DWELLING UNIT IS ACTUALLY APPROVED WITH THAT. THAT'S THAT'S REALLY OUR PRESENTATION. MR. CHLUMSKY IS HERE WITH ME AS WELL AS HE PRESENTED TO YOU IN OUR LAST HEARING. HIS FAMILY'S OWNED THIS BUILDING SINCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 60S. HIS FAMILY OWNS PROPERTY ON THIRD STREET FOR. OVER HALF A CENTURY, WELL OVER HALF A CENTURY. AND WE THINK THIS IS AN EXTREMELY LOGICAL FIT IN THE THIRD STREET DISTRICT. AND THIS IS A A BENEFIT TO THE CITY. THE FINAL POINT I'LL MAKE IN IN RELATION TO BENEFITS IS THIS LOADING ZONE DID HAVE APPROXIMATELY SIX SPACES. IT'S SERVING NO BENEFIT TO THE BUILDING. IF IT'S IMPORTANT TO THIS BOARD TO HAVE THAT AREA RESTRIPED TO UNLOCK THOSE SIX SPACES, TO BRING BACK NOT ONLY THE NINE THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING, BUT THE SIX THAT WERE STRIPED OVER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD OFFER IF THE CITY ACCEPTED THAT AS A CONDITION. WE WE THINK THAT THAT THE BENEFIT SPEAKS TO ITSELF. BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS BOARD. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? OKAY. THANK YOU. ONE THAT'D BE OKAY. WHY IS THE STRIPE STUFF THERE NOW? I MEAN HOW DID IT GET THERE. GREAT QUESTION. BACK. LOOKING BACK THROUGH AERIALS, IT APPEARS THAT IT MAY BE SO THIS THIS BUILDING. EXCUSE ME. THIS BUILDING HAS NO NEED FOR A LOADING ZONE. THERE'S NO RESTAURANT AS IT. INDEED, THE BUILDING IS SO SET BACK RELATIVE TO THE SETBACKS THAT WE HAVE NO NEED FOR LOADING ZONE. WHEN I LOOK BACK THROUGH THE AERIALS, IT APPEARS THAT THIS HAPPENED IN IN THE 80S AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN FOR SOME OF THE SURROUNDING RESTAURANTS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY OUR NEIGHBOR. WE DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL ANSWER TO THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THIS BUILDING.

AND IT APPEARS THAT ALL THE BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT HAVE ALLEY ACCESS. SO. AGAIN, THE CITY COULD LOOK AT IT AND DETERMINE WHETHER RESTRIPING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BUT BUT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO IS THE LOADING ZONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PUBLIC? IT'S ON.

IT'S IN THE CITY RIGHT AWAY IN THE CITY RIGHT AWAY. OKAY. SO WE WOULD HAVE I WOULD JUST SAY WE WOULD HAVE TO, OF COURSE, RUN THIS BY EVERYONE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT LOADING ZONE IS, IS SERVING. IT MIGHT NOT JUST BE THIS BUILDING. IT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE AREA, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. HAS ANYBODY EVER SEEN A TRUCK THERE THAT QUESTION? IT WILL. ANECDOTALLY, MR. CHLUMSKY WAS AT THE BUILDING FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND AND HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T SEE ANY TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT FOR, FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON A WEEKEND. SO THE ANSWER IS LIKELY WHEN, WHEN YOU EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT AERIALS AND WHEN YOU WALK THE STREET, YOU'LL SEE THAT ALMOST EVERY BUILDING HAS ACCESS THROUGH ALLEYS. AND IN ADDITION, EVERY PROPERTY UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS MUST AFFORD ITS OWN LOADING ZONE. SO I WOULD SUSPECT THAT IT'S SERVING ALMOST NO PROPERTY AT THIS POINT. YES. DID THE PREVIOUS OFFICES THAT WERE THERE USE THESE SPACES AT ALL FOR THE LOADING ZONE? NO, THEY WERE JUST OFFICE USE. SO THERE WERE 14 SUITES, BUT THERE WEREN'T THERE WASN'T ANY NEED TO REALLY PARK THERE TEMPORARILY AND LOAD AND UNLOAD LIKE YOU WOULD FOR A RESTAURANT OR, OR A HEAVY COMMERCIAL. USE YOUR COMMENT.

YES. SO GOOD MORNING. WHEN WE LAST LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY, PARKING WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS RESOLVED, I ASSUME. WELL, THIS IS THIS IS RESOLVING THAT IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE MAKING CLARITY IN THE RECORD. SO THERE IS NO ON SITE PARKING. THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ON SITE PARKING.

SO THE RESOLUTION REALLY IS TO CLARIFY, CODIFY THAT THE REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. MY QUESTION IS, WAS THE WHEN WHEN YOU WERE HERE LAST MONTH, THE PARKING WAS RESOLVED. QUESTION MARK. WE WERE WE WERE PRETTY ADAMANT THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE TWO, TWO SPACES, WHICH WERE GOING TO BE PROVIDED SOMEWHERE ELSE OFF SITE. THAT THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN

[00:15:05]

FRONT OF YOU TODAY. SO AND WE WE SAID WE'LL LOOK AT WHETHER ALLOCATING OFF SITE IS APPROPRIATE. WE WEREN'T PRESENTING AN ACTUAL OFF SITE PARKING APPROVAL LIKE THAT WAS IN FRONT OF YOU FOR THE PLAZA HOTEL, I PROMISE. I'M TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT THIS ISN'T. AND THERE WAS NO FORMAL ALLOCATION. IF MY CLIENT OWNS OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT, WE SAID WE WOULD LOOK AT WHETHER WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT. WE CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THAT IN A PERPETUAL TAKE IT OUT OF. NO, I UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND MY MY QUESTION IS, WAS, WAS DID YOUR CLIENT LOOK AND IS THAT PARKING FOR THE TWO PROPOSED. SORRY FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SPACE. NOT NOT IN THE SENSE OF PERPETUAL TWO PARKING SPACES COMING OUT OF THE POOL. OKAY, SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PRESENT TO YOU. YEAH, NO, I UNDERSTAND, OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS MY QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. YES, SURE. THANK YOU. CAN THE CLERK JUST. WE HAD A PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COME IN. FOR THE RECORD. CAN YOU JUST, I GUESS, IDENTIFY HIS ATTENDANCE? EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. YES, I HAVE THAT MEMBER, SCOTT SCHULTZ. ARRIVED AT 8:37 A.M. DURING THE BEGINNING OF THIS ITEM. 6.66.87. A I APOLOGIZE. OKAY? I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING TARDY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET DISTRACTED TOO MUCH BY THE STRIPING ISSUE HERE. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS THE PUBLIC WORKS WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I THINK WE COULD MAKE A REQUEST OF OF OF THEM TO, TO LOOK AT IT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE AUTHORIZED. WE CAN'T WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT STRIPING ON OUR OWN ACCORD AT THIS POINT. YES, SIR. DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY THAT THERE IS THERE ARE NO SPACES ALLOTTED TO IT NOW. CORRECT. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH NO ON SITE PARKING. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH PARKING. EXCUSE ME. IN THE AREA, WHICH WAS, AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN HERE AND THEN HERE UNDER THE CODE, ONLY THE FIRST STORE NEEDED TO BE PARKED AT THE TIME THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED. SO FOR ANY USE OF THE SECOND STORY, IT'S NON-CONFORMING. AS TO PARKING, WE'RE STIPULATING THAT BY CONVERTING FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S A REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY BY NINE SPACES. THE REDUCTION IS THE TRIGGER FOR CHANGE IN NONCONFORMITY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY WITH A PETITION OF NONCONFORMITY. THE THE QUESTION I'M TRYING TO GET MY ARMS AROUND IS IF YOU HAD NO SPACES ALLOCATED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOW CAN YOU GIVE ANY BACK? WE'RE REDUCING A NONCONFORMITY. SO THERE ARE 11 SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER TODAY'S CODE FOR THE SECOND STORY PARKING. AND THAT 11 SPACE CREDIT IS REDUCED BY NINE SPACES IN IN RELATION TO THE CHANGE TO A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, FROM AN ACTUAL DEMAND PERSPECTIVE, IF THERE ARE 14 OFFICE SUITES AND THE CODE DETERMINED THAT 11 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR THAT COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, THERE WERE 11 EMPLOYEES, STAFF AT LEAST USING PARKING SPACES ON STREETS THAT THAT 11 SPACE ALLOCATION ON PUBLIC PARKING AREAS IS REDUCED BY NINE SPACES. OKAY, BUT I'M NOT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING MY ARMS AROUND. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY, HOW WAS THAT? IN ADDITION, BY GETTING THEM BACK. SO I'M JUST NOT ABLE TO GET MY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO PARK 11 SPACES IN THE GENERAL POOL IN THE THIRD AVENUE AREA. HOW THE RIGHT WILL REDUCE BY NINE SPACES, WHICH FEELS TO ME ANYWAY, LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC BENEFIT. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THE STAFF REPORT IF WE COULD, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. BOARD MEMBERS, JEFF, WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A CHANGE OF NONCONFORMITY RELATED TO PARKING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF THIRD STREET SOUTH AND 12TH AVENUE SOUTH. THIS IS A TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING KNOWN AS THE CHOMSKY BUILDING. THERE ARE THREE RETAIL LOCATIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THERE ARE OFFICES AND A SMALL CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THIS PROPERTY CAME BEFORE YOU A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO CONVERT THE SECOND FLOOR SPACE INTO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, THE C-1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT, REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. THIS BOARD HEARD THE PETITION IN OCTOBER AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FIVE TO 2 TO 1 WITH CONDITIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS RELATED TO PARKING.

THAT PETITION IS NOW KIND OF ON HOLD, BUT IT IS SCHEDULED TO MEET UP WITH THIS PETITION NEXT MONTH WHEN THEY ARE TO BE HEARD AS COMPANION ITEMS AT CITY COUNCIL. THE PETITIONERS

[00:20:02]

PRESENTATION PROVIDED YOU SOME IMPORTANT BACKGROUND DETAILS RELATED TO THE PARKING AND THE PROPERTY. THIS INFORMATION IS ALSO DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORTS THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKETS, BUT A QUICK SUMMARY IS ESSENTIALLY AS FOLLOWS. TODAY, THERE'S NO PARKING PROVIDED ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S A SMALL URBAN LOT OCCUPIED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY THE BUILDING. THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES ARE SERVED BY A COMBINATION OF ON STREET AND OFF SITE PARKING. IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, COMMERCIAL USES REQUIRE ONE SPACE PER 300FT■!S OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. FR THIS PROPERTY, THAT MEANS ESSENTIALLY 22 SPACES, 11 SPACES ON EACH FLOOR. THOSE ARE TODAY'S REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS REQUIRED WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1963. THIS ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED ONE SPACE PER 400FT■!SF GROUND FLOOR SPACE. THE THEN CODE DID NOT REQUIRE PARKING UPSTAIRS. USES. THE THEN CODE ALSO PROVIDED A REDUCTION OF SIX SPACES FOR CORNER LOTS, WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS. SO THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIALLY FOR THE GROUND FLOOR SPACE WERE EIGHT SPACES.

THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY REDUCED, AND IT WAS TWO. FOR MANY YEARS THEY COMPLIED. THERE WAS AMPLE PARKING ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S AN AERIAL AT THE END OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT SHOWS FROM 1973 THERE WAS PARKING IN THE SOUTH WHERE THIS IS STRIPED NOW AND THEN ALSO IN THE FRONT. HOWEVER, SOME OF THAT FAST FORWARD A FEW DECADES, THE AREA HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN OPEN SPACE ARE ARE NOW NEW BUILDINGS.

THE PARKING IS GONE. THE UNDERLYING ZONING HAS ALSO CHANGED, WITH THE CITY ADOPTING MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS. SO TODAY, WHAT WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY APPEARS TO BE A LAWFUL NONCONFORMITY CONCERNING THE PARKING. THESE USES CAN CONTINUE THE WAY THEY ARE INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR PARKING. SO THE OFFICES CAN TURN OVER TO NEW OFFICES, THE RETAIL CAN TURN OVER TO NEW RETAIL. THOSE USES ARE ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED IN.

BUT THAT'S AS YOU'VE HEARD, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS. THEY WANT TO CONVERT THE UPSTAIRS INTO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. THAT'S A CHANGE IN USE.

SO THEY ARE REQUESTING A CHANGE IN NONCONFORMITY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUITY THE NON-CONFORMING PARKING RIGHTS TIED TO THE BUILDING. BUT THEY WANT TO DO IT AT A VASTLY REDUCED CAPACITY. AND THEY'RE OFFERING THAT AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT. PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO REDUCE THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY FOR THE UPSTAIRS FROM 11 SPACES TO TWO. THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE NON-CONFORMING PARKING BY CONVERTING THE UPSTAIRS SPACES, NOW OFFICES, INTO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. BY CODE, A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT GENERALLY REQUIRES TWO SPACES. THE REMAINING NINE SPACES CURRENTLY ON PARKED WILL BE RETURNED TO THE CITY'S ON STREET SUPPLY, PER THE CHANGE NONCONFORMITY, THE PETITIONER WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PARK THE TWO SPACES ON SITE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635 OF THE LDC. NO NONCONFORMITY SHALL BE EXPANDED, ENLARGED OR CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT NONCONFORMITY, EXCEPT UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PAB AND APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL.

PRIOR TO GRANTING A CHANGE IN NONCONFORMITY, THE PAB AND CITY COUNCIL SHALL ENSURE THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA THAT CRITERIA IS LAID OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ANSWERED BY BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ALSO IN THE REPORT, AND I THINK IT'S TO NOTE, ARE SOME OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING CHANGES IN NONCONFORMITIES. WE SHOULD REMEMBER, A KEY OBJECTIVE OF ZONING IS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE NONCONFORMITIES WHEN A NEW USE IS PROPOSED. OUR COMP PLAN PROVIDES SOME GUIDANCE WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY TO A LESS OBJECTIONABLE, LESS NON-CONFORMING SITUATION. AND FURTHERMORE, THE COMP PLAN ALSO STATES THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED JUST BECAUSE A REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY IS NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. FINALLY, THE PROPOSAL IS OUTLINED SOME PLAUSIBLE BENEFITS OF THE DE-INTENSIFICATION OF THIS SPECIFIC NONCONFORMITY, AND THE STAFF REPORT IS RECOGNIZED AND LISTED. THOSE LAST MONTH. LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE PROPERTY. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED A FEW LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS REQUEST. THESE ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT. THEY'RE ATTACHED TO THE ITEM IN YOUR PACKETS. SO IN CONCLUSION, PURSUANT PURSUANT TO SECTION 46, 35 OF THE LDC STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE CRITERIA

[00:25:04]

FOR EXPANDING AND ENLARGING OR CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. SHOULD PAB WISH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF. RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF TWO CONDITIONS, THE FIRST BEING APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE OF NONCONFORMITY PETITION IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE ACCOMPANYING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT IN THE C-1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT. NUMBER TWO, ANY ZONING RELIEF GRANTED AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPLY ONLY FOR THE RELAXATION OF REQUIRED PARKING FOR A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT, AS TESTIFIED AND PRESENTED IN THIS NONCONFORMITY PETITION. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. JEFF. THANKS VERY MUCH. SIMILAR TO WHAT I WAS ASKING COUNCILOR EARLIER, SINCE OCTOBER, HAS THE PETITIONER COME BACK WITH THE TWO PARKING SPACES THAT THIS COMMITTEE, THIS BOARD REQUESTED THEY COME UP WITH FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT PHYSICAL SPACES? NO, SIR. THIS IS ANOTHER AVENUE WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO MEMORIALIZE THESE NON NON CONFORMING PARKING SPACES AT A REDUCED RATE AS I UNDERSTAND. BUT THERE'S BEEN NO PROGRESS ON IDENTIFYING TWO SPACES TO GO WITH THE CHANGE OF USE PROPERTY. NO SIR. OKAY GREAT. THANKS SO MUCH JEFF. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF PUBLIC COMMENT. NO SLIPS, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. WELL IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CHAIR? CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, OVER HERE. GO AHEAD. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY REAL QUICK HOW WE ENDED UP HERE AND WHY THIS WASN'T A COMPANION ITEM. BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD, BECAUSE OUR OFFICE AND I KNOW ANDREW WAS ME SPECIFICALLY, AND MISS PASSIDOMO DISCUSSED THIS AS IT WAS GETTING READY FOR CITY COUNCIL. AND IT WAS MY DETERMINATION BASED ON MY INTERPRETATION OF THE NONCONFORMITY SECTION IN OUR CODE, THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A COMPANION ITEM WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU THE FIRST TIME. AND I THINK AT THAT POINT, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE CONCERNS FOR THE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. SO I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE UNORTHODOX BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT TO THEIR BENEFIT, THEY WOULD HAVE TRAVELED TOGETHER HAD THAT DETERMINATION BEEN MADE PRIOR TO THE FIRST MEETING BEFORE YOU. SO I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE HERE NOW, BECAUSE OF A DETERMINATION THAT I MADE, AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD, TO MEMORIALIZE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMING FURTHER INTO COMPLIANCE, ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE THERE. BUT WE WANTED SOMETHING TO MEMORIALIZE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE REDUCING THE NONCONFORMITY.

SO THANK YOU. GOOD EXPLANATION, I APPRECIATE IT THERE. YES. I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, YES, I THINK IT'S GREAT TO REDUCE THESE NONCONFORMITIES WHERE WE CAN, BUT I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT IN TWO MONTHS WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHETHER PARKING WILL BE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND GIVEN THE CONGESTION OR THE LACK OF PARKING WE HAVE IN THIS FAIR CITY, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THAT BEFORE NOW. OKAY, IS THERE A MOTION TO. YES. CAN WE ADD SOMETHING SO THAT SOMEBODY IN THE WAS IT THE STREETS AREA OR LOOK AT THESE THE LOADING AREA AND STUFF.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT FIXES A LOT MORE THAN THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE. YEAH.

IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM TO DO THAT. BUT WHY DON'T WE JUST DO THAT FOR THE CITY. THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY. YEAH. AND I KNOW WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT HOW MANY SPOTS COULD GO IN THERE? SIX. SIX. YEAH. THE PETITIONER HAS TESTIFIED SIX. AGAIN, I'D HAVE TO RUN THAT BY OUR OUR STREETS DEPARTMENT AND MAKE SURE. WELL, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE LIBERTY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED AND ADD A COMMENT THAT ASKING THE CITY TO CONSIDER REZONING. I MEAN, RESTRIPING THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, SINCE THERE'S NO. USE DEMANDING A LOADING AREA AT THAT POINT IN TIME AT THAT LOCATION. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND CALL THE ROLL, MAYOR, MAYOR. ABSENT. SORRY, I'LL GET THERE. MEMBER. BARONE. YES. MEMBER. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER. SCHULTZ. NO. MEMBER. CHRIS. NO.

VICE CHAIR. KEPPLER. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. PASSES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TENACITY, AND I'M SORRY I HAVE TO GO BACK. ULTIMATE MEMBER COOPER. NO,

[00:30:01]

THANK YOU. STILL PASSES FOUR THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. IT'S NOT THAT WE DIDN'T LOVE YOU, I FEEL. EXCUSE ME. DID COUNCIL MEMBER REMEMBER? BARONE, DIDN'T YOU RECUSE YOURSELF LAST TIME? YES, I DID, YOU RECUSED THEM, BUT YOU CAN VOTE ON IT NOW. THE RECUSAL WAS OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. WHEN I SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY AFTERWARDS, HE SAID THAT I.

THAT WASN'T NECESSARY TO RECUSE MYSELF LAST TIME. AND SO THIS THIS IS A THIS IS A RELATED ISSUE JUST TO PARKING. SO IS IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION AS WELL? I TRUST THE CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH MR. DICKMAN. AND I TRUST THE ADVICE THAT MR. DICKMAN PROVIDED. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[7.B) A Resolution Determining Nonconformity Petition 25-N6 Pursuant to Section 46-35 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for the Vertical and Horizontal Expansion of a Nonconforming Single-Family House on Property Located in the R1-10 Residence District at 2171 South Winds Drive; Owned by Yerger Family Trust; More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. THE NEXT ITEM IS SEVEN B. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING NONCONFORMITY PETITION 20 5-N6 PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 PEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 2171 SOUTH WINDSOR DRIVE.

OWNED BY YEAGER FAMILY TRUST. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK TO ALL THOSE INTENDING TO TESTIFY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR HAND. KEEP OUT OF TROUBLE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THEN WE NEED TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY CONFLICTS. NONE HERE, NOTHING TO DISCLOSE, NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. AWARE OF THE PROPERTY? NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. LIKEWISE, I VIEW THE PROPERTY. NOTHING FURTHER TO DISCLOSE. THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MAUREEN MINKER AND I AM THE RESIDENTIAL STUDIO DIRECTOR AT MHCC HERE IN NAPLES. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR NONCONFORMITY PETITION FOR OUR PROJECT. AT 2171 SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. WE ARE REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF BOTH A HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY. THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2171 SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, LOCATED IN THE R1 TEN ZONING DISTRICT IN AQUA LANE SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SURVEY SHOWS THE PROPERTY IS A DOUBLE FRONTED LOT WITH STREET FRONTAGE ON BOTH SOUTH WINDS DRIVE AND FOREST LANE. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CONSTRUCTED AT GRADE AT APPROXIMATELY 5.35FT, NAVY HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT WATER INTRUSION FROM RECENT STORMS. OUR CURRENT BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IN THAT FOR THAT PROPERTY IS EIGHT FEET AND AVD AND THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION IS NINE FEET NABBED. THE EXISTING HOME IS SET BACK 25.71 AND 25.68FT FROM THE FOREST LANE RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S SET BACK 25.19FT FROM THE SOUTH. WINDS DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY WITH A ROOF OVERHANG OF THREE FEET. IT'S SET BACK 7.5FT FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, AND SET BACK 49FT FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. THE STRUCTURE REMAINS IN ITS ORIGINAL 1963 FOOTPRINT, AND THE LOT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 11,448FT■!S. THE EXISTING POOL IS COMPLIANT WITH CODE AND WILL NOT BE MODIFIED BY THIS APPLICATION REQUEST. WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE A NONCONFORMITY, AND ACCORDING TO SECTION 4635, A NONCONFORMITY IS A LOT.

STRUCTURE OR USE OF LAND OR COMBINATION THEREOF, WHICH WAS LAWFUL BEFORE GOVERNMENT ACTION, BUT NO LONGER MEETS THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE OF SAID GOVERNMENT ACTION. SECTION 4635 B STATES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, NO NONCONFORMITY SHALL BE EXPANDED, ENLARGED OR CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT

[00:35:06]

NONCONFORMITY, EXCEPT UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING WITH DUE PUBLIC NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4645 AND APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. THE PETITIONERS WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN THE SUMMER OF 2025 ARE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR RENOVATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE STRUCTURES, FLOOD RISK AND ENHANCE FUNCTIONALITY. THE RENOVATIONS COMPRISE THE FOLLOWING. REBUILDING THE EXISTING GARAGE AT GRADE TO ACCOMMODATE A TWO CAR TANDEM CONFIGURATION. CONSTRUCTING A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO RECONFIGURE THE LIVING AREAS AND INCLUDE A COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE. A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO PROVIDE TWO ADDITIONAL BEDROOM EN SUITES, AND ELEVATING THE REMAINDER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO 9.35FT AND ADD. THEY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF A VERTICAL EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY TO ALLOW THE EXISTING HOUSE TO BE ELEVATED TO THE DESIGN. FLOOD ELEVATION OF 9.35FT AND AVOID AND PERMIT PERMITTING THE SECOND STORY TO ENCROACH INTO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY TO PROVIDE THE STAIRS AND MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE. A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF NAPLES HISTORICAL RECORDS CONFIRMS THAT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS PERMITTED, CONSTRUCTED AND INSPECTED IN 1963. NO ORIGINAL PLANS OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FROM THAT PERIOD ARE ON FILE. THE EARLIEST PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 1996 POOL PERMIT INDICATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS OF THE 1959 ZONING CODE, APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, THOUGH CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN FACADE ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE DID NOT MEET THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT. IN 1963, THE ZONING MAP IN EFFECT AT THE TIME, ADOPTED IN 1953, IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE FAMILY D DISTRICT.

SECTION 28 DASH 27 OF THE 59 ZONING CODE, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, DESCRIBED THE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEED DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS. FRONT YARD 30FT. SIDE YARD 7.5FT.

REAR YARD 40FT OR THE SMALLER OF 20% OF THE LOT DEPTH, BUT IN NO CASE LESS THAN 25FT. A REVIEW OF SECTION 28 DASH 27 TO BE CLARIFIES THE DISCREPANCY REGARDING THAT WESTERN FACADE ON SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. THE PROVISION STATES THAT FOR LOTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO OR MORE STREETS LIKE THIS PROPERTY, THERE SHALL BE A SETBACK ON EACH STREET EQUAL TO THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, EXCEPT THAT THE BUILDABLE WIDTH OF SUCH LOT SHALL NOT BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN 40FT. APPLYING THIS PROVISION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RESULTS IN A BUILDABLE WIDTH OF 38.25FT, LESS THAN THE 40 FOOT MINIMUM STIPULATED BY SECTION 2728 TO BE GIVEN THE ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT. THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT CITY STAFF AT THE TIME APPLIED THAT EXCEPTION CLAUSE TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, THEREBY ENSURING A REASONABLE BUILDING. WITH THIS HISTORICAL ACTION ESTABLISHES THE BASIS FOR THE STRUCTURE STATUS AS A NONCONFORMITY UNDER SECTION 4636 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE EXISTING SITE PLAN IS IS BEFORE YOU. SINCE CONSTRUCTION IN 1963, THE PROPERTY'S UNDERLYING ZONING HAS EVOLVED TO THE R 110 RESIDENCE DISTRICT, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 1994. UNDER THESE CODE PROVISIONS, DOUBLE FRONTED PROPERTIES ARE ASSESSED A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, WHICH IS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE. THE SOUTH WINDS DRIVE AND FOREST LANE SIDE, WITH ONE FRONTAGE POTENTIALLY REDUCED BY FIVE FEET, WHILE THE REMAINING YARDS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE CONSIDERED SIDE YARDS FOR THIS PROPERTY. THIS TRANSLATES TO A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK ALONG FOREST LANE, AND A 7.5FT SIDE SETBACK PARALLEL TO THE

[00:40:02]

NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. THE EXISTING HOUSE MEETS THE R 110 SIDE YARD AND FOREST LANE SETBACKS. HOWEVER, PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN THEIR NON-CONFORMING LOCATION ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, WITH THE NARROWEST POINT OF THE STRUCTURE MEASURED AT 25.9FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IN OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN, THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT WILL BE MAINTAINED, WITH ONE SMALL EXCEPTION. AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WE HAVE EXISTING ENCLOSED SPACE AT THE FRONT ENTRY, WHICH WE'RE CONVERTING TO A FRONT PORCH, THEREBY SOMEWHAT REDUCING THE NONCONFORMITY. WE ALSO HAVE AN ADDITION ON THE SOUTH END, WHICH HAS A MASTER BED AND ALSO OUTDOOR LIVING. THE NEW PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR ALSO ALLOWS FOR A NEW GARAGE WITH TANDEM PARKING IN THE SAME SPOT AS THE EXISTING GARAGE, AND NOW ALLOWS FOR AN INTERNAL CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH THE EXISTING HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE. WE HAVE AN OPEN KITCHEN, DINING AND LIVING SPACE, AND NOW WITH THE SOUTH ADDITION WITH THE MASTER BED, WE ALLOW FOR A PROPER MASTER BEDROOM SUITE IN THAT AREA AND AN OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE. TO ACHIEVE THESE RENOVATIONS, THE PETITIONERS SEEK A VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMITY, ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO BE ELEVATED WITHIN ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT AND PERMITTING A SECOND STORY TO ENCROACH INTO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD. SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. THE SECOND FLOOR SETBACK, OR THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION, WILL BE PLACED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE EXISTING HOME, REPRESENTING NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED LINE OF NONCONFORMITY FOR THAT SECOND FLOOR. SO THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION REQUEST IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE STAIRS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE. ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS ARE DESIGNED TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT CODE. SO THE PEACH IN THAT EXHIBIT IS THE ROOF OVERHANG OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE BLUE INDICATES THE AREAS OF NONCONFORMITY THAT ARE BEING REMOVED, AND THE GREEN INDICATES THE NONCONFORMITY WHICH IS BEING RETAINED IN THE NEW DESIGN. THE SECOND FLOOR PROVIDES TWO BEDROOM ENSUITES AND ALLOWS FOR A DOUBLE HEIGHT SPACE ABOVE THE NEW KITCHEN AND DINING, AND AGAIN THE SECOND FLOOR WILL BE DIRECTLY ABOVE THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, SO THERE'S NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION FOR THAT SECOND FLOOR OF THE NEW DESIGN. IN THIS, THE PEACH REPRESENTS THE EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG ON THE LOWER FLOOR, WHICH WILL MATCH ON THE SECOND FLOOR. SO WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ANY FURTHER. AND THE GREEN ON THAT ON THE SECOND FLOOR SHOWS THE RETAINED NONCONFORMITY FROM THE FIRST FLOOR. ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE NEW DESIGN. OUR ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION ON SOUTH WINDS. WE HAVE OUR EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION AT THE BOTTOM. PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION ON SOUTH WINDS AT THE TOP. WE HAVE OUR EXISTING EAST ELEVATION ON SOUTH WINDS. AT THE BOTTOM WE HAVE OUR PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ON FOREST LANE AT THE TOP. SORRY, THAT'S THE EXISTING EAST ELEVATION ON FOREST. AT THE BOTTOM WE HAVE OUR EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION IN THE BOTTOM LEFT AND THE PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION IN THE UPPER LEFT. WE HAVE OUR EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE POOL AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT, AND OUR PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE POOL AT THE UPPER RIGHT. WE HAVE SOME RENDERINGS TO SHOW YOU. THIS IS FROM THE NORTH SIDE, THE NORTH END OF THE SOUTH WINDS DRIVE FRONT ELEVATION, RENDERING THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTH ON SOUTH WINDS DRIVE OF THAT ELEVATION, AND THEN THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTH ON THE FOREST LANE SIDE OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM IMMEDIATE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THIS IS THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. ANOTHER LETTER FROM A NEIGHBOR RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, AND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE

[00:45:04]

SOUTH. SO THE PETITIONERS, IN SUMMARY, ARE SEEKING A VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMITY, ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO BE ELEVATED WITHIN ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT AND PERMITTING THE SECOND STORY TO ENCROACH INTO THE 30 FOOT FRONT. SETBACK ON SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION WILL BE PLACED DIRECTLY OVER THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, REPRESENTING NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION AT THAT SECOND FLOOR. BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED LINE OF NONCONFORMITY, THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION IS LIMITED TO THE STAIRS NECESSARY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY AT THE ELEVATED, THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE. ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS ARE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT CODE.

WE FEEL THIS APPROACH REPRESENTS A RESPONSIBLE AND RESILIENT IMPROVEMENT TO AN AGING STRUCTURE, ALIGNING THE PROPERTY'S DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS WHILE RESPECTING ITS HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

NO QUESTIONS. AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE STAFF REPORT. THEY MAY HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER THAT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THE PROPERTY IS A ONE STORY RESIDENCE AT 2171 SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. THIS IS IN THE AQUA LANE SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD. PROPERTY IS DOUBLE FRONTED WITH FRONTAGES ON SOUTH WINDS DRIVE TO THE WEST AND FOREST LANE TO THE EAST. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TWOFOLD ONE TO ELEVATE THE HOUSE TO THE CURRENT FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF EIGHT FEET AND CARVED WITH A DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION OF NINE FEET AND CARVED. THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1963 AT GRADE, WHICH AT THIS LOCATION IS A LITTLE OVER FIVE FEET. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY FLOODING EPISODES RECENTLY, AND THE OWNER WISHES TO BETTER PROTECT THE HOUSE IN THE FUTURE. SECOND, THE OWNER WISHES TO ACCOMMODATE AN EXPANSION OF LIVING SPACE THAT INCLUDES A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITH NEW BEDROOM SUITES AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE, A NEW GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND A COVERED OUTDOOR AREA. PETITIONERS PRESENTATION HAS PROVIDED SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS ZONING HISTORY. THIS INCLUDES THE REASONING FOR THE DEFICIENCY CONCERNING THE ORIGINAL FRONT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE, WHICH IS THE SOUTH WINDS PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 25FT INSTEAD OF 30FT. THAT BEING THAT BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLE FRONTAGES AND THE SETBACK REQUIRED AT THE TIME, THAT SOME ALLOWANCES WERE GRANTED TO MAINTAIN A BUILDABLE LOT. AND THIS HISTORY IS ALSO DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THAT SAID, SINCE THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, THE UNDERLYING ZONING HAS CHANGED. TODAY, THE DOUBLE FRONTED PROPERTIES IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRE 30 FOOT SETBACK. HOWEVER, PROVIDE AN ALLOWANCE FOR A REDUCTION OF ONE FRONTAGE TO 25FT. THE PETITIONER SURVEY CONFIRMS THE EXISTING RESIDENCE MEETS THE TODAY'S SETBACKS FOR A REDUCED FRONT YARD ALONG FOREST LANE ON THE EAST, WHICH IS THE BACKYARD WELL, THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND BOTH SIDE YARDS TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. HOWEVER, AS YOU'VE HEARD, PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE REMAIN NON-CONFORMING ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, WHICH IS THE WEST BOUNDARY, AND THAT'S THE FACADE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. TODAY, THE NARROWEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS A LITTLE OVER 25FT, 25.19FT. THIS IS WITHIN THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK.

AND THIS IS WHERE THE NONCONFORMITY PETITION COMES IN. SO THE VERTICAL EXPANSION IS TO RAISE THE HOUSE ROUGHLY FOUR FEET IN PLACE TO THE CURRENT FEMA FLOOD ELEVATION. THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION WILL BE PLACED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, REPRESENTING NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED NONCONFORMITY LINE.

THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY THERE. THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION IS LIMITED TO THE STAIRS NECESSARY TO ACCESS THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE. THEY HAVE EXPANDED RISERS THAT WILL PROVIDE MEANS OF MEANS OF EGRESS TO A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED FRONT PORCH. THE FRONT PORCH STEPS WILL BE LOCATED ROUGHLY 21 SOMETHING FEET AT ITS NARROWEST DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

[00:50:03]

GENERALLY, MEANS OF EGRESS HERE ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH UP TO THREE FEET IN THE REQUIRED YARD, REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT. ALL ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE EXISTING CODE, AND THESE INCLUDE REBUILDING THE GARAGE AT GRADE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO CARS, CONSTRUCTING A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO RECONFIGURE THE LIVING AREAS, AND ADDING A COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE. DETAILS OF THE REQUEST ARE RELATED TO ONE SECTION OF THE LDC. THIS IS PURSUANT TO THE PROPERTY SETBACKS AND AS I SAID, THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT 25.9FT FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, WHERE 30FT IS REQUIRED. LAST MONTH, THE PETITION WAS NOTICED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS. THOSE LETTERS ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA PACKET. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE WITH OBJECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635, THE LDC STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR EXPANDING AND ENLARGING OR CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY, AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. THE HOUSE WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR OR THE OR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. ELEVATING THE HOUSE IN ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVING THE UNIQUE SENSE OF NAPLES, AS SEEN IN THE NAPLES VISION, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF RESILIENCY AND APPROVAL OF THE NONCONFORMITY WILL BE PURSUANT TO THE PLANS AND THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN THIS PETITION. SHOULD THE PAB WISH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO COUNCIL, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF TWO CONDITIONS. THE FIRST BEING THE PETITION INVOLVES THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE REBUILDING OF NEW STRUCTURES IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED OR THE NONCONFORMITIES ARE REMOVED. NUMBER TWO SHOULD THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURES BE DEMOLISHED, EVEN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD, THIS APPROVAL DISSOLVES IN. THE PETITIONER MUST OBTAIN VARIANCE APPROVAL TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THESE PROPOSED PLANS OR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, OR THE NEW STRUCTURES MUST BE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. FOR NOW, STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, BUT THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES. ARE THEY ALLOWED TO PUT OUT THE BAY WINDOWS AND STUFF? BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT THAT'S GOING OUT INTO THE SETBACK FOR THE I GUESS THE NORTH SIDE AND STUFF.

IS THAT ALLOWED WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, SIR? YES THEY ARE. OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS THEY'RE ELEVATING THE EXISTING BUILDING BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YES, THEY'RE ELEVATING THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THEY'RE BUILDING A, A LARGE ADDITION. MOST OF IT, YOU KNOW, IS, WELL, ALL OF IT IS WITHIN THE, THE SETBACKS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE KNOCKING DOWN THE BUILDING AND BUILDING BRAND. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. NO OKAY. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO KNOCK DOWN THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S WHY NONCONFORMITY CAN BE REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED. BUT IF IT IS DEMOLISHED, IT'S GONE FOREVER. SO THEY HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE THAT STRUCTURE, LIFT IT STRAIGHT UP IN PLACE, BUILD AROUND IT. GOT IT. YEAH, I APPLAUD THAT EFFORT. BUT ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE DRAINAGE AROUND YOUR PROPERTY AS WELL TO. YES. YEP. TO APPROVE THAT.

BESIDES WHAT THEY MIGHT DO IN THE STREETS EVENTUALLY. BUT YOUR OWN INITIATIVE. YEAH. WELL WE WILL HAVE A NEW DRAINAGE DESIGN THAT GOES WITH THE NEW DESIGN. THEY'LL BE REQUIRED.

ABSOLUTELY. IT'LL BE REQUIRED FOR PERMITTING. YEAH. THE EXTENT OF THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE A STORMWATER PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STORMWATER ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I HAVE A COMMENT. SO RAISING THE PROPERTY. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL. STEPS COMING OUT INTO THE SETBACK. NOT A PROBLEM. WHERE I DO HAVE A CONCERN IS THAT THE. PROPOSITION HERE IS TO BUILD A SECOND STOREY ON TOP OF WHAT ALREADY IS NON-CONFORMING, THEREFORE ADDING TO THE NONCONFORMITY, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE PLANS REDRAWN TO KEEP THE SECOND STOREY BACK WITHIN WHERE THE THE SETBACK SHOULD BE.

THAT'S THE BALCONY AND THE EDGE OF THE UPSTAIRS BEDROOM. SIMILAR OBSERVATION IF WE'RE GOING TO GET VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING

[00:55:08]

INCREASED. I THINK IN THE STORMWATER EIGHT ITEM EIGHT. AND THEN SECONDLY, WHAT ATTEMPTS ARE BEING MADE TO REMEDY THE NON-CONFORMITIES NOW? WE HAVE MITIGATED THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. THIS SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE THE BLUE AREA THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED, NO MORE BAYS IN THE NEW DESIGN OVERSTEPPING, AS WELL AS CONVERTING SOME OF THAT EXISTING INTERIOR SPACE ON THAT GROUND FLOOR TO OUT EXTERIOR FRONT PORCH AREA. THAT'S THE BLUE IN THAT ONE SLIDE. THE GREEN IS THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY THAT IS STILL BEING MAINTAINED IN IN THE NEW DESIGN. DID YOU CONSIDER THE GREEN AREA TO MAKE IT MORE IN A CONFORMING MANNER? WE YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'D HAVE TO WE'D HAVE TO. THAT'S GOING TO BE A STRETCH.

JUST BECAUSE THAT TAKES OUT QUITE A BIT OF AREA FOR LIVING SPACE THERE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER. IT DEFINITELY PINCHES UPSTAIRS TO FOR THE OOPS, SORRY, DOING THIS THE WRONG WAY FOR THE BEDROOMS UPSTAIRS. SO IT'S IT'S TIGHT ALREADY. THAT WHOLE LOT IS SUPER TIGHT. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD TO ALLOW FOR THAT EXCEPTION ORIGINALLY BACK IN 1963, BECAUSE OF THE SQUEEZED DEPTH OF THAT LOT. WE WE CAN ALWAYS TAKE A LOOK AT THINGS. HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS IN THAT AREA? HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE BACK. ONE MORE SLIDE FOR WHAT THE THE GREEN AREA. IF YOU COULD GO BACK ONE SLIDE, THAT'S PROBABLY THE OTHER WAY. THE OTHER BACK.

PARDON ME THE OTHER WAY. OH RIGHT. YEAH. OH THIS. YEAH. THAT'S SQUARE FOOTAGE. LOOKS VERY MINIMAL IMPACT. IT IS. ROOM THREE, SECOND FLOOR. YES. OKAY. IS THERE WOULD THERE BE A WAY YOU'RE SAYING THAT I MEAN THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE MAYBE MORE THAN 20FT■!S, BUT I'M NO PERSPECTIVE OR YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE CONSTRUCTION A LITTLE EASIER AS WELL, BUILDING RIGHT ON TOP OF THE AND MAKING IT LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILDING RIGHT ON TOP OF THE GROUND FLOOR. SO PUSHING IT BACK WILL JUST ADD A COUPLE OF BEAMS. I GUESS BECAUSE OF THAT, IT JUST MAKES THE CONSTRUCTION A LITTLE TRICKIER. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE JUST BUILT ON TOP OF THE THE GROUND, EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, THE SECOND FLOOR. SO YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT WE GRANT A NONCONFORMITY TO A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY ANYWAY? YES. CORRECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE DIAGRAM OF THE FIRST FLOOR, PLEASE? THIS ONE? YES. AND ON THE ON THE GREEN AREA THERE TO THE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM TO THE RIGHT OF THE FRONT PORCH, DOES THAT ENCROACH ANY FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK? NO FURTHER THAN ANY OTHER PART OF THE HOUSE? NO. THAT THAT MAINTAINS THAT SAME EXISTING LINE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. WE'RE JUST SETTING IT BACK AND OPENING IT UP. IT'S IT'S NOW INTERIOR SPACE. WE CAN SEE IT HERE. THERE IT IS. AND THEN, EXCEPT FOR THE LITTLE, YOU KNOW, ENTRY AREA THERE, THE REST OF IT IS ALL INTERIOR SPACE. AND WE'RE CUTTING INTO THAT NOW. OKAY. AND THEN QUESTION ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS.

WERE THESE PLANS INCLUDED? WERE THESE PLANS PROVIDED TO THE NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY WERE COMMENTING ON THE I BELIEVE OUR OWNERS TOOK OUR DIAGRAMS TO THE NEIGHBORS. THEY SHOWED THEM THE RENDERINGS AND THE PLANS. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. YES. HOW MUCH WATER DO YOU HAVE IN THE HOUSE? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT 100%. THE OWNER IS HERE. HE COULD SPEAK TO THAT. AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO BE SWORN IN AS WELL. YES. WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO THANK YOU. MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 30IN OF WATER INSIDE THE DWELLING AND ALSO THE SECOND HURRICANE. I FORGET THE NAME OF IT. THE SECOND ONE APPROXIMATELY HAD SIX INCHES IN THE, BUT THE BAD

[01:00:07]

ONE WAS THE IN WAS 30IN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? OH I'M SORRY. YEAH. MY NAME IS DWIGHT YERGER. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ALONG WITH MY WIFE. QUESTION. YES, THIS IS FOR NHK. SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THE THE ONE WITH THE SHADING THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING. YEP. SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY LESSENING THE NONCONFORMITY.

YES. AND THE ONLY PART THAT YOU COULD ARGUE THAT YOU'RE ADDING IS THE LITTLE CORNER ON THE SECOND STORY UPSTAIRS. CORRECT. RIGHT. YES, YES. THE ONE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. YEP. AND THEN YOU'RE JUST ADDING THAT LITTLE BIT ON THERE. THAT'S RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PLUSES AND THE MINUSES? NOT NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD OF THE AREA THAT WE ARE DELETING? GOSH. PROBABLY I WOULD SAY. 35FT■!S, 40FT■!S WITH THE BAYS.E BLUE AREA. I MEAN, JUST BASED ON THE SHADING, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PLUS MINUS WOULD PROBABLY BE OVERALL MINUS. YEAH. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE THING THAT SAYS LAUNDRY, THAT'S THE AREA THAT IS ABOVE TWO. SO I GUESS I COMPARE THAT LITTLE GREEN AREA VERSUS THE OTHER BLUE AREAS. YEAH. IF YOU LOOK IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLUE AND THE GREEN TOGETHER, IT'S PROBABLY ROUGHLY ABOUT HALF. QUICK QUESTION FOR THE OWNER. HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THE PROPERTY. OH, WE BOUGHT IT IN JULY OF THIS YEAR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IT IS OR WE HOMESTEADED THE PROPERTY. WE PLAN ON STAYING THERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. ON PAGE EIGHT, THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT REPORT. WHY ARE WE GETTING INTO THE PROPERTY'S VALUE? I'M TRYING TO GET WHY IS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU ON PAGE EIGHT. YES. UNDER STORMWATER DEPARTMENT. YES. IT'S TALKING ABOUT PERCENT OF ITS CURRENT MARKET VALUE. WHY ARE WE ADDRESSING THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE? THAT'S A FEMA, FEMA REQUIREMENT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

APPROVE CONDITIONS. YES. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. MEMBER BROWN.

YES. MEMBER. MAYOR'S ABSENT. VICE CHAIR. KAPLAN. YES. MEMBER. FOWLER. YES. ALTERNATE MEMBER.

COOPER. YES. MEMBER. SCHULTZ. YES. IT'S A CHARMING PROPERTY. MEMBER. NO. CHAIR. COUGHLIN.

YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION. AND I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE CLARITY OF THEIR PRESENTATION AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM IS SEVEN C. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION

[7.C) A Resolution Determining Petition 25-V7, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Section 56-41 of the Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples, to Allow for a Home Generator and Equipment Platform to Encroach Approximately Four Feet into the Secondary Front Yard Along 9th Avenue South, Where a 25-Foot Minimum Front Yard is Permitted on Lots Which Front Two or More Streets, Pursuant to Section 58-176 of the Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples, for the Property Owned by Gregory J. Lampert, Trustee, and Located at 875 Gulf Shore Boulevard South, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

20 5-V7 RELATING TO VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5641 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW FOR A HOME GENERATOR AND EQUIPMENT PLATFORM TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG NINTH AVENUE SOUTH, WHERE A 25 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT YARD IS PERMITTED ON LOTS WHICH FRONT TWO OR MORE STREETS, OR TO INTERSECTION 50 8-1 76 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY GREGORY J. LAMPERT, TRUSTEE AND LOCATED AT 875 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ARE THERE ANY PARDON? I HAVE TO SWEAR, I SWEAR. EVERYBODY IN. YES. THANK YOU. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO THANK YOU. THREE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. THANKS. BEFORE WE BEGIN, WE HAVE UNFOLD

[01:05:14]

THE BOARD FOR COMPLEX. GARY. ANY CONFLICT? NO CONFLICTS, NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. WHERE THE PROPERTY? NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. I VISITED THE PROPERTY, AND AT THAT TIME, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE OWNER INADVERTENTLY AND JUST HAVE HIM SHOW ME WHERE IT WAS. SO NOTHING TO DISCLOSE EXCEPT THAT I VIEW THE PROPERTY, NOTHING FURTHER TO DISCLOSE. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING. I FIRST HAVE TO REALLY THANK TASHIMA. REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS, YOU KNOW, HER RESPONSIVENESS IS AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT NHK OR AN ATTORNEY OR WHATEVER. HER RESPONSIVENESS AND HELPING ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN IMMEASURABLE.

SO THANK YOU. SO I AM GREG LAMBERT. I'M THE OWNER OF 875 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH. I'M GOING TO FLY THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS THE LAST ONE FOR YOU.

IT'S GOT TWO FRONT YARDS WHICH HAVE SETBACKS OF 30FT AND 25FT A SIDE YARD, WHICH WE'LL TALK A LOT ABOUT. THERE'S A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK AND THEN A REAR YARD WHICH HAS A 25 FOOT SETBACK. WE BOUGHT IT. THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 2000 WITH A EXISTING CONCRETE PAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

IT'S FOUR FEET BY 17FT. CURRENTLY HOUSES TWO AIR CONDITIONERS. WE BOUGHT IT IN 19 AND I BECAME A RESIDENT IN 2023. I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU ABOUT STORM AND POWER ISSUES.

YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT THEM. OUR UNIQUE SITUATION IS FOR IAN. WE'VE GOT 3.5FT OF WATER IN THE GARAGE. MISSED THE HOUSE BY ABOUT A FOOT. SO LOTS OF DAMAGE, LOTS OF FINANCIAL IMPACT.

MILTON AND HELENE CAME ABOUT HALFWAY UP THE YARD, SO WE'RE PRETTY SENSITIVE TO WHAT'S BEEN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT IN NAPLES. ON ON CLIMATE. WE HAVE A LOT OF GUESTS IN TOWN, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE AGES 4 TO 93. WE DON'T REQUIRE CRITICAL MEDICAL EQUIPMENT. THAT COULD CHANGE.

OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF OUR GUESTS DO. I THINK YOU KNOW, THE GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS. BUT THREE FEET FROM POOL EQUIPMENT. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS AS YOU SEE THE VIDEO. THREE FEET FROM THE ELECTRICAL METER, FIVE FEET FROM OPERABLE WINDOWS, WHICH WE HAVE MANY OF THOSE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND FIVE FEET FROM A SOFFIT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A HEIGHT NEEDS TO BE THE HEIGHT OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO OUR HOME GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS. SO OBVIOUSLY IF WE PUT A HOME GENERATOR IN WE'RE DOING IT FOR SAFETY OF PEOPLE AND PRESUMABLY FOR, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING THE STRUCTURE. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO SOMETHING FOR SAFETY THAT LEADS TO A MORE UNSAFE CONDITION. SO OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PUT IT IN A PLACE THAT'S SAFE. SECOND, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO KEEP NAPLES BEAUTIFUL. WE'RE A RECENT RESIDENTS HERE AND WE LOVE IT DOWN HERE. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE NAPLES AN UNATTRACTIVE PLACE. THIRD PRIORITY IS IS NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S UNOBTRUSIVE TO NEIGHBORS. WE'LL TALK A LOT ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GO TO THE BACK OF THE YARD IN THE SEVEN FOOT SETBACK. BUT WE FEEL THIS SOLUTION WITH THE VARIANCE WOULD WOULD BE THE MOST DESIRABLE FOR NEIGHBORS. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS SLIDE BECAUSE WE HAVE A VIDEO, AND IF A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS, A VIDEO IS WORTH 10,000 WORDS. SO I'M GOING TO SKIP THIS. BUT THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS DISCUSSED. AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE VIDEO YOU KNOW WHY EACH OF THEM IS NOT PRACTICAL OR WITHIN NAPLES CITY CODE OR WITHIN GENERATOR CODES. SO WE THINK THE MOST LOGICAL GENERATOR LOCATION IS ON THIS SOUTH PAD. AGAIN, IT'S AN EXISTING PAD. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN HIDDEN BY A THICK CALUSA BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS HAD AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. RIGHT NOW WE WOULD FILL IN THAT CALUSA REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS, BECAUSE WE NEED TO HIDE THAT PAD. THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE. THERE'S 11.5FT LEFT ON THAT PAD. SO BY PUTTING THE GENERATOR ON THE END OF THAT PAD, IT AVOIDS ALL REGULATIONS. ALL ALL FOR GENERATOR APPLICATION. AND AND AGAIN WE WOULD PUT THE THICK HIGH CALUSA AROUND IT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO SKIP TO THE MOVE TO THE VIDEO. DAVID ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS? I SEE MY MOUSE MOVING. APOLOGIES. TECHNOLOGY. OKAY. THIS IS THE VIDEO I TOOK. I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW IF