[11.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 in 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.]

YES, MAYOR. THANK YOU. QUICK QUESTION FOR PLANNING STAFF.

1111 A AND 11 B ARE NOT THE CO ITEMS. SO MAYOR, AGAIN, WE'VE WE'VE TRIED TO DO THIS WHERE WE SEPARATE IT, BUT SOMETIMES THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT KIND OF INTERJECT IN THE RECORD, AND I THINK IT MAY BE CLEANER FOR THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH WE'LL REQUEST TWO MOTIONS THAT I READ BOTH TITLES RIGHT NOW IN CASE THERE'S

[00:55:06]

QUESTIONS ON EITHER ISSUE. THANK YOU. OKAY. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING NON-CONFORMITY.

PETITION 25 AND FIVE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635 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 DACII, LLC. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

AND THEN 11 B IS A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 25 C3 PURSUANT TO SECTION 46, 34 AND 58 533 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES.

TO ALLOW FOR A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TO BE LOCATED IN THE C1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY DACII, LLC AND LOCATED AT 1199 THIRD STREET SOUTH, SUITE A, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY.

PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, 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, YES. THANK YOU.

COUNSEL. DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. SORRY ABOUT THIS.

AND PETITIONER'S AGENT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF TALK TO STAFF ABOUT IT. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE.

VICE MAYOR, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT, BEEN BY THE PROJECT.

AND IN FULL DISCLOSURE MY BUSINESS IS A TENANT.

NOT IN THIS EXACT LOCATION, BUT A TENANT OF THE PETITIONER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KRISTEN, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, VISITED THE BUILDING IN THE PAST AND SPOKE TO STAFF FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE TO STAFF, RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM PETITIONER FROM PETITIONER'S AGENT.

THANK YOU. PENNAMON FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE WENT BY.

JUST ASSURE MYSELF I'VE HAD NO CONTACT WITH STAFF AND CONTACT FROM THE PETITIONER.

THANK YOU. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. WATCH THE MEETING AND ALSO RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE.

AND NO FURTHER CONTACT. MAYOR. BEFORE WE START, MAY I ASK VICE MAYOR A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD? YES, SIR. OKAY. DUE TO YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LLC WILL YOU PERSONALLY OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY CLOSE FAMILY, KIDS, SPOUSE, ETCETERA RECEIVE ANY BENEFIT BASED ON YOUR VOTE TODAY, WHETHER IT'S YES OR NO? NO. CAN YOU BE IMPARTIAL IN YOUR DECISION MAKING TODAY? YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I COULD HAVE THE PETITIONER'S AGENT, MISS PESSOA.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR HEITMANN.

MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO, FOR THE RECORD, I KNOW YOU HAVE A HEAVY AGENDA TODAY, SO I WILL TRY TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.

I REPRESENT MR.. OUR FIRM REPRESENTS MR. AND MRS. CHLUMSKY IN THE COMPANION PETITIONS, WITH THE PURPOSE OF CONVERTING THEIR SECOND STORY SPACE.

OFFICE SPACE, FROM SEVEN OFFICE UNITS TO A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT IN THE FAMILY'S HISTORIC BUILDING ON THIRD STREET SOUTH.

MR. CHLUMSKY IS ON THE WAY. WE EXPECTED THERE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WITH YOUR WITH YOUR GRACE, HE WILL PROVIDE A FEW REMARKS UPON HIS ARRIVAL.

FRANK CAMMARATA, THE ARCHITECT FOR THE INTERIOR RENOVATION IS ALSO HERE.

IF THERE ARE ANY DETAILED OR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON INTERIOR RENOVATION, I WILL ORIENT YOU TO THE PROPERTY. AND AS I NOTED THEN, MR. CHLUMSKY WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A FEW REMARKS ON HIS FAMILY.

THE CHLUMSKY BUILDING IS LOCATED, AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIRD STREET SOUTH AND 12TH AVENUE SOUTH, AND CURRENTLY HOUSES THREE RETAIL SPACES BRUNO, LEGGIADRO AND JUDITH LEGENDS DESIGN ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SEVEN OFFICE SUITES ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE FOCUS OF THESE PETITIONS IS ON THE INTERIOR USE OF THE SECOND FLOOR.

THIS IS THE BUILDING IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. YOU'RE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

IN SUMMARY, THESE COMPANION PETITIONS, WHICH AGAIN ARE A CONDITIONAL USE AND A NONCONFORMITY PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETAIN THE BUILDING.

[01:00:06]

REIMAGINE THE SECOND STOREY AND FACILITATE THE CITY'S VISION AND PLANNING POLICIES PROMOTING MIXED USE BUILDINGS IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREAS. THE CONDITIONAL USE IS THE ACTION TO REPLACE THE SEVEN OFFICE SUITES, OR 3200FT² OF SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL USE, WITH ONE DWELLING UNIT WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

NO EXTERIOR IMPACTS ARE PROPOSED. THE NONCONFORMITY PETITION PROVIDES THE VEHICLE TO REDUCE THE PARKING NONCONFORMITY OF THE SECOND STOREY, AND THE NINE OF 11 SPACES ALLOCATED TO THE SECOND STORY SPACE AS NONCONFORMING WILL BE DIVESTED IF THE CONDITIONAL USE IS APPROVED.

A BRIEF HISTORY WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THESE PETITIONS.

A NONCONFORMITY UNDER YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS DEFINED AS A LOT STRUCTURE OR USE OF LAND, OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF, WHICH WAS LAWFUL BEFORE GOVERNMENT ACTION, BUT NO LONGER MEETS THE REGULATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE OF SAID GOVERNMENT ACTION. THIS DEFINITION HAS REMAINED LARGELY CONSISTENT SINCE ITS ADOPTION.

THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DID NOT REQUIRE PARKING FOR ANY SECOND STORY USE IN THE DISTRICT, AND WHEN GROUND FLOOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE CREDITED TO CORNER LOTS WITH ADJACENT ON STREET PARKING.

LATER, THE CITY CHANGED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE ON SITE PARKING FOR ANY SECOND STORY USE AND TO REQUIRE EXCUSE ME AND TO REMOVE THE CREDIT FOR ADJACENT ON STREET PARKING FOR CORNER LOTS.

UNDER THE DEFINITION, USE OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT ON SITE PARKING IS A LAWFUL NONCONFORMITY AND AS CONFIRMED BY YOUR STAFF IN THEIR STAFF REPORT, MAY CONTINUE INDEFINITELY.

IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU'LL SEE BOTH IN FEBRUARY 1968 AND IN APRIL 1968, THE PARKING RIGHTS FOR THE BUILDING WERE DISCUSSED AND RATIFIED AT TWO PRIOR CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS. THE BUILDING APPEARS THE SAME TODAY AS IT DID WHEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE EARLY 1960S.

HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THE EVOLUTION IN REGULATIONS, I JUST TOOK YOU THROUGH.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PARKING CREDIT FOR ADJACENT ON STREET PARKING THAT BENEFITED THE BUILDING.

THIS AREA. WHERE MY CURSOR IS LOCATED. THIS AREA, WHICH PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED PUBLIC PARKING SPACES, WAS RESTRIPED TO A LOADING ZONE AND TAXI ZONE BY THE CITY IN THE 1980S, REMOVING SEVERAL PARKING SPACES FROM THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY FOR THE DISTRICT.

HERE IS A VIEW I AM SURE YOU ARE ARE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHICH IS THE BUILDING FRONTING THIRD STREET SOUTH.

UNLIKE MANY OTHER BUILDINGS IN THIRD STREET, THE BUILDING USES NO PUBLIC AREA FOR OUTDOOR DINING AND IS INDEED RECESSED AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE UNIQUE AND STATELY COLUMNS THAT MARK THE BUILDING AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK.

WITH THAT PREDICATE, THE BUILDING IS PROTECTED AS A LAWFUL NONCONFORMITY, WHICH ALLOCATES UP TO 22 PARKING SPACES FOR USE OF THE BUILDING, AND THE BUILDING IS AN IMPORTANT HISTORIC ASSET FOR THE CITY.

I WILL BRIEFLY ITEMIZE THE SEVERAL CITY POLICIES THAT PRESERVE OR ENDORSE PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS, AND PROVIDE TOOLS TO FACILITATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION THROUGH CREATIVE AND FLEXIBLE LAND USE PLANNING.

THE FIRST OF THESE POLICIES UNDER THE CITY IS UNDER THE CITY'S VISION PLAN, ADOPTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION OF CITY'S HISTORIC LANDMARK AND FEATURES.

THE CITY'S VISION PLAN GOES ON TO PROVIDE HISTORIC BUILDINGS HELP CONVEY THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY.

WE SUPPORT THE CONTINUED PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF THESE ASSETS.

THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH ESTABLISHES BROADER CITY GOALS AND POLICIES TO GUIDE THE CITY AND ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,

[01:05:02]

INCLUDES A BROADER OBJECTIVE AND SEVERAL MORE DIRECTED POLICIES TO THE THEME OF PROTECTING HISTORIC ASSETS BY LEVERAGING TOOLS OF ZONING, INCLUDING ADAPTIVE REUSE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION WILL BE DOING IN TANDEM WITH THE NONCONFORMITY.

THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT NONCONFORMITY IS AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION GO HAND IN HAND.

THIS IS LOGICAL. THE CITY'S OLDEST BUILDINGS, LIKE THE CHLUMSKY BUILDING, TEND TO INCLUDE NONCONFORMITIES.

THIS THEME OF PROTECTING A HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS ECHOED IN THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO WEIGHING THE FACTORS OF A NONCONFORMITY.

NUMBER SIX WAS ACTUALLY ADDED IN 2010. YOU'LL SEE THAT ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET.

THERE WAS A POLICY DIRECTIVE THAT THAT HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO NONCONFORMITY, THAT LOGICAL NEXUS I DESCRIBED. IMPORTANTLY, WITH RESPECT TO ISSUING DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. AS NOTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, NONCONFORMITIES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A REDUCTION, WHICH IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, IS IS FACILITATING A AN IMPORTANT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GOAL, WHICH IS ELIMINATING NONCONFORMITIES IS IMPORTANT, BUT PROTECTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES IS LIKEWISE IMPORTANT.

HOW DO WE MARRY THESE TWO CONCEPTS TOGETHER BY REDUCING A NONCONFORMITY.

WE'RE COMING CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE WITHOUT REQUIRING REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE.

WE'RE USING ADAPTIVE REUSE. THESE ARE BRIEFLY PHOTOS OF THE SECOND STORY, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE SPACE THAT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE COMMERCIAL POOL.

THESE ARE THE OFFICE SPACES ON THE SECOND STORY.

THIS IS A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE WHAT IS DEEMED A PUBLIC BENEFIT, WHICH IS THE REMOVAL OF NINE SPACES FROM THE CITY'S ON STREET PARKING. THE OTHER BENEFITS TO MIXED USE WILL GO THROUGH TRYING TO BE VERY EFFICIENT, BUT ALSO MAKE A RECORD. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT GRAPHIC, SO I'LL SKIP TO THIS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIRD STREET IS A MIXED USE DISTRICT.

IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED THAT WAY AND ENTITLED THAT WAY.

THE CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE THAT WE COME IN FRONT OF YOU FOR CHANGE OF THE SECOND STORY FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT DOES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT IN THIS BROADER THIRD STREET DISTRICT CONCEPT.

SEVERAL BUILDINGS, INCLUDING THE BUILDING THAT WRAPS AROUND OURS, IS A MIXED USE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET IS ENTITLED AS A MIXED USE BUILDING.

JUST NORTH OF US IS A MIXED USE BUILDING. PETITE SQUARE THAT YOU HEARD FROM EARLIER TODAY IS A MIXED USE BUILDING.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST RIPE FOR MIXED USE ONE.

WE'RE ONLY ADDING ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT FROM A CONGESTION AND INTENSITY STANDPOINT RELATIVE TO THE SEVEN OFFICE SUITES.

THAT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DE-INTENSIFICATION.

SECOND, THE RETAIL ON THE SECOND STORY IS HAS BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME.

MR. ARSENALS GALLERY WAS THERE, AND NOW BRUNO IS THERE.

THESE ARE COMPATIBLE MIXED USE IN THE SAME BUILDING, AND WE REALLY ARE LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY WITHIN THE BUILDING, BUT WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THIRD STREET. I THINK THAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THERE WERE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT IN YOUR PACKET.

I SEE MR. CHLUMSKY HERE. MAYOR, IF IF IF IT'S YOUR WILL, MAY HE SPEAK BRIEFLY AND JUST HAVE HIM SWEAR SWORN IN? OF COURSE. COME FORWARD, SIR.

GOOD MORNING. YOU CAN 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? I DO.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, SIR. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

NICK CHLUMSKY, OUR NICHOLAS CHLUMSKY. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I JUST WANT TO SAY A FEW BRIEF WORDS.

YOU KNOW, OUR FAMILY'S BEEN DOWN HERE SINCE THE 1940S.

THE CHLUMSKY SINCE THE 19 EARLY 50S. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME AND WE'VE TRIED TO TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY, OUR ONLY INTENTION IS, IS TO PRESERVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT MY FAMILY HAS BUILT, WHAT MY FATHER HAS BUILT DOWN, YOU KNOW, SOUTH OF THIS PARCEL, WHAT MY GRANDFATHER BUILT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT HAND TODAY IN 1962 AND 1963.

[01:10:02]

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE LEGACY PROPERTIES.

THIS IS CERTAINLY A HISTORICAL LANDMARK THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE.

AND WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ONE, THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE THAT IS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO ALLOW US TO DO, WHICH IS MAKE THIS JUST ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

AND THE INTENTION REALLY IS FOR FOR THAT RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE FOR PERSONAL USE.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE YOU KNOW, AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY.

THIS IS GOING TO BE WE ARE THE END USERS FOR THAT PROPERTY FROM A FROM A COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE.

WE'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE PAB TWICE NOW. WE'VE YOU KNOW, WE'VE JUMPED THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS AND WE'VE CROSSED ALL THE T'S AND DOT ALL THE I'S ON THIS ONE. AND FROM A COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE HAVE BEEN TENANTS IN THERE LIKE CASEY WISE ORTHODONTICS BACK IN THE 1970S. IF ANY OF YOU, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER THEM UP THERE.

AND THAT'S A RELATIVELY INTENSIVE USE. WHEN JUDITH WAS UP THERE, THEY HAD ANYWHERE FROM, YOU KNOW, 10 TO 12 PEOPLE AND THEY HAD TO PARK SOMEWHERE.

SO FROM A COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT, WE KNOW HOW CONGESTED THE WHOLE CITY OF NAPLES IS BECOMING, BUT PARTICULARLY THE THIRD STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT.

I MEAN, THIS EFFECTIVELY IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING THE NEED FOR PARKING AND THE DENSITY NOT ONLY IN THAT SECOND STORY UNIT, BUT, OF COURSE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE THE THIRD STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATION.

SO, RESPECTFULLY, WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS DECISION TO TO ALLOW US TO TO CONVERT THIS COMMERCIAL SPACE TO ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AGAIN. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS MORNING. THANK YOU.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM. ONCE YOU'RE FINISHED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.

THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF OUR PRESENTATION. THERE ARE SEVERAL JUST IN RECAP.

THERE ARE SEVERAL POLICIES, BOTH FROM A VISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION PERSPECTIVE THAT PROMOTE MIXTURE OF USES IN OUR BUSINESS DISTRICTS WITH THE LOGICAL LOGICAL PURPOSE OF WALKABILITY REDUCING PARKING DEMAND.

SO SOME OF THE THINGS MR. CLUMSY SPOKE TO AS WHAT'S DRIVING HIS FAMILY ARE REFLECTED IN ALL OF YOUR YOUR POLICIES AS A CITY WITHOUT.

I DO CONCLUDE. AND ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR EITHER OF US.

OKAY. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER OR PETITIONER'S AGENT? I'LL WAIT TILL AFTER THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, MR. BRUMMER. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR.

COUNCIL JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A CHANGE OF NONCONFORMITY RELATED TO PARKING AT 1199 THIRD STREET SOUTH.

PROPERTY, AS YOU'VE HEARD, IS A HISTORIC TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF THIRD STREET SOUTH AND 12TH AVENUE SOUTH.

THE BUILDING, KNOWN AS THE CHLUMSKY BUILDING, OPERATES FIRST FLOOR RETAIL UNITS AND SECOND FLOOR OFFICE SPACE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE C1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT AND THE THIRD STREET OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THE REASON FOR THIS PETITION AND ITS COMPANION ITEM, A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, WHICH I'LL DISCUSS IN A FEW MOMENTS, IS TO FACILITATE THE CONVERSION OF THE UPSTAIRS OFFICE SPACE INTO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.

IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.

AND AS YOU'LL HEAR, AS I CLOSE OUT MY COMMENTS THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL SHOULD COUNCIL CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE, INCLUDE THAT THE APPROVAL OF EITHER PETITION IS CONTINGENT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE OTHER PETITION.

THE PETITIONERS PRESENTATION HAS PROVIDED YOU WITH SOME OF THE IMPORTANT BACKGROUND DETAILS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY.

PART OF THAT HISTORY INCLUDES CONSTRAINTS WITH PARKING.

THIS INFORMATION IS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE AGENDA MEMO.

BUT A QUICK SUMMARY IS ESSENTIALLY THIS TODAY.

THERE'S NO PARKING 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 300FT² OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.

FOR THIS PROPERTY, THAT MEANS 22 SPACES, 11 ON EACH FLOOR.

THOSE ARE TODAY'S REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS REQUIRED WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1963.

IN THIS ZONING, DISTRICT REQUIRED ONE SPACE PER 400FT² OF 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.

[01:15:08]

SO THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT OF EIGHT SPACES WAS REDUCED TO TWO.

FOR MANY YEARS THEY COMPLIED. THERE WAS AMPLE PARKING ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.

HOWEVER, FAST FORWARD A FEW DECADES, THE AREA HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED.

THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN OPEN SPACE ARE NOW BUILDINGS.

THE PARKING IS GONE. THE UNDERLYING ZONING HAS ALSO CHANGED THE CITY ADOPTING MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS.

SO TODAY, WHAT WE HAVE APPEARS TO BE A LAWFUL NONCONFORMITY CONCERNING PARKING.

THE USES CAN CONTINUE THE WAY THEY ARE INDEFINITELY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR PARKING.

SO THE OFFICE CAN TURN OVER, THE OFFICES CAN TURN OVER INTO NEW OFFICES.

THE RETAIL CAN TURN OVER INTO NEW RETAIL. THESE USES ARE ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED IN.

AS YOU HEARD, THAT'S NOT HOW THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO CONTINUE USING THE PROPERTY.

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 IN PERPETUITY THE NON-CONFORMING PARKING RIGHTS TIED TO THE BUILDING. BUT THEY WANT TO DO IT AT A VASTLY REDUCED CAPACITY.

THE 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 SPACE, NOW OFFICES, INTO A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT BY CODE.

SINGLE DWELLING UNIT REGULARLY ACQUIRES TWO REQUIRES TWO SPACES.

THE REMAINING NINE SPACES, CURRENTLY UNMARKED, 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 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 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 COUNCIL SHALL ENSURE THE PROPER.

THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA.

THAT CRITERIA IS LAID OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ANSWERED BY BOTH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF.

ALSO IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, ARE SOME OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING CHANGES IN NON-CONFORMITIES. WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT A KEY OBJECTIVE OF THE ZONING IS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE NON-CONFORMITIES WHEN NEW USES ARE PROPOSED.

OUR COMP PLAN PROVIDES SOME GUIDANCE WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY TO A LESS OBJECTIONABLE, LESS NON-CONFORMING SITUATION. AND FURTHERMORE, THE COMP PLAN STATES THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED JUST BECAUSE A REDUCTION IN NONCONFORMITY IS NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS.

FINALLY, THE PROPOSAL HAS OUTLINED SOME PLAUSIBLE BENEFITS FOR THE DEINTENSIFICATION OF THE SPECIFIC NONCONFORMITY, AND THE STAFF REPORT ALSO RECOGNIZES AND INCLUDES THOSE IN NOVEMBER.

LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED A FEW LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

THOSE LETTERS ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA ITEM.

I ALSO DISTRIBUTED THIS MORNING A COPY OF ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PUBLICATION.

THIS CORRESPONDENCE EXPRESSES SOME CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS NON-CONFORMITY PETITION LAST MONTH.

FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, PAB VOTED 4 TO 3 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NONCONFORMITY TO CITY COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THOSE CONDITIONS ARE NOTED IN THE AGENDA MEMORANDUM AND ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 46.35 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR EXPANDING AND ENLARGING OR CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET.

THAT SHOULD CITY COUNCIL CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE NONCONFORMITY PETITION.

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE APPROVAL OF THIS 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.

AND NUMBER THREE, THE CITY SHALL REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR RESTRIPING THE LOADING ZONE TO RELEASE THE PARKING SPACES BACK INTO THE CITY CITY'S

[01:20:05]

POOL, AS EXISTED AT THE TIME THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.

THE SECOND PETITION, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOR THE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT IN THE C1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT, AND THIS PETITION IS REALLY THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND ALL OF THIS.

AGAIN, THE DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS IN THE THIRD STREET OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A LIMITED COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

CITY CODE ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS HERE, PROVIDED THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH A PERMITTED USE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS AS THE PERMITTED USE. THERE IS A PERMITTED DENSITY OF UP TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

OF COURSE, THIS IS ONE UNIT. IT'S THREE BEDROOMS, THREE BATHS, A KITCHEN, A DEN, AND LIVING AND DINING ROOM AREA.

THE WHOLE UNIT IS APPROXIMATELY 3200FT². STAFF FINDS THE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTY'S ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A HISTORIC COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH UPSTAIRS RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY ENCOURAGES A MIXTURE OF USES AND A LIVELY 24 HOUR USE OF THE AREA. FINALLY, THE CONVERSION OF MULTIPLE OFFICE, MULTIPLE OFFICES AND MEETING SPACES INTO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT WOULD SERVE TO DECREASE THE OVERALL INTENSITY OF A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DISTRICT.

A PETITION LIKE ITS COMPANION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS.

PETITION WAS ALSO NOTICED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE PROPERTY.

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED A FEW LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS REQUEST AS WELL.

THAT CORRESPONDENCE, INCLUDING LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND THOSE IN OBJECTION, ARE ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA ITEM.

PLANNING ADVISORY HEARD THIS CONDITIONAL USE PETITION LAST YEAR.

FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, PAB RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ITEM TO COUNCIL WITH A FIVE TO 2 TO 1 VOTE.

THIS INCLUDED CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOTED IN YOUR AGENDA MEMORANDUM FOR THE ITEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 4634 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF HAS APPLIED THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS TO THE REQUEST FOR A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND THE C-1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT, AND THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND FINDS THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET.

SHOULD COUNCIL CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE ITEM, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING FOUR CONDITIONS BE INCLUDED.

NUMBER ONE, THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WILL NOT BE USED AS A TRANSIENT RENTAL.

NUMBER TWO HIGH STANDARD HURRICANE GLASS WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE WINDOWS FOR NOISE ATTENUATION GENERALLY.

NUMBER THREE, THE PETITIONERS ARE TO SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A HIGH ACTIVITY AREA WITH REGULAR NOISE LEVEL CHANGES.

THOSE FIRST THREE WERE CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY PAB.

THE FOURTH ONE IS. APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IS CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ACCOMPANYING CHANGE IN NONCONFORMITY PETITION RELATED TO PARKING. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.

I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WELL DONE. WHAT WAS THE WHAT IS A521 VOTE? THERE WAS ONE ABSTENTION. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

AND THEN YES. THANK YOU. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT HOW IT IS NEXT DOOR TO A RESTAURANT THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY OUTDOOR DINING. AND WE'VE SEEN THIS STORY BEFORE.

THERE THERE ARE AVIGATION EASEMENTS ON THE AIRPORT THAT SAY WHERE WHERE PEOPLE SIGN AND SAY, I'M AWARE OF THE NOISE. I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY, THAT THIS IS NOISY.

HOW DO WE MANAGE THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE AN OPERATING RESTAURANT AND ANY FUTURE PERSON THAT MIGHT LIVE IN THAT SINGLE HOME, OR EVEN EVEN IF THEY GET TIRED OF THE NOISE? THE FACT IS, IS WE HAVE A SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANT THAT THAT IS A IS AN ALLOWED USE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE IT CONTINUE AND THRIVE AND DON'T WANT TO SEE COMPLAINTS COMING OUT OF THE BLUE AND TIE UP RESOURCES IN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND MAKE A NEIGHBOR PROBLEM. SO HOW DO WE NIP THAT IN THE BUD SO IT DOES NOT BECOME A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE AND THEY PROACTIVELY SIGN SIGN SOMETHING PERHAPS THAT SAYS, I REALIZE I'M I'M IN A DISTRICT WHERE WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE USUAL NOISE THAT COMES WITH A THE DISTRICT AND THE ALLOWABLE

[01:25:08]

USES, AND I'M OKAY WITH IT. AND THIS PROPERTY IS OKAY WITH IT IN TWO WAYS.

IN THE RESOLUTION YOU'LL SEE THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED CONDITIONS.

THE FIRST IS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WILL BE WILL NOT BE USED AS A TRANSIENT RENTAL.

SO THE INTENT OF THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ONE OWNER AND IT'S THE FAMILY WHO LIVES THERE, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT YOU WON'T GET IS PEOPLE COMING IN PERIODICALLY SAYING, I WAS HERE FOR A QUIET VACATION AND I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THIS SO IT WILL NOT BE USED AS A TRANSIENT. IT'LL BE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. AND THEN THE SECOND IS, WELL, THERE'S THREE, I'M SORRY.

THE SECOND IS HIGH STANDARD HURRICANE GLASS WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE WINDOWS FOR NOISE ATTENUATION GENERALLY.

SO THEY WILL PUT IN THE CONSTRUCTION TO RETROFIT THIS TO A RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

THEY WILL ADD SOUND ATTENUATING MEASURES. AND THEN THE THIRD IS THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE TO SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A HIGH ACTIVITY AREA WITH REGULAR NOISE LEVEL CHANGES.

AND THIS CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSION AS WELL. AND THIS IS THIS IS THE RESOLUTION.

SO THE PETITIONERS HERE, THE PETITIONERS AGENT IS HERE, IF THEY AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS IN THIS RESOLUTION.

THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT MEMORIALIZES, MEMORIALIZES, THEIR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THEY ARE NEXT TO A HIGH ACTIVITY AREA AND THAT THEY'RE GOING IN KIND OF EYES WIDE OPEN. OKAY. AND MAY I ADD TO THAT REAL QUICK? SURE. BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH THESE CONDITIONS ARE GREAT, IF THEY AGREE TO IT, I WILL NEVER PREVENT SOMEONE FROM MAKING A COMPLAINT ABOUT A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE, WHETHER IT'S A BUSINESS OWNER OR A RESIDENT.

SO WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE THESE THINGS, EVERY CITIZEN IN THIS CITY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT ON A VIOLATION OF THE CODE, AND WE WILL ENFORCE IT AND LOOK INTO IT LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY VIOLATION.

OKAY. AND WE CAN NEVER PREVENT SOMEONE, NO MATTER WHAT WE GET SIGNED FROM THE DUE PROCESS OF WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS, WHICH IS FILING A COMPLAINT AND ALLOWING US TO LOOK INTO IT, AND THIS WAS INTENDED TO ADDRESS.

I'M SORRY. THESE CONDITIONS WERE INTENDED TO ADDRESS JUST THE AVERAGE DAY TO DAY RESTAURANT ACTIVITY.

WERE THERE TO BE A NIGHT WHERE THINGS GOT CRAZY.

IT CAN'T BE. OH YES, OF COURSE, THE EVERY RESIDENT AND EVERY NEIGHBOR HAS HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS EXCESSIVE, THIS IS EXCEEDING THE NOISE.

BUT THIS WAS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO SAY, OKAY, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE NEXT TO A RESTAURANT.

WELL, I MEAN, IT IS BUSTLING AT NIGHT AND IT IS DEFINITELY OVER.

OVER. IS IT 55DB IN THAT AREA? BECAUSE IT'S AN EVENING, AN EVENING EVENT.

IT GOES FROM 60 TO 50 AFTER DINNER HOUR. I THINK IT'S EITHER 65 OR 75 AND IT'S IT'S MEASURED FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

BUT I MEAN, YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE SAME THING ON FIFTH AVENUE, YOU HAVE RESIDENCES ABOVE, YOU HAVE SIDEBAR, YOU HAVE ALL OF THIS STUFF HAPPENING ON THE WEEKEND.

AND NOBODY HAS THE I MEAN, TO BE FAIR, CAMPILLOS IS A VERY SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANT, BUT NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT IF THEY ARE REGULARLY VIOLATING THE NOISE ORDINANCE.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERPETUATE THAT FOREVER.

YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? LIKE THEY'RE ALWAYS HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD THAT EVERY OTHER RESTAURANT IS.

SO IF THEY'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, YES, YOU KNOW, EVERYDAY AVERAGE RESTAURANT ACTIVITY FOR A SUCCESSFUL, BUSY RESTAURANT WE'RE OKAY WITH, THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD HOPE FOR.

OKAY. BUT THAT IS NOT THAT'S THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT, I WOULD IMAGINE, FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO SAY, OH, THIS IS AVERAGE EVERYDAY RESTAURANT ACTIVITY AND WE COULD GET EMBROILED IN A BATTLE.

MAY I? MAY I COMMENT? THANK YOU. THIS IS A MIXED USE DISTRICT.

THE BUILDING THAT WRAPS AROUND CAMPIELLO IS MIXED USE.

MISS PETRANOFF. THE THE BURDEN DOES SHIFT A BIT BY HAVING THIS AS A CONDITION IN THE RESOLUTION.

MISS, MR. MCCONNELL IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THERE'S NO WAIVER OF A CODE VIOLATION.

THAT WOULD BE THE ANTITHESIS OF DUE PROCESS, BUT IT DOES SHIFT THE BURDEN.

SO IF IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY THIS REGULAR NOISE, THIS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IS, IS BOTHERING ME, YOU WOULD POINT TO THE RESOLUTION. OF COURSE, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS A VIOLATION OF CODE, MEANING THE DECIBEL LEVEL HAS BEEN EXCEEDED, ANY AND ANY RETAIL OWNER, ANY COMMERCIAL OWNER COULD HAS THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS A RESIDENTIAL OWNER. I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE SHIFTING THE GRAVITY AT ALL, AND WE'RE PROVIDING EVERY LAYER OF PROTECTION ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE APPROVALS IN THIS SAME DISTRICT.

WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE, YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T BE CLOSE LOCATION AND IT'S OUTDOOR AND BAR AREA WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE AROUND IT IN GENERAL ARE RESTAURANT PATRONS AND PEOPLE WALKING, THEY ANTICIPATE THAT NOISE.

[01:30:01]

PEOPLE ENJOY QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR HOMES WHEN IT BECOMES A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

SO THIS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, WILL THEY GET SICK AT SOME POINT IN TIME OF, OF OF HEARING AT AVERAGE RESTAURANT NOISE? BECAUSE THAT DECIBEL LEVEL IS EXCEEDED AS I'M SPEAKING.

ABSOLUTELY. AND IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, A PROBLEM AND A TECHNICAL VIOLATION ON DBS EVERY EVENING.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. I JUST WANT TO I JUST WANT TO REFRAME YOU A LITTLE BIT TO TO THE DISTRICT.

MISS PETRANOFF, THE BUILDING THAT WRAPS AROUND THAT COURTYARD IS MIXED USE TODAY.

THIS IS A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT COMING INTO AN ENVIRONMENT.

IT IS. IT IS OBSERVABLE. THIS IS THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE WE'RE PROVIDING A DISCLOSURE.

BUT BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT THAT THAT ANY RESIDENT THE CHLUMSKY'S ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY.

BUT IF IF SOMETHING NUCLEAR HAPPENS AND THE BUILDING MUST BE SOLD IN THIS WORST CASE SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE TO BE THINKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS, AND I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT. I AM THAT PERSON IS COMING TO THE PROPERTY.

THEY'RE COMING TO THERE BEING A PREEXISTING RESTAURANT THERE.

THE THIS IS THE CONDITION OF THE STREET. OKAY.

SO THEN HOW IS MY QUESTION FOR LEGAL TEAM AND CODE ENFORCEMENT IS THEN, YOU KNOW, HOW HOW IS IT MANAGED IN CODE ENFORCEMENT IF IT GOES TO 65DB. SO WE HAVE A GENERALLY APPLICABLE NOISE ORDINANCE.

AND THE WAY IT OPERATES IS OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.

WE HAVE A NOISE READER FOR DBA. DEPENDING ON THE TIME YOU HAVE TO MONITOR IT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

IT'S A VIOLATION. THEN WE PROCESS IT. BUT, I MEAN, WE WOULD DO THE SAME IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT OR A BUSINESS OWNER OR SOMEONE VISITING THE CITY. A COMPLAINT IS A COMPLAINT. SO WE ALWAYS LOOK INTO IT THE SAME WAY.

AND I WOULD ONLY ADD THAT REGARDLESS OF YOUR VOTE TODAY, WE'LL ADMINISTER IT THE SAME WAY TOMORROW.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT PIECE OF IT. SO DOES CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE ANY ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS USE? I MEAN, I LIKE IT BECAUSE IT DENSIFIES THINGS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A I THINK IT'S TERRIFIC FOR PARKING FOR ANY NUMBER OF THINGS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING ENTANGLED.

AND I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, SEE IF FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT.

IS IT. DO YOU WOULD YOU ARE YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS, INCREMENTAL CONCERNS ON THE CHANGE IN USE? I HAVE NO INCREMENTAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE CHANGE IN USE.

I WOULD ALSO STATE THAT WE GET EMBROILED IN A LOT OF THINGS AFTER THE FACT IN HISTORY.

BUT I THINK ALL OF THE CONDITIONS BEING OFFERED HERE TODAY PUT US IN THE MOST IN THE BEST POSITION GOING FORWARD.

AND IT DOES IT IS A LESSON IN TENSE CHANGE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE OVERALL MAKEUP OF IT, WITH AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND WHAT THEY'RE WALKING, WHAT THEY'RE WALKING INTO. BUT WHAT THE WHAT THEY'RE PLACING IN AN AREA THAT IS A MIXED USE AREA.

SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T I CAN'T FIX EVERY SCENARIO THAT MAY HAPPEN.

AND WE'VE SEEN IT AS AS THINGS EVOLVE, THEY COME BACK HERE.

BUT BUT I DO THINK THAT WE'RE YOU'RE PROTECTING YOURSELVES AND FUTURE COUNCILS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN HERE BY PAB AND AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT. SO, OKAY, I MEAN, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE WINDOWS, BUT I THINK THAT MAYBE THAT THAT MAY BE AN OVERSTEP THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT ON COUNCIL SIDE TO DEMAND THAT.

BUT I THINK YOU WOULD YOU WOULD WANT TO DO THAT ANYWAY.

AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO ALSO CONSIDER THE THE HYATT HOUSE REQUIRED, I THINK UNDER ROOFING INSULATION THAT BECAUSE OF FOR NOISE MITIGATION. BUT I THINK THAT'S MORE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT MIGHT BE AN OVERSTEP ON COUNCIL TO DEMAND THAT WE'VE ACCEPTED THE CONDITIONS. IT IT'S IT'S LIKELY IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO LOOK AT NOISE ATTENUATION POSSIBILITIES.

SO WE'VE ACCEPTED THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN. JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION AND FOR MY COLLEAGUES, I TEND NOT TO NECESSARILY SPEAK WITH STAFF BEFORE WE RECEIVE ANY PETITION, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BRING THINGS OUT PUBLICLY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS VERY TRANSPARENT.

SO MY QUESTION TODAY IS THIS, THAT THIS WILL NOT BE USED AS A TRANSIENT RENTAL.

MY QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN?

[01:35:01]

AND WHAT IS OUR RECOURSE IF, IN FACT, THAT CONTINGENCY IS VIOLATED? WELL, IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY CODE. FIRST AND FOREMOST.

SO THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION NOT ONLY OF YOUR APPROVAL TODAY, BUT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

SO THEY'VE AGREED TO IT. THIS IS A KIND OF A BELT AND SUSPENDERS APPROACH HERE, WHERE THEY'RE ACKNOWLEDGING ON THE RECORD THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ONLY IS IT NOT ALLOWED BY CODE, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE GRANTING HERE TODAY.

AND IT WOULD BE HANDLED THE SAME WAY ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, CODE VIOLATION, NON-COMPLIANT SHORT TERM RENTAL WOULD BE AND ARTICULATE WHAT THAT WOULD BE. IT WOULD BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION AND IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.

GO THROUGH. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. BUT THEY'RE THEY'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT AND THAT THEY'VE.

I'M AWARE OF THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO VERIFY SOMETHING WITH STAFF.

CAN YOU GET TO DAVID? MAYBE YOU CAN PUT THIS UP.

I'M SORRY IF YOU'RE NOT THERE RIGHT NOW. SLIDE 23.

ON THE PETITIONERS. YEAH. IT'S A OH, IT'S UP.

IT'S RIGHT THERE. WOW. YOU'RE AMAZING. SO IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO IT.

SWAN COURTS EIGHT ABOVE RETAIL. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE.

AND YOU'RE VERIFYING THAT RIGHT. YES. YEAH. AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET 15 UNITS THERE THAT ARE MIXED.

RIGHT. AND THEN RIGHT CATTY CORNER ANOTHER FOUR.

AND ET CETERA. ET CETERA. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE APPROVED ON FIFTH STREET RECENTLY. WE'LL ACCEPT IT IS CONDOS OVER THE RESTAURANT.

ALL THE SAME STUFF. YEAH. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO.

WHEN SHE MISS PASSIDOMO WAS VERY GENERAL WRAPAROUND. I JUST WANTED TO BE SPECIFIC WITH THAT STUFF AND JUST POINT OUT THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. THAT IS WHAT'S THERE.

THANKS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE MAYOR? YEAH. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. JUST A FEW QUESTIONS HERE.

THE THE LOADING ZONE. THE PETITIONER'S AGENT POINTED OUT IN THE SLIDES THE LOADING ZONE AND THE STRIPED AREA. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, IF WE COULD.

THANK YOU. I HAVE THE SAME. GENERALLY. I'M GOING THERE.

THERE YOU GO. SORRY, FRANCESCA. SO THAT STRIPED AREA AND LOADING ZONE IT'S DEDICATED OR DESIGNATED FOR LOADING. YES. WE DID A BUNCH OF RESEARCH WITH THE STREETS DEPARTMENT.

MISS A BUNCH OF RESEARCH WITH THE STREETS DEPARTMENT, AND IT WAS DESIGNATED YEARS AGO AS A LOADING AND TAXI PICKUP ZONE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE TAXI PICKUP ZONE HAS BEEN RELOCATED, IS NO LONGER DESIGNATED IN THIS LOCATION, BUT IT HAS REMAINED STRIPED AS A LOADING ZONE.

OKAY, AND WHERE DID THE TAXI PORTION OF THAT GET RELOCATED? TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THIRD STREET WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

THE INFO. THERE'S A INFO BOOTH KIND OF CATERCORNER FROM BARBATELLA.

YOU'RE SURE OF THAT. YOU CHECK THAT OUT. YOU SAW IT.

THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD. OKAY. SO WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT YET.

SO I'LL MOVE ON FROM THAT. AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

IF WE'RE SAYING SOMETHING IS RELOCATED I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IT.

AND WE'RE JUST SAYING WE'RE NOT THE EXPERTS. I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE THE STREETS INFORMATION.

SO THIS IS A LOADING ZONE. CAN IT BE USED FOR PARKING AS IT IS DESIGNATED RIGHT NOW? NO. CAN'T. OKAY. IS THE LOADING ZONE DEDICATED TO ONLY THE USES OF THE CHLUMSKY BUILDING? NO, IT IS A SO THAT LOADING ALLISON'S HERE.

I'M SORRY, ALLISON, IT HAS MUCH MORE INFORMATION THAN I DO ON THIS ONE.

GOOD MORNING, ALLISON BECKETT. FOR THE RECORD, CITY, YOU WERE NOT SWORN IN.

I'M SORRY. YES. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO? TO CLARIFY, I THINK THIS STILL IS MARKED AS TAXI ZONE.

AND I'M SORRY, ERICA, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS. WE DID REACH OUT TO NEAPOLITAN ENTERPRISES AS WELL, AND THEY DID STATE THAT THERE ARE TAXIS THAT ARE UTILIZING THIS.

NOT MANY. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TAXIS AROUND. IT IS STILL MARKED AS TAXI PICKUP IN THE LATE EVENING HOURS.

SO THERE'S IT'S MINIMAL. SO I DO WANT TO, TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT THAT'S THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE RECEIVED.

I HAVE NOT BEEN OUT THERE TO VERIFY IN PERSON, BUT THAT'S.

SO THIS IS STILL A TAXI ZONE. IT IS STILL MARKED AS A TAXI ZONE.

AND I BELIEVE IT IS STILL USED WHILE IT'S MINIMAL, IT'S STILL BEING UTILIZED.

[01:40:02]

IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST SO IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE ACCURATE WHEN WE GET TO THESE DETAILS.

WAS THAT JUST IN A MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS SAID, WAS THAT IN THE MEETING THAT WE HAD OR WAS IT IN AN EMAIL? THAT WAS ALSO IN THE EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM NEAPOLITAN ENTERPRISES.

THEY STATED THAT THERE WAS THREE THINGS I ASKED AS FAR AS OR MR. RIVERA ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH THEM. THEY THEY INDICATED THAT IT'S STILL IT'S STILL MARKED.

THEY'RE STILL UTILIZING IT. LATE IN THE EVENING.

THERE ARE SOME PICKUPS. THERE ARE SOME LOADING USES DURING THE DAY.

I THINK THAT'S THERE'S NOT MANY. WELL, IT'S FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE NOT GONE OUT.

I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T. I WILL INDICATE THAT I HAVE NOT GONE OUT PERSONALLY TO, TO VERIFY.

SO THIS IS SECOND HAND. AND THEN I UNDERSTAND IT WAS ALSO INDICATED THAT THERE IS SOME TRASH PICKUP AND THAT'S JUST THE ROLL OUTS THAT UTILIZE THIS LOADING AREA. SO THERE WERE THREE USES THAT WAS INDICATED FOR A PORTION OF THIS.

WELL, THAT MAY NOT BE THE ENTIRE SECTION. THAT'S WHAT WAS RELAYED.

SO WHAT TYPES OF CHANGES? AND WHEN THE PETITIONER FIRST, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION, THE PETITIONER POINTED TO THIS LOADING ZONE. IN FACT, IT WAS THIS EXACT SLIDE THAT HER CURSOR WENT AROUND AND POINTED IT OUT. BUT I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER ANY SUGGESTION OR RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF ACTION RELATED TO THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ZONING, THIS STRIPED AREA.

SO DO WE HAVE AN ASK BY THE PETITIONER FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS STRIPED AREA, BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE PETITION OR IN THE PRESENTATION AS THE PETITIONER. I'LL RESPOND.

IN THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS, WE FOUND THAT IT WAS RESTRIPED TO TO WHAT IT'S USES TODAY, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM ITS USE WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.

SO WE OFFERED THAT IF YOU HAVE A PROPRIETARY INTEREST, THIS IS YOUR RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO USE IT. IT IS THE CITY'S DETERMINATION.

SO IF IT IS THE CITY'S WILL TODAY YOU WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW WHETHER ALL OR A PORTION COULD BE RESTRIPED FOR PARKING SPACES.

WE MERELY OFFERED IT IN OUR INVESTIGATION THAT THERE WAS A CONVERSION.

WE CANNOT REQUIRE YOU TO DO ANYTHING. WE CAN'T REQUIRE STAFF TO DO ANYTHING.

IT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY. BUT I DO THINK IT'S INFORMATIVE THAT THE THE PARKING WAS TAKEN OUT, BECAUSE THAT FURTHER EXACERBATED THE NONCONFORMITY DUE TO THE CREDIT FOR ADJACENT ONSITE PARKING.

SO THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP, BUT IT'S NOT DISPOSITIVE TO YOUR APPROVALS BY ANY STRETCH.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM A CITY PUBLIC BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE.

DO WE WANT SOME PARKING BACK IN THIRD STREET AS THE ELECTED BODY FOR FOR THE FOR THE CITY? THANK YOU, MISS PASSIDOMO. AND DO YOU KNOW IF WHEN THIS AREA WAS CONVERTED FROM PARKING TO THE USE THAT IT CURRENTLY IS BEING DESIGNATED AT? DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR CLIENT ADVOCATED FOR THAT CHANGE AT THAT TIME? FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS, NO. IT APPEARS THAT IT OCCURRED IN THE 1980S.

DIRECTED BY THE CITY AGAIN, TAXIS BECOMING LESS AND LESS RELEVANT.

SO WHETHER WHETHER IT, IT IT WHETHER IT WAS DIRECTED BY MY CLIENT, I CAN'T GO BACK TO EVERY SINGLE RECORD.

BUT MR. CHLUMSKY WOULD TESTIFY THAT. NO, WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS.

OKAY. AND I'M NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE TAXI USE.

IT'S THE LOADING USE. SO THE QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

FOR STAFF WHAT TYPES OF CHANGES IN YOUR MIND WOULD OCCUR IF THE LOADING ZONE IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY IS REMOVED? WHERE WILL THAT ACTIVITY BE RELOCATED TO? HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? I THINK THAT FROM THE UNDERSTANDING IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS THAT THERE WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF SPACES THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING, POTENTIALLY FOR THE ANGLED PARKING. WE DIDN'T DISCUSS FULL REMOVAL.

SO PERHAPS KEEPING AND IF I MISSPOKE, PLEASE CORRECT ME.

BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS STILL INTEREST IN MAINTAINING A LOADING AREA OR SOME USAGE OF THAT FOR FUTURE PURPOSES, AND ADDING IN PERHAPS A COUPLE OF ANGLED PARKING SPACES SO IT WOULD REDUCE THE LOADING ZONE AREA IS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

DID I MISS THAT IN THE PRESENTATION IN THE MATERIALS? HAVE YOU DESIGNATED THE DETAILS RELATED TO THE RELOCATION OF THIS LOADING ZONE? I BELIEVE, AND IN OUR DISCUSSION, WE JUST HAD THIS DISCUSSION LAST WEEK.

WE HAVEN'T FULLY INVESTIGATED AS FAR AS WE WE'VE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THE IMPACTS WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT THERE TO CHECK.

[01:45:09]

I DON'T I HAVE NOT GONE OUT TO DO A FULL ANALYSIS AS FAR AS THE USES THAT ARE THERE, THE SIZE TRUCKS THAT ARE UTILIZING THIS AREA AND AND WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, TWO SPACES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT, BUT WE AGREED TO TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER WHERE THIS AREA. I JUST HEARD NOT TOO LONG AGO A PETITION RELATED TO TRUCK LOADING AND UNLOADING IN THIS AREA.

WE'VE GOT SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE HAVING TRUCKS BACK UP INTO LOADING AREAS.

WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN. WE'RE ABOUT WE'RE OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION.

WE DON'T HAVE DETAILS AND A PLAN ABOUT WHAT THE SUBSEQUENT CHANGE, HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE HANDLED.

AND I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT. I, I'M NOT BLAMING STAFF.

I'M JUST SAYING FOR ME AND WHAT I THINK OUR COMMUNITY EXPECTS, THESE THESE KIND OF DETAILS NEED TO BE NAILED DOWN CRYSTAL CLEAR.

AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SUFFER EVEN MORE CONGESTION.

BUT THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU STAFF. THANK YOU.

I THAT WAS MY EXACT QUESTION. I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. CHLUMSKY ABOUT THE PARKING, BECAUSE IT WASN'T INDICATED THAT THAT WOULD BE THERE.

RESERVED. I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND HAD HOPED THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH THAT.

WE WOULD BE PRESENTED WITH SOME LOADING AND UNLOADING.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST TAXIS. THERE ARE NOW DOLPHIN.

ALL THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES WILL USE THAT SPACE.

WE ALSO HAVE SLIDER. WHO USES THAT SPACE? YES THEY DO.

I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. AND SO MAY NOT BE SLIDER.

EXCUSE ME, BUT THERE IS A MICROMOBILITY SHUTTLE THAT USES THAT SPACE.

SO I WOULD I MEAN, I WANT TO FINISH THE CONVERSATION.

I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE IT. IF WE COULD GET TO SOME RESOLVE TODAY IN FINDING AND RESOLVING THIS.

THAT WOULD BE MY MY GOAL. BUT IT IT ALSO IS SOMETHING WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE SPACE THAT THE RESIDENT COULD PARK AND GO TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO WITH THAT I'LL GO TO COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND THEN KRISTEN.

THANK YOU. SAME VEIN OF THOUGHT HERE. IN REFERENCE TO THAT LOADING AREA, I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE AND POINT OUT THAT THE THIRD CONDITION HERE ON THIS PARKING ISSUE IS THAT THE CITY SHALL REVIEW, REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR RESTRIPING.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE RESTRIPING DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE GOING TO RESTRIPE DOES NOT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS THING. IT ALL IT MEANS IS MAYBE WE WILL, MAYBE WE WON'T, WE WILL CONSIDER IT. SO THAT CONDITION IS NOT A CONDITION TO CHANGE THIS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

IT'S SIMPLY A CONDITION FOR US AS THE CITY TO CONSIDER A CHANGE.

IF THAT CHANGE MAKES SENSE. GREAT, LET'S DO IT.

IF IT DOESN'T, WE WON'T. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE DOING IT HERE TODAY.

AND IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER THEY HAVE A PARKING SPOT THERE FOR THIS RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR NOT.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE REDUCING THE NEED FOR PARKING BY PUTTING A SINGLE UNIT UP THERE, AS OPPOSED TO THE EIGHT COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT ARE UP THERE. SO WE ARE REDUCING IT ANY WAY. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE NEED FOR PARKING.

AND THIS STRIPED AREA IS A CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW.

IT IS NOT A A A DECISION TO MAKE A CHANGE. SO IT SHOULD NOT BE HOLDING UP THIS, THIS THIS DECISION IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BARTON. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY IT'S COME BEFORE US AND FOR US TO LET THIS GO BACK AND THE DECISIONS BE MADE WHERE WE DO NOT KNOW THAT APPROVAL IS, IN MY OPINION, NOT THE WAY THAT WE SHOULD BE APPROVING.

THIS WELL, THEN WE MAKE A MOTION. WE CAN MAKE IT. WE CAN REMOVE THE CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW.

I MEAN, THEN, THEN THE PROBLEM IS REMOVED FROM FROM THE EQUATION AS WELL.

AND WE CAN WE CAN VOTE ON IT AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE WANT TO DO IT OR NOT. AND THAT'S JUST THE REASON THAT THERE WASN'T A PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION.

THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE YOU FOR THE NONCONFORMITY IS THE NONCONFORMING ASPECT OF THIS BUILDING IS THAT THERE ARE NO PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE SECOND FLOOR.

WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT, IT REQUIRED NO PARKING SPACES FOR THE SECOND FLOOR.

SO THEY THEIR ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS TO ALLOW THEM TO REDUCE THE NONCONFORMITY IN THE SENSE OF REDUCING THE PARKING DEMAND.

BUT THERE WAS NEVER A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PARKING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BY, YOU KNOW, BY FACT THAT THAT IS A NONCONFORMING BUILDING. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THOSE PARKING SPACES.

SO THEN WHEN IT CAME THROUGH THE REVIEW, THE PAB HAD REQUESTED THAT TWO PARKING SPACES BE ALLOCATED.

[01:50:07]

AND THAT'S WHERE THIS DISCUSSION OF THE LOADING SPACE CAME IN.

IT WAS NEVER PART OF THEIR ORIGINAL REQUEST. THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP PLANS FOR THAT BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, THEY DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE PARKING SPACES THEIR NON-CONFORMING IN THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ANY. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS KIND OF A SEEMED LIKE A LATE LAST MINUTE ADDITION, BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS JUST THEIR ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS A COMMENT.

TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A CREATIVE WAY TO PROVIDE THOSE TWO PARKING SPACES.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU ARE CORRECT. IF YOU DO WANT, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LOADING SPACE TODAY, YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NONCONFORMITY REQUEST BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE PARKING SPACES FOR THE SECOND FLOOR AT ALL.

RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT LOGIC, BUT WHAT THAT PUTS THE PETITIONER IN WITH A A GOOD CHANGE OF USE INTO A PREDICAMENT OF NOT HAVING A RESERVED SPACE.

I MEAN, JUST THE LOGIC OF IT. BUT THEY HAVE NINE SPACES UP THERE NOW.

I MEAN, THEY HAVE THEY HAVE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SECOND FLOOR OPERATING RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE NO SPACES.

SO THOSE THE PARKING DEMAND OF NINE SPACES IS FILTERED OUT THROUGH YOUR PUBLIC PARKING SPACES IN THE THIRD STREET AREA RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WHAT IT DOES IS IT REDUCES THAT POTENTIAL OF NINE PEOPLE PARKING, FINDING PARKING SPACES TO TWO SPACES.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT. SO IT COULD BE ONE CAR FINDING.

I UNDERSTAND. CAN I ASK A QUESTION CLARIFICATION FOR YOU? ONE SECOND. IF I COULD JUST FINISH WITH THIS QUESTION, THEN I'LL GO TO YOU. KRAMER.

I APPRECIATE THAT. AND, YES BUT OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHETHER IT WAS NON-CONFORMING OR NOT, WILL HAVE RESERVED. AND I THINK, I MEAN, IN THE FAIRNESS OF GRANTING THIS, GIVING BACK TO THIS POOL, THAT'S WHEREVER IT IS, I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO IDENTIFY THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACCOMMODATE AND IT'S NOT DONE IN A STAFF DECISION, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE DECIDE TO PUT TAXI STAND SOMEPLACE ELSE, AND THEN THE WHOLE THIRD STREET DISTRICT GOES.

WELL, WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? FOLLOW ME. THANK YOU.

WAIT, I HAVE A QUESTION. AND THEN. KRAMER. OKAY, SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE, BUT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DO. AND LISTENING TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, MISS MARTIN, A MOMENT AGO. SO THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND PERHAPS OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE ISSUE OF THE TAXI LOADING POTENTIAL PARKING AREA ON 12TH AVENUE SOUTH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR APPROVAL OR NOT.

NON-APPROVAL OF THIS NONCONFORMITY AND CONDITIONAL USE.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. UP. AND DOES ANYBODY AM I? IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT, MR. MCCONNELL? YES. THE ONLY REASON IT'S PART OF THIS IS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS OFFERED TO PAY FOR THE RESTRIPING IF COUNCIL WANTED TO DO SO.

SO. AND WHERE IS THAT? WHERE'S WHAT? WHERE IS THAT THAT YOU JUST STATED IT WAS PART OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECORD, WHICH IS WHY PLANNING BOARD ADDED THE CONDITION FOR US TO LOOK INTO IT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S OUR RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT'S IT'S OUR RIGHT TO DO WHAT WE WANT WITH IT.

AND IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO, WE HAVE WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. IF WE CHOOSE TO, WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. AND THEY OFFER TO PAY FOR THE RESTRIPING.

SO THE, THE SO TO ME, THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.

AND THE YOU KNOW, THE DECISION AND AND JUST TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER, THE DECISION AS TO WHAT TO DO WITH THIS AREA.

I THINK AT MINIMUM REQUIRES STAFF TO OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO LOOK AT IT AND LOOK AT THE COMPETING USES FOR IT. INCLUDING PARTICULAR USES, A LOADING ZONE VERSUS PARKING.

I HAVE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW IS, I THINK, SIMILAR TO THE VICE MAYOR'S, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE AND WHAT WE HEARD IN THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM NEAPOLITAN ENTERPRISES, WHICH IS, YES, WE HAVE A SCARCITY OF PARKING ON THIRD STREET, LIKE WE DO IN MANY PARTS OF THE CITY.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE A SCARCITY OF AREAS FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING DELIVERIES AND SO ON.

AND I THINK WE REALLY GIVING UP SPACE THAT COULD BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

[01:55:07]

CONCERNS ME, BUT I TAKE IT EVEN A STEP FURTHER.

IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT REALLY COUNCIL SHOULD BE DECIDING IN THE END, OR IS THIS ANOTHER EXERCISE IN OVER MICROMANAGEMENT? AND SHOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT SUBSEQUENT TO.

HOWEVER WE VOTE TODAY, OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT MAKES MOST SENSE AND AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

OBVIOUSLY IN CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER COMMUNITY INPUT, I WOULD FAVOR THAT COURSE OF ACTION. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO STAY ON THE STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT THESE TWO PETITIONS ARE BEFORE US FOR THE NONCONFORMITY AND THE CONDITIONAL USE AND AND ACT ON THOSE.

I RESPECT YOUR OPINION, BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

WE'RE NOT MICROMANAGING. THIS HAS COME BEFORE US, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AS OPTIONS FOR RESTRIPING.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

AND I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD AN ALTERNATIVE TO UNDERSTANDING THAT AREA.

SO STAFF UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, EVEN IN FRONT OF TOMMY BAHAMAS HAS BECOME THE LOADING AND UNLOADING FOR ALL OF THE UBERS. SO I MEAN, RESPECTFULLY, WE WANT TO ALLOW SOMETHING TO HAPPEN, BUT WE DON'T.

WE WANT IN TRANSPARENCY FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING TO HAPPEN.

KRAMER. SO AT FIRST, WHEN YOU ASKED AT THE END OF YOUR LAST COMMENTS, DO YOU FOLLOW ME? I DID NOT, BUT I THINK I DO NOW, AND I THINK I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THIS A SIMPLE TERM FOR A SIMPLE MINDED PEOPLE LIKE ME.

PAB SAID. HEY, LOOK AT THAT. WE CAN MAYBE USE THAT SPACE AND OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEART.

THE PITCHER SAYS, WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT IF IF YOU EVER RESEARCH THAT AND WANT IT RESTRIPED, WE'LL PAY FOR IT.

IS THAT THE CASE? YES. WHICH IS KIND OF THEM.

WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY. WE DON'T KNOW AT ALL ANY OF THAT.

AND THAT'S COMPLETELY. IT'S A GOOD WELL-INTENDED RED HERRING WITH REGARD TO WHAT WE'RE DECIDING ON TODAY.

THE OTHER WELL-INTENDED RED HERRING, IN MY VIEW. WHICH IS WHY I THINK I, I THINK THE MAYOR GOOD NATUREDLY IS THE ONE VOICE, I THINK THE SINGULAR PERSPECTIVE SAYING, WE WANT TO PROVIDE TWO DEDICATED PARKING SPOTS FOR THESE KIND PEOPLE.

AND THAT ALSO IS GOOD NATURE. BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THIS.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT. IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

THE REALITY IS LET ME PAUSE. IS THAT THE CASE? WHAT I JUST SAID, IS THAT TRUE? OKAY. AND THEN THEY'RE GIVING US NINE BACK.

THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE IF IT WEREN'T FOR THAT. IS THAT THE CASE? YES. YES. ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CONTINUE MAKING IT MIXED USE, JUICE, LIKE ALL THE AREA AROUND YOU, AND YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US NINE SPACES BACK.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, WHICH I THINK IS A FABULOUS IDEA.

THE OTHER STUFF WHERE UBERS PARK OR DROP OFF OR DON'T HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, THE STRIPING, THE AREA, THE LOADING ZONE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THE ONLY WAY IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT IS THAT WE'RE SAYING WE WILL LOOK INTO IT AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY, FOR THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING PROVIDED PARKING, AND IT SHOULDN'T.

THEY ARE NOT GRANTED THAT RIGHT, JUST LIKE THEY AREN'T NOW, JUST LIKE NOBODY IS NOW.

THAT'S THAT'S BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN THAT ZONE.

SO I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY WHAT'S ON THE PAPER BEFORE US IS, IS IT OKAY FOR THIS FAMILY TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE US NINE SPACES AND TURN THIS INTO A RESIDENCE, THIS HISTORICAL BUILDING THAT WOULD BECOME THEIR HISTORICAL RESIDENCE? AND I THINK WE SHOULD NOT COMPLICATE THAT. SO IT'S EASY TO SUPPORT THAT.

WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE LIKE FIVE MINUTES INTO THIS. THANKS A TON, MR. YOUNG. YEAH. TWO THINGS I JUST WANTED, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WAS LEANING WHEN I KEPT LOOKING OVER AT THE CHAIRS.

IS THAT THIS ITEM FREES UP PARKING SPACES. THAT THE DISCUSSIONS MAY BE TRUE, BUT IT REQUIRES US TO GO DOWN THERE AND ASCERTAIN WHAT IS THE BEST USAGE OF THOSE SPACES.

AND SO TO NOT ALLOW IT OR TO PUT A CONDITION ON IT THAT THAT SAYS IT WILL BE ONE OR THE OTHER, THE THE APPLICANT DIDN'T ASK FOR IT. SO MY ONLY STATEMENT IF WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OR SHOULD WE BE DOING IT, OR SHOULD OUR PROFESSIONALS BE DOING IT, OR HAVING A CITY DIALOG IN COUNCIL I REPRESENT TO YOU BEFORE WE STRIPE IT OR DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE WOULD COME BACK TO THIS BODY AND SAY, HERE'S THE NINE POSITIONS THAT WERE AFFORDED.

HERE'S THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED. WHAT WAS IT USED FOR BEFORE? WHAT DO WE THINK IS THE BEST USE? WHERE DO WE HAVE NEEDS, WHETHER IT'S LOADING OR WHETHER IT'S TAXI OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW, SO ASCERTAINING THAT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER BEFORE WE CHANGE ANY STRIPING IS THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH.

[02:00:03]

AS FAR AS WHETHER WE COME BACK TO YOU OR DON'T COME BACK TO YOU, I WOULD COMMIT TO SAY, EITHER WAY, I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY TO LET YOU KNOW. HERE'S THE DECISIONS THAT WE MADE.

UPON RECEIVING THOSE SPACES BACK AS A RESULT OF YOUR VOTE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME ASSURANCES.

THIS ISN'T A ZERO SUM GAME ON THIS. THIS IS FREEING UP SPACES THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT TO GET YOU THE INTELLIGENT ANSWER BEFORE WE SAY WE WOULD STRIPE OR CHANGE THE STRIPING OR ANYTHING. AND SO BUT I DON'T THINK THAT HINDERS ON ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS GOES THROUGH OTHER THAN IT DOESN'T FREE UP ANYTHING TO BE ANALYZED IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS BECAUSE OF YOU AND WHO YOU ARE AS A CITY MANAGER.

I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN A TRAIN OF THOUGHT IN THE PAST.

AND IF THE CONVERSATION HAS HAPPENED THAT WE THINK WE MIGHT POSSIBLY DO IT THEN, AND I'VE DISCUSSED IT, I WOULD HAVE JUST APPRECIATED JUST KNOWING THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING AND THEN BEING PREPARED FOR LOOKING AT THAT AREA, BECAUSE THERE IS IT'S BEING USED CONSTANTLY. SO I WISH WE WOULD HAVE HAD THAT INFORMATION MORE TRANSPARENT. DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OH.

OKAY. WE'VE ALL HAD OUR FAIR SHARE. I JUST WANT TO GET PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU IF THAT'S OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY.

THANK YOU. STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I HAVE ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF. SO I'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE NINE PARKING SPACES THAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE RELEASED BACK TO THE CITY. IS THAT.

YEAH. TECHNICALLY NOT RELEASED BACK TO THE CITY.

WHAT YOU'RE REALLY DOING IS DECREASING THE PARKING DEMAND.

SO DID THE DID THE PETITIONER. WERE THEY EVER ALLOCATED? NO, THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN. SO HOW ARE WE GETTING NINE SPACES BACK IF THEY NEVER HAD THEM TO BEGIN? WHAT'S YOUR WHAT WHAT IS MEANT BY THAT IS THAT CURRENTLY ALL OF THE PARKING THAT SATISFIES THE TOP FLOOR, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE TOP FLOOR OF THIS, THIS BUILDING BY CODE.

IT WOULD REQUIRE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES. THOSE PEOPLE CURRENTLY ARE JUST PARKING IN PUBLIC PARKING.

SO APPROVING THIS TO GO FROM COMMERCIAL SPACE TO THE ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS DECREASING THAT PARKING DEMAND.

AND SO YOU'RE TAKING THE CURRENT NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO FIND PARKING IN PUBLIC PARKING.

AND YOU'RE REDUCING THAT TO ONLY TWO. SO HOPEFULLY THE PUBLIC KEPT UP WITH ALL THAT.

WE'RE WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING BACK THAT THEY NEVER HAD.

WHICH IS TOTALLY I GET IT. BUT IT'S A NUANCE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS THIS. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THE COMMENTS OF OUR CITY MANAGER WERE.

I'VE LEARNED TODAY THAT AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE ARE DETAILS THAT GO MISSED BY INDIVIDUALS.

RIGHT. WHETHER TAXI STANDS HAVE MOVED, IT'S NOT HERE ANYMORE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STRIPED LOADING AREAS. AND IF THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, GET THE DETAILS RIGHT. IS MY CHALLENGE NUMBER TWO IN THAT LOADING AREA? DETAILS WOULD INCLUDE WHAT KIND OF DELIVERY VEHICLE IS IT A 20 FOOT STRAIGHT.

IS IT A TRACTOR TRAILER? THESE THINGS MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

AND WHEN WE WHEN WE START DISCUSSING MAKING THESE MEETINGS SHORTER AND JUST DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DETAILS.

THIS IS A CONCERN I HAVE. I GET INTO THE DETAILS AND THERE'S A REASON FOR IT.

AND I THINK THAT THIS COUNCIL, EVEN AFTER WE CHANGE OVER, WE'RE CAPABLE OF GETTING INTO THESE KIND OF DETAILS.

BUT HAVING THESE DELIVERY TRUCKS ROAM AROUND IN THIS AREA BACK UP AND NOISE AND AND INTERFERING WITH TRAFFIC IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE EVEN IF I'M NOT ON THIS DAIS.

BUT THANK YOU FOR THE PETITIONER, THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE.

MR. CITY MANAGER ON THIS PROJECT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO SEE IT THROUGH.

I'M GOING TO BE GONE BY THE TIME THIS COMES BACK.

BUT I HAVE FAITH THAT THE DETAILS WILL BE RIGHT AND I SUPPORT THIS TO THE PETITIONER.

I SUPPORT THIS, BUT I ALSO WANT, AS YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS TO BE RIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF.

[02:05:03]

NO PUBLIC COMMENT WILL GO INTO DELIBERATIONS.

COUNT. YES, GENTLEMEN. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION.

THIS IS DELIBERATION. I NEED TO HAVE THE PETITIONER'S AGENT DO CLOSING COMMENT.

FINE. NO FURTHER CONVERSATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE COMPANION CONDITIONS.

THESE TERMS ARE COMPLICATED. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE TRIED TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, BUT IT DID BECOME COMPLICATED.

NONCONFORMITY MEANS THE CONTINUED RIGHT TO USE.

AS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. NINE PARKING SPACES ARE PHYSICALLY UTILIZED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE.

THOSE NINE PARKING SPACES PHYSICALLY BECOME AVAILABLE FOR PATRONS OF ESTABLISHMENTS ON THIRD STREET.

THE. THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS CLEARLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD STREET DISTRICT.

WITH THOSE CLOSING REMARKS. MISTER CHLUMSKY AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVESTMENT IN IN THIS PROCESS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I DID HAVE ONE COMMENT. OH.

I'M SORRY. YEAH. AND AGAIN, AND THIS REALLY BUILDS ON WHAT THE VICE MAYOR SAID, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY NOT HERE, BUT OUT IN THE AUDIENCE WATCHING UNDERSTANDS THIS.

THERE ARE NO NINE PARKING SPACES ANYWHERE. PHYSICALLY.

NEVER, NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WERE. THIS IS A CALCULATION OF WHAT THE DEMAND FOR PARKING WAS FOR THE OWNERS AND CUSTOMERS OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE, WHEN IF THIS NONCONFORMITY IS APPROVED. THE THEORETICAL CALCULATION IS THERE WILL BE A DEMAND FOR TWO SPACES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SCHLOTZSKY'S AS THEY LIVE THERE, FINDING PARKING IN PUBLIC SPACES SOMEWHERE IN THE DISTRICT. RIGHT? YEAH. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT THERE'S NO THERE'S NO GIVING OF PARKING TO THE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPROVAL OF A SOULMATE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? MAYOR, IF I MAY, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF.

WHAT WERE THE CONDITIONS LISTED? I'M LOOKING AT STAFF REPORT AND I'M LOOKING AT THE MEMORANDUM.

AND I'M NOT SEEING GO IN. THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE THE BEST.

AND THERE'S TWO SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS. OKAY. SO THE CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION HAS A SEPARATE SET OF CONDITIONS FROM THE NONCONFORMITY.

OKAY. YEP. I'VE GOT IT. OKAY, SO I KNEW I SAW IT.

I JUST COULDN'T FIND IT QUICKLY. JUST. AND THIS IS JUST TO THE MAYOR'S OR THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT, AND I.

I ADMIRE HIS ATTENTION TO DETAIL. I PROMISE YOU, I DO, AND HE'S INCREDIBLE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. CONDITION SECTION TWO, ITEM THREE OF THE RESOLUTION.

THE CONDITION WAS THIS CITY SHALL REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR RESTRIPING.

THE LOADING ZONE SHALL REVIEW THE POTENTIAL NOT ALREADY DID.

REVIEW THE POTENTIAL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REASON TO REVIEW THAT AND GIVE THAT INFORMATION.

IF THIS WAS DEAD ON ARRIVAL, NOTHING CHANGES.

SO WHY SPEND STAFF TIME AND WORK AND EFFORT IN THAT REGARD WHEN.

THIS HAS TO BE DONE FIRST. AND SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS MADE A CONDITION.

SO I GUESS DETAILS MATTER AND WE'RE GOING TO GET THOSE DETAILS ASSUMING THIS PASSES.

AND UNTIL THEN IT'S MOOT ANYWAY. SO I'M JUST I'M LIKE I'M DEFENDING THE STAFF A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK THINGS WERE DONE IN ORDER THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE DONE. AND WE DON'T NEED TO WASTE TIME ON STUFF THAT IS HYPOTHETICAL.

WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED SECOND.

DO I NEED TO READ IT? CAN I? OH, WE GOT TO DO THEM SEPARATE, DON'T WE? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS. AND THE MOTION MAKER COULD INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER.

I WANT TO READ THIS. RIGHT. READ THE TITLE, PLEASE.

YEAH. RESOLUTION 25 AND FIVE. THAT PART? YES.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NONCONFORMITY PETITION 25 AND FIVE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED.

IS THAT OKAY? AND THERE'S THREE CONDITIONS, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE TO IT.

BUT THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF. YEAH. I'M WITH THE CITY PROVIDED.

YES. WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED. THAT'S A MOTION BY KRAMER.

RIGHT. FOR THE FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR MOTION, MR.

[02:10:03]

KRAMER, PERHAPS WE SHOULD ARTICULATE THOSE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS AS PART OF YOUR ON THIS RESOLUTION.

THE CONDITIONS ARE WHERE ARE THEY? THAT'S SECTION. ONE, TWO AND THREE. OKAY. APPROVAL OF THIS CHANGE OF A NONCONFORMITY PETITION IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE ACCOMPANYING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT IN THE C1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT.

20 5Q3. THAT'S ONE. 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.

THAT'S TWO AND THREE. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR RESTRIPING THE LOADING ZONE TO RELEASE PARKING SPACES BACK INTO THE CITY'S POOL, AS EXISTED AT THE TIME THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.

THE ONLY THING, WHETHER YOU ADD IT OR YOU DON'T, AND THE CITY MANAGER IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO WORK WITH STAFF TO YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S IMPLICIT THERE TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL AS TO WHETHER OR WHETHER OR NOT OR HOW THIS WILL OCCUR.

SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. AND WITH REGARDS TO ITEM THREE, THAT WE WILL THE CITY MANAGER WILL DIRECT STAFF TO GET THAT DONE AND THEN REPORT BACK WHETHER INDIVIDUALLY OR TO THE GROUP. WHAT PROGRESS IS MADE, IF ANY.

BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL MAYOR BEFORE A SECOND IS MADE.

I'D LIKE TO. THAT'S A LOT. SUGGEST SOMETHING TO THE MOTION MAKER.

YES. YEAH. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN KRAMER ON ITEM TWO.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IN YOUR READING OF THAT, YOU DISCUSSED THE RELAXATION OF THE PARKING NONCONFORMITY.

HOWEVER, I READ REDUCTION. WOULD YOU AGREE TO THE WORD REDUCTION INSTEAD OF RELAXATION? CAN I? YES. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I'D LIKE TO CHANGE THAT TO REDUCTION, AS THE VICE MAYOR SUGGESTED.

THANK YOU. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER.

YES. YES. HOLD ON. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES.

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

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT RESOLUTION FOR 11 B.

[11.B) 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 to be Located in the C1 Retail Shopping District, on the Property Owned by DAKY LLC, and Located at 1199 3rd Street South, Suite A, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener’s Errors; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

MADAM MAYOR, CAN WE TAKE A BRIEF BREAK? I'M SORRY.

COULD WE TAKE A BRIEF BREAK? OH, THIS IS A COMBINED.

YES, SIR. AS SOON AS I TAKE THIS BREAK. I MEAN, AS SOON AS I TAKE THIS.

I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S OKAY. COUNCIL MOTION.

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION.

DETERMINING DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 25 Q3 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46, 34 AND 58, 533 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, INCLUDING. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

IN NUMBER ONE, THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WILL NOT BE USED AS A TRANSIENT RENTAL.

NUMBER TWO HIGH STANDARD HURRICANE GLASS WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE WINDOWS FOR NOISE ATTENUATION GENERALLY.

NUMBER THREE, THE PETITIONERS ARE TO SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A HIGH ACTIVITY AREA WITH REGULAR NOISE LEVEL CHANGES, AND THAT NUMBER FOUR HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE ACCOMPANYING CHANGE IN NONCONFORMITY.

PETITION 20 5N5 RELATED TO PARKING. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL.

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

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

PETRANOFF. YES. MAYOR HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.

THANK YOU. WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON WITH 11 C, MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. CAN I JUST MAKE ONE?

[02:15:02]

JUST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE, THERE ARE REGISTRATION FORMS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM THAT CAN BE FILLED OUT ON EACH ITEM AND GIVEN TO THE CLERK. THERE WERE THERE'S AND SOME ITEMS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO SPEAK.

WE'VE ASKED THAT YOU HAVE A SPEAKER THAT CAN REPRESENT A GROUP.

AND OR IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK INDIVIDUALLY, IT'LL BE ONE ONE MINUTE.

JUST SO I REITERATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION FOR TODAY.

AND WITH THAT, THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. THANK YOU MAYOR.

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 20 5V7 RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5641 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES,

[11.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. ]

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 PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 8-1 76 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY GREGORY J.

LAMBERT TRUSTEE AND LOCATED AT 875 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO 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? I DO. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL DISCLOSURES COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. I MET WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS PETRANOFF FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. MET WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS VICE MAYOR.

YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. AND. NO.

NO OTHER CONTACT. COUNCIL MEMBER KUSHMAN FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND TALK TO STAFF.

BARTON. FAMILIAR WITH PROPERTY AND SPOKE WITH STAFF FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY.

AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND SPOKE WITH STAFF.

WITH THAT. GOOD MORNING. MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

MAYOR. GOOD MORNING. CITY COUNCIL AND CITY TEAM MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING. I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF.

I SAW THE PRAYER PETITION. MY NAME IS GREG LAMBERT.

I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 805 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH.

WE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2019. THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 2000 WITH AN EXISTING SOUTH SIDE CONCRETE PAD.

IT'S FOUR FEET BY 17FT. IT HOUSES TWO AIR CONDITIONERS AND HAS ABOUT 11FT MORE TO SPARE.

WE WE SURROUND THAT PAD WITH HIGH, THICK CALUSA TO HIDE THE AIR CONDITIONERS.

THE ENTIRE PAD, ETC.. I BECAME A NAPLES RESIDENT IN 2023 WHEN I RETIRED.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO TELL YOU ABOUT STORM AND POWER CHALLENGES.

OUR TRANSFORMERS IN THE ALLEY TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME.

2022 WITH IAN. WE GOT 3.5FT OF WATER IN THE GARAGE.

MISSED THE HOUSE BY ABOUT EIGHT INCHES. AND YOU KNOW HELENE AND MILTON CAME UP HALFWAY THROUGH THE YARD.

WE LOST POWER THROUGHOUT WE'VE HAD ABOUT $100,000 OF OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES DUE TO THESE STORMS BEYOND INSURANCE.

SO OBVIOUSLY, THE STORMS HAVE BEEN PAINFUL FOR US.

WE HAVE A LOT OF VISITORS IN A LOT OF GUESTS.

YOUNG CHILDREN 93 YEAR OLD DAD IS IN. SO WE DON'T NEED, YOU KNOW, LIFE SUSTAINING EQUIPMENT.

MY WIFE AND I, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF GUESTS THAT DO.

SO A GENERATOR WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR US. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO RUN THROUGH GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU, BUT THE ONES WE'LL REALLY TALK ABOUT ARE THREE FEET FROM POOL EQUIPMENT.

IT'S THREE FEET FROM ELECTRICAL METER, FIVE FEET FROM OPERABLE WINDOWS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT.

AND THAT'S GOT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM A SOFFIT.

NOW, THERE'S MY HOME GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS. WE, OF COURSE, WOULD LIKE A HOME GENERATOR TO KIND OF PROTECT US FROM THESE STORMS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S SAFE, THAT CREATES ANOTHER UNSAFE CONDITION.

SO YOUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR ME IS SAFETY.

NUMBER TWO PRIORITY. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE SMALL CHILDREN AND SO WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL.

I DON'T WANT A CHILD TO BE ABLE TO TOUCH A GENERATOR.

AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT CONGREGATE THROUGH THAT WHOLE BACKYARD.

OBVIOUSLY KEEPING NAPLES BEAUTIFUL. SO WE DON'T WANT TO CUT DOWN TREES AND MATURE SHRUBS, AND WE ALSO WANT TO CONCEAL IT SO THAT NEIGHBORS, EITHER PASSERSBY OR OR OTHERS CAN'T SEE IT.

THIRD PRIORITY IS NOT TO BE INTRUSIVE TO NEIGHBORS.

WE HAVE NEW NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST OF US, AND WE'LL TALK A LOT ABOUT THAT LOCATION, BECAUSE THAT'S THE SEVEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, WHICH IS ALLOWED IN 5641. SO I'M GOING TO KIND OF SKIP THIS SLIDE

[02:20:08]

BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE GOT A PICTURE IN HERE.

WE GOT A SURVEY. WE GOT A VIDEO. I THINK IT'S I'LL TALK THROUGH THIS AS WE, HIT IT.

SO NOW I'M ON A SURVEY, SO I'LL KIND OF WALK YOU.

THROUGH THIS SO YOU CAN SEE OUR HOUSE IS KIND OF THE THE GRAY SLANTED LINES.

THE RED LINE IS THE EAST BORDER OF OUR HOME, AND IT'S COVERED WITH OPERABLE WINDOWS.

YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE SLASH LINES. THAT'S OUR POOL DECK.

AND LANAI. AND THEN TO THE RIGHT, I THINK YOU CAN SEE IT PRETTY WELL IS A PURPLE LINE.

AND THAT PURPLE LINE IS THE EDGE OF OUR POOL DECK, AND THAT'S THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO OUR NEIGHBOR.

SO THAT'S A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK, BY THE WAY, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT BLACK LINE.

SO HERE JUST TO THE OOPS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. HERE JUST TO THE SIDE IS IS OUR NEIGHBOR'S LOT IN THEIR POOL. LANAI, POOL DECK AND PATIO ARE ALL RIGHT THERE.

SO AS WE LOOK AT LOCATIONS THE THE PLACE THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT.

I'M SORRY. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THIS IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THIS POINTER GOING. BUT THE THE PART TO THE TO KIND OF THE MIDDLE TOP IS. OH THANK YOU. DAVID IS IS AN AREA WE'LL SHOW YOU IN THE VIDEO, BUT THERE'S PULL UP EQUIPMENT UP THERE, OPERABLE WINDOWS. WE'VE HAD THE GENERATOR COMPANY BACK THERE.

THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THIS WHOLE AREA AND THEY DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANY PLACE.

IN FACT, THERE'S A LETTER IN THE PETITION THERE DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANY PLACE TO PUT IT THAT WOULDN'T VIOLATE FLORIDA CODE.

OR CITY OF NAPLES CODES. THE OPTIONS WE HAVE, AND I'M SURE WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS WITH STAFF, IS THERE IS ONE LOCATION THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO OUR GRILL.

SO WE'D HAVE TO ELEVATE THIS GENERATOR TO HOME HEIGHT, AND IT WOULD LITERALLY BE RIGHT NEXT TO AN OPEN FLAME GRILL.

NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME. FOR SAFETY REASONS. THE OTHER PLACE THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT, I THINK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED IS AN AREA THAT IS AND MAYBE I'LL LET TESHIMA DO IT BECAUSE I CAN'T GET THIS POINTER WORKING IS.

OH, THERE IT IS. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. RIGHT HERE.

SO THERE ARE OPERABLE WINDOWS BOTH ON THE ON THE VERTICAL AND THE HORIZONTAL LINE AND THE SPACE THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH.

SO LITERALLY, IF YOU WANTED TO TRY TO PUT A GENERATOR THERE, YOU'D HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE POOL DECK TO, TO STAY WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT DISTANCE FROM OPERABLE WINDOWS.

THE, THE OPTION THAT CLEARLY IS AVAILABLE IS TO PUT IT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT PURPLE LINE.

SO IF WE PUT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT PURPLE LINE TO DO THAT, BECAUSE 5641 ALLOWS THE 36 INCH ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SEVEN FOOT SETBACK OF THE SIDE YARD. WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOCK DOWN A BUNCH OF MATURE CALUSA, POTENTIALLY A PALM TREE OR TWO.

THERE'S FIVE PALM TREES ALONG THAT LINE. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE REALLY NO GUARDING ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SO THERE'LL BE NO GUARDING BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.

SO WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT IT, YOU CAN SEE IS THE GREEN PAD.

AND IT'S AGAIN GOT PLENTY OF SPACE. IT'S RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR BEDROOM.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO RUN IT EXCEPT IN EMERGENCIES I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT.

AND IT'S 20. IT WOULD BE 21FT FROM NORTH AVE SOUTH.

THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL WRITTEN LETTERS. THEY WOULD PREFER US TO USE THAT LOCATION.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE STREET. THEY CAN'T SEE IT, WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR IT.

AND IT'S HEAVILY GUARDED, AND I CAN GUARANTEE IT'LL STAY HEAVILY GUARDED.

SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE IDEAL LOCATION FOR TO PUT IT, BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S HEAVILY GUARDED BY CALUSA.

IT KEEPS NAPLES BEAUTIFUL, PUTS IT IN A SAFE LOCATION.

IT'S UNOBTRUSIVE, UNOBTRUSIVE TO NEIGHBORS, AND THEN ALSO OBVIOUSLY GIVES US SOME RESILIENCY IN THESE STORMS. NEXT SLIDE IS A VIDEO BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT THE VIDEO IS BEST.

DAVID, IF YOU CAN PLAY THE VIDEO I APOLOGIZE.

IT'S FOUR MINUTES AND MAYBE I CAN HAVE DAVID SKIP THROUGH SOME PARTS.

THE INITIAL PART IS TO SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHERE IT WOULD GO.

SO THIS IS THE PAD. THAT'S THE CALUSA THAT EXISTS.

WE RIPPED OUT SOME BECAUSE THEY MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THEY COULD PUT THE GENERATOR THERE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE. THERE'S ACTUALLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT. THERE'S A GAS LINE THAT WAS ALREADY PLUMBED THERE, SO THEY MUST HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT PUTTING A GENERATOR THERE AT SOME POINT.

AND SO WE WOULD WE WOULD PUT THE GENERATOR THERE.

WE WOULD PUT THE CALUSA BACK. DAVID, YOU CAN KIND OF SKIP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT.

[02:25:04]

YEAH. THIS IS PERFECT RIGHT HERE, DAVID. SO THIS IS THE EAST SIDE OF OUR HOUSE.

IT WOULD BE IN THAT SEVEN FOOT SETBACK, BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S OPERABLE WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THAT.

THROUGHOUT THAT PART, I'M GOING TO SEE IF I CAN DRIVE THIS.

AND. OKAY, THIS IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THE FRONT.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IT ON A PORCH BEHIND THOSE THOSE HIGH BUSHES, RIGHT.

THERE ARE TWO AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, BUT THOSE ARE OPERABLE WINDOWS RIGHT THERE.

SO YOU CAN'T PUT A GENERATOR BACK THERE BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO OPERABLE WINDOWS.

AND THE HOUSE IS ON THE SETBACK. DAVID, IF YOU CAN KEEP ROLLING.

THERE WE GO. THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

SO THE GARAGE IS ON THE SETBACK. SO YOU CAN'T OBVIOUSLY PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE.

AND AS YOU ROLL THERE'S THE ALLEY. THERE'S OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE ALLEY.

GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT A LITTLE FURTHER. THANK YOU. DAVID.

SO STOP THERE, DAVID. REAL QUICK. THAT POOL EQUIPMENT WAS A DISCUSSION, BUT IF YOU PUT IT ON THAT POOL EQUIPMENT IT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THAN THREE FEET.

IT ALSO WOULD BE CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET TO THE OPERABLE WINDOW ABOVE IT.

THANKS, DAVID. YOU CAN KEEP ROLLING AROUND. THERE'S THE GRILL.

IF YOU COULD PAUSE RIGHT THERE. DAVID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD FOLLOW CITY OF NAPLES CODE WOULD BE TO PUT IT RIGHT OPPOSITE THAT WALL AGAINST THAT WALL, RIGHT NEXT TO THAT GRILL, WHICH FOR ME IS WE USED TO HAVE POOL EQUIPMENT THERE, AND WE HAD A GAS LEAK IN THE HEATER. THAT'S WHY I MOVED THE POOL EQUIPMENT AWAY FROM THAT GRILL.

SO I WOULD NOT PUT ANOTHER GAS OPERATED DEVICE RIGHT NEXT TO THAT GIRL.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD, DAVID. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, KEEP SCANNING AROUND.

SO THERE'S THE SETBACK THERE. THE POOL DECK GOES TO THE SETBACK.

SO YOUR OPTIONS BACK THERE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE SETBACK OR TO PUT IT ON THE POOL DECK.

KEEP GOING. DAVID. THANK YOU. THIS IS THE. THIS IS THE SIDE WITH ALL THE CALUSA, THE PALM TREES, THE NEIGHBOR'S POOL. YOU CAN EVEN SEE IT THROUGH SOME OF THE CALUSA. DAVID, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND KEEP MOVING, I THINK. ONE SO THIS IS THE THE BACK END. IF YOU COULD PAUSE RIGHT HERE.

DAVID. SO THIS IS THE PLACE THAT I THINK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS PROPOSING, POSSIBLY PUTTING IT.

IT ESSENTIALLY IS THE POOL DECK. I MEAN, THERE'S SHRUBBERY THERE, BUT WE WOULD WIPE OUT THAT SHRUBBERY.

WE COULD NOT PUT IT CLOSE TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE OPERATING WINDOWS.

SO IT WOULD LITERALLY GO RIGHT ON THAT CORNER THERE WHERE THOSE SHRUBS ARE, TO STAY COMPLIANT WITH THE FIVE FEET FROM OPERATING WINDOWS.

GO AHEAD DAVID. THERE'S THE LANAI, THE DECK. YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY LOTS OF OPERATING WINDOWS AND DOORS.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IT THERE. THAT'S GREAT DAVID.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET BACK TO THE PRESENTATION.

SORRY. SO AGAIN, WE FEEL THE MOST LOGICAL POSITION IS ON THAT SOUTH SIDE CONCRETE PAD. WE THINK IT REALLY TAKES ALL THE PRIORITIES AND CONSIDERATION.

SAFETY UNOBTRUSIVE TO NEIGHBORS, KEEPS NAPLES BEAUTIFUL AND ALLOWS US TO TO HAVE A GENERATOR.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS.

I KNOW YOU SEE A LOT OF GENERATOR GENERATOR PROPOSALS, AND I KNOW IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE HURRICANES, ESPECIALLY WITH HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT BACK IN 2000 THAT DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT INCORPORATING GENERATOR WHEN THEY WERE BUILT.

AND YOU KNOW, WE THINK WE'VE GOT A GREAT SOLUTION.

THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT IT, THE PAB SUPPORTS IT, AND WE HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT IT.

THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LAMPERT? OKAY.

GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. SORRY. I LOOKED AWAY AND MEANT YOU.

I'M SO SORRY. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER.

CITY ATTORNEY. CITY CLERK. TASHIMA LEWIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

BEFORE YOU USE VARIOUS PETITION 25 SEVEN TO ALLOW 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 FRONTS TWO OR MORE STREETS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 56, 41, AND 58, 176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 875 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH.

THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY MR. LAMPERT IN 2019, AS MENTIONED, AND THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 2000.

AT THE TIME, THE CITY HAD AMENDED ITS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT CODE SECTION 5641, IN DECEMBER OF 2006,

[02:30:07]

PREVENTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WHICH INCLUDE AC UNITS, POOL EQUIPMENT AND GENERATORS FROM ENCROACHING INTO ANY REQUIRED YARD.

SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THAT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, THE PROPERTY IS ALLOWED TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD BY 36IN.

FIGURE ONE OF THE AGENDA MEMO SHOWS YOU THE YARD DETERMINATION WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS TWO FRONTS ALONG GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH, NINTH AVENUE SOUTH, AND THEN THERE'S A REAR TOWARDS THE ALLEY.

AND THEN THE ONLY SIDE YARD IS THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.

THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THAT THE GENERATOR BE INSTALLED ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE EXISTING EQUIPMENT PLATFORM, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 2000. THAT PERMIT WAS APPROVED WITH THAT PLATFORM.

ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025. NOTICE FOR THIS VARIANCE WAS SUBMITTED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS OF TODAY, STAFF RECEIVED FOUR CORRESPONDENCE, THREE OF WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA MEMO AND ONE WAS RECEIVED YESTERDAY.

AND I PLACE IT ON YOUR DAIS AND PROVIDED A COPY TO CITY CLERK, ALL OF WHICH ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4637 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE VARIANCE CRITERIA TO THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A HOME GENERATOR AND THE EQUIPMENT PLATFORM TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG NINTH AVENUE SOUTH, AND HAVE DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.

NUMBERS FOUR AND FIVE ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THRESHOLD CRITERIA THREE AND FOUR HAVE BEEN MET.

THRESHOLD CRITERIA 1 TO 5, SIX AND SEVEN, AND ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ONE, TWO, AND THREE HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES STAFF'S REVIEW. ANALYSIS.

THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE MAY BE ACHIEVED.

THERE ARE NO UNIQUE CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIC TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE VARIANCE PETITION IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE CHARACTER OR SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED, AND THE PLIGHT OF THE PETITIONER IS ENTIRELY SELF-IMPOSED.

STAFF'S FULL REVIEW OF THE PETITION AGAINST THE CRITERIA PROVIDED IN THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD STAFF REPORT AND THE PETITION WAS ALSO REVIEWED AND APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS, BUT NO OBJECTION TO THE CURRENT CONCERNS OR SIGNIFICANCE.

ON DECEMBER 11TH, 2025, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD A PETITION AND VOTED TO APPROVE IT OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL. MY APOLOGIES. 5 TO 2 VOTE.

DURING THIS THIS MEETING, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WANTED US TO EMPHASIZE LOCATIONS WHERE THE THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. AND SO YOU WILL SEE. SO IN THE ATTACHMENT ONE MARKUP THAT WAS PROVIDED IN AN EFFORT TO ADHERE TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUGGESTED BY STAFF.

THE APPROVAL NUMBER ONE, THE APPROVED HOME GENERATOR SHALL ENCROACH NO MORE THAN FOUR FEET INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG NINTH AVENUE SOUTH, AND SHALL BE SHIELDED ENTIRELY BY PLANT, MATERIAL, FENCING, OR COMBINATION THEREOF.

A SIGNED AND SEALED AS BUILT SURVEY WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION NUMBER TWO.

THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, AND SHALL ABIDE BY THE VARIANCE GRANTED VIA PETITION 25 V7.

ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OR EXPANSION BEYOND THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN THIS VARIANCE SHALL REQUIRE A NEW VARIANCE PETITION, AND THREE MECHANISMS TO MITIGATE NOISE EMISSIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD JUST. CAN I ADD ONE THING VERY QUICKLY? WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF REQUESTS COME BEFORE COUNCIL RECENTLY OR, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE THE NUMBER OF STORMS WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS HERE BEFORE YOU ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS TO LOOK AT OUR OUR CRITERIA FOR GENERATORS AND WHAT WE COULD DO TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION. AND I REST ASSURED WE WILL BE BEFORE YOU IN APRIL FOR A WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ABOUT GENERATORS SPECIFICALLY AND ANY AMENDMENTS WE WOULD MAKE TO THE CODE TO ADDRESS GENERATORS.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE HAVE ONE SET OF CRITERIA THAT IS APPLICABLE TO ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN OUR FINDINGS IS IF WE HAVE TO APPLY THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO THE VARIANCE.

BUT YOU'LL SEE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE I THINK THE CITY IS LOOKING TO MAYBE MAKE SOME ACCOMMODATIONS FOR GENERATORS IN THE FUTURE. SO ALSO, YOU HAVE TESTIMONY FROM THE PETITIONER ABOUT WHEN WE WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS,

[02:35:05]

WE LOOK AT THE SETBACKS THAT ARE PROVIDED OR THAT ARE REQUIRED ON YOUR PROPERTY.

ARE THERE PHYSICALLY PLACES ON YOUR PROPERTY THAT COULD MEET CODE? YES, THAT'S OUR TASK, BUT THE PETITIONER HAS PROVIDED THE FEASIBILITY AND OR DESIRABILITY OF THOSE LOCATIONS.

SO THOSE ARE THE TWO FACTORS IN FRONT OF YOU.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. THANK YOU, MISS LEWIS.

COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COUNCILMEMBER KRISEMAN.

SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS.

THE OUR CODE SAYS THAT THE GENERATOR IN THE PROPOSED LOCATION CANNOT ENCROACH MORE THAN 36IN.

ACTUALLY, THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO ENCROACH 36IN ONLY INTO A SIDE SETBACK.

OKAY, THIS IS A REQUEST TO ENCROACH INTO A FRONT SETBACK, WHICH THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW.

IT DOES NOT ALLOW. IT DOES NOT ALLOW ANY ENCROACHMENT FOR A FRONT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT BECAUSE IN THE THE CONDITION ABOUT ENCROACHING FOUR FEET THAT, THAT, THAT PROPOSED CONDITION IS TO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, TO LIMIT THE ENCROACHMENT TO FOUR FEET.

EXACTLY. AND TO A INTO THE FRONT YARD WHERE NO ENCROACHMENT IS PERMITTED.

SO IT'S FOUR FEET. TECHNICALLY, YES. AND IT'S IT'S A YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE.

EXACTLY. OKAY. AND THE EQUIPMENT PAD THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT IT ON WAS PERMITTED AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS INSTALLED.

IT WAS A SUBSEQUENT CHANGE TO THE ZONING CODE THAT MADE THAT NON-CONFORMING TO TODAY'S STANDARDS.

AND THE FRONT YARD IS THE SETBACK IS 25FT. YEAH.

SO LOOKING AT THE PICTURE OF THE OF THE HOUSE THE DESIGNATION OF THE FOUR SIDES OF THE HOUSE AS FRONT, SIDE OR REAR, TWO FRONTS ASIDE IN THE REAR IS COUNTERINTUITIVE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE AND IT'S PRACTICAL EXISTENCE. THE FRONT, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THE FRONT DOOR IS ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. THE THE, THE REAR OF THE HOUSE IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, JUST HYPOTHETICALLY, YOU WOULD EXPECT THE, THE THIS SIDE IS, IS WHERE A SIDE YARD WOULD INTUITIVELY BE. AND THE OTHER SO-CALLED FRONT YARD IS WHERE A SIDE YARD WOULD INTUITIVELY BE.

YES. AND THIS HAS TO DO. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

THIS HAS TO DO WITH BOTH HOW THE HOUSE WAS DESIGNED, COMBINED WITH WHAT OUR CODE SAYS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE ON TWO CROSSING STREETS. OUR ZONING, OUR DESIGNATION OF YARDS IS PURELY A SETBACK EXERCISE.

SO OUR CODE PROVIDES THAT ANY STREET FRONTAGE IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD.

THAT'S PURELY FOR DESIGNATING THE SETBACK. IT DOES NOT DICTATE WHERE YOUR FRONT DOOR.

THEY COULD PUT THEIR FRONT DOOR ON THE ALLEY IF THEY WANTED TO.

BUT OUR PURPOSE FOR DESIGNATING THE YARDS IS FOR SETBACK ASSIGNMENTS.

BUT THE THE FRONT YARD IN QUESTION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THE LOCATION OF THIS GENERATOR.

YEP. IF IT WERE A SIDE YARD. IF IT WERE A SIDE, IF IT WERE A SIDE YARD, IT WOULD HAVE A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK.

YES. IF IT WERE AT THE INTERIOR OF A LOT AND HAD A SIDE YARD DESIGNATION, THEY'D BE ALLOWED 7.5FT SIDE YARD WITH THE THREE FOOT ENCROACHMENT.

SO IN THAT CASE, THE THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD BE A ONE FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED THREE. I MEAN, IF IF THEY WERE ONLY REQUIRED A 7.5FT YARD, THEY WOULDN'T BE ENCROACHING AT ALL.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ENCROACHING AT ALL. OKAY. IF IT HAD IF IT WAS A YARD THAT HAD THAT DESIGNATION.

RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. KRAMER. THANK YOU. MAYOR. TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO THE WHEN THAT PAD WAS WHERE THE AC EQUIPMENT IS, WHEN THAT WAS POURED.

IF AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN LEGAL FOR THEM TO PUT A GENERATOR THERE AT THAT TIME? AT THAT TIME, YES. AND THEY PLANNED IT RIGHT.

IT WAS PLUMBED AND READY TO GO. SO IF THAT HAD BEEN THERE, THEN THEY COULD, THEY COULD REPLACE IT OR KEEP IT OR WHATEVER AND BE GRANDFATHERED IN.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO WHAT ABOUT FOLKS AND I WHO HAVE PORTABLE GENERATORS WHO ONLY BRING THEM OUT DURING STORMS? YES. WHAT IS. I DON'T WANT TO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET IN YOUR WAY.

[02:40:07]

IF THERE IS, IF A STORM HAS HIT AND YOU'RE GOING TO ROLL A GENERATOR ONTO YOUR DRIVEWAY, THAT'S THAT'S NOT OR MY ANYWHERE, BASICALLY. RIGHT? RIGHT. YES. THAT'S GOOD, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DO.

ME TOO. YEAH. AND IT'S A FORD. LIKE IT'S GIANT.

I CAN RUN ALMOST MY WHOLE HOUSE CRAZY LOUD. AND I DO HAVE TO CHANGE THE FUEL IN IT, WHICH COULD BE DANGEROUS IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

IF YOU'RE IN MY CASE, IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS. SO ANYWAY, I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY I'M JUST KIDDING, I JOKE. SO THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE HE COULD GET ONE AND PUT IT WHEREVER HE WANTS, WHENEVER, WHENEVER THE TIME CAME TO USE ONE, IT COULD BE AS LOUD AS WHATEVER. AND YOU JUST RUN YOUR GENERATORS LIKE EVERYBODY DOES WHEN A STORM COMES. IS THAT THE CASE? I'M NOT GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE WAS.

THANKS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. WITH THAT, YOUR CLOSING REMARKS, SIR, I'LL JUST BE BRIEF.

I THINK IT BOILS DOWN TO IS THE PRIORITY A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF 56, 40, 41, WHICH WOULD HAVE ME PUT A GENERATOR INTO A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK VERSUS A 25 FOOT SETBACK WITH A PAD THAT ALREADY EXISTS, THAT'S GUARDED BY CALUSA. THAT WOULD BE UNOBTRUSIVE TO ANYONE.

AND OBVIOUSLY MY NEIGHBORS WERE IN FAVOR OF IT.

THE GENERATOR COMPANIES IN FAVOR OF IT. THE PAB VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT, AND I HOPE TO GET YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL.

WELL, IT IT APPEARS TO ME THIS IS A VERY LOGICAL.

AND YOU DID A GREAT PRESENTATION. SO THANK YOU.

COUNCIL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETROV AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL.

PETITION NUMBER 25, DASH B7. THANK YOU. RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5641 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES. TO ALLOW FOR HOME GENERATOR AND EQUIPMENT PLATFORM TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG NINTH AVE SOUTH, WHERE A 25 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT YARD IS PERMITTED IN LOTS WITH FRONT TWO OR MORE STREETS PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 8-1 76 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY GREGORY J.

LEMPERT, TRUSTEE AND LOCATED AT 875 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF AND A SECOND PARDON WITH THE CONDITIONS AND THE RESOLUTION WITH WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE RESOLUTION. WE DIDN'T HAVE DISCUSSION PER SE.

I HAD QUESTIONS, BUT CAN I SAY ONE DISCUSSION POINT BEFORE SHE OR I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, I NEED A SECOND AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION SECOND.

OKAY. I ALREADY HAVE A SECOND BY KRISEMAN. SORRY.

OKAY. SO YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THE DISCUSSION IS THIS FROM ME? MY DEFAULT IS NO TO VARIANCES, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S COMMERCIAL.

BUT IT MUST BE COMMON SENSE WITH HOMEOWNERS. AND I THINK THIS IS COMMON SENSE.

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY A VARIANCE, BY DEFINITION, DOES NOT SET PRECEDENT.

IT'S A VARIANCE. IT'S A ONE OFF. SO IF YOU'RE WATCHING THIS AND WE'RE LIKE, OH, NOW WE'RE ALL NO WE'RE NOT ALL ANYTHING.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT BEFORE I VOTE YES FOR THIS.

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT. VICE MAYOR. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE SECOND, OR DO YOU ALREADY HAVE A SECOND? SO THE DISCUSSION IS GOOD. OKAY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. LAMBERT. APPRECIATE THE THE CAREFUL PRESENTATION OF YOUR SITUATION AND OUTLINING WHY YOU'RE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE. FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE BEEN DOWN THE PATH AS A COMMUNITY WHERE VARIANCES WERE THE NORM. THEY WERE FREELY GIVEN, AND YOU COULD JUST ASK FOR IT, PRETTY MUCH.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT. THE PENDULUM AT ONE POINT HAS NOW SWUNG THE OTHER WAY.

WE'VE GOT VARIANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA THAT GUIDE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ON WHEN THEY SHOULD GRANT THESE VARIANCES. AND YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T READ ALL OVER ALL THESE MATERIALS THAT COME WITH THIS PARTICULAR MATTER IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. BUT THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, SAYS THE PETITIONER, HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.

AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE THRESHOLD CRITERIA, ALL OF THE THRESHOLD CRITERIA MUST BE MET OR NO VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED.

[02:45:10]

SO THAT'S THE WORDING FOR CITY STAFF OF THE THRESHOLD THE VARIANCE CRITERIA.

WE HAVE THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN LETTER A. AND THEN THERE'S LISTED.

OH. LET'S SEE. SEVEN ITEMS. AND THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL CRITERIA OF WHICH THERE'S FIVE ITEMS. SO OF THE FIRST SEVEN ITEMS, I WANT TO CONFIRM WHICH OF THOSE FIRST SEVEN ITEMS DOES STAFF SAY HAVE NOT THE THRESHOLD CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

ONE, TWO, FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN. OKAY. SO REMEMBER MY STATEMENT EARLIER.

ALL OF THEM HAVE TO BE MET OR A VARIANCE WON'T BE GRANTED OF THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.

HOW MANY OF THOSE THERE WERE? FIVE. HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE NOT MET? ONE, TWO AND THREE. OKAY. SO THE ONE THAT KIND OF CAUGHT MY ATTENTION SAYS THE FOLLOWING.

THE VARIANCE PETITION TO ALLOW THE HOME GENERATOR TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE MOST PRACTICAL OR LOGICAL SOLUTION TO JUSTIFY THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

NOW THAT'S COMING FROM OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, WHICH IS OUR CITY STAFF.

SO I, FOR ONE, AND YOU PROBABLY ARE CATCHING THIS CATCHING THE DRIFT OF THIS.

I AM NOT ONE THAT SUPPORTS LETTING THESE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND THESE THESE VARIANCES, NOT THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, BUT THE VARIANCES TO LET THAT PENDULUM SWING WAY BACK THE OTHER DIRECTION AND CHIP AWAY AT WHAT WE HAVE AS A COMMUNITY.

SO I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT. AND IT'S CLEAR TO ME IN BLACK AND WHITE WHAT OUR CITY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND WHY THEY'RE RECOMMENDING IT. NEEDED. SO THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THE POINT OF. OH, I WOULD JUST SAY EARLIER I THINK WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ARE OUR.

AND I THINK MATTHEW WOULD AGREE OUR VARIOUS CRITERIA ARE AS CLOSE AS YOU COULD SAY TO IRONCLAD.

THERE IS ALMOST, EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THAT WE CAME BEFORE YOU FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

THERE IS REALLY NO CASE THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD EVER MEET OUR VARIANCE CRITERIA.

WE HAD ONE WHERE SOMEONE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO OPTION.

AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE TAKE A VERY STRONG LOOK AT THIS.

WE HAVE IF WE HAVE TO DEFEND THIS IN COURT, IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT HE COULD PLACE A GENERATOR, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE PURVIEW OF GOING ON HIS PROPERTY AND WALKING AROUND, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE HIS GRILL IS LOCATED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL OF HIS OPERABLE WINDOWS ARE LOCATED.

I'M NOT PRIVY TO THOSE DETAILS. SO WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, WE LOOK AT THE SURVEY, WE LOOK AT THE SETBACKS.

WE SAY, IS THERE A PLACE ON THIS PROPERTY? IS IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR POOL DECK? YEP. SO THAT'S A LITERAL INTERPRETATION. IS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD PUT A GENERATOR ON THIS PROPERTY THAT MEETS THE SETBACKS.

SO I JUST WANT TO OFFER THAT. AND POINT OF ORDER.

WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE. YEAH. THANK YOU.

I WAS JUST ABOUT TO SAY THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION, SO THANK YOU.

SO I HAVE A MOTION. SECOND. YES. ALL THAT CONVERSATION.

I FORGOT WHO MY MOTION MAKER WAS. PETRANOFF. AND THEN KRISEMAN.

YES. MAYOR. I'M SORRY, JUST TO JUST FOR THE RECORD, CAN I SAY SOMETHING BEFORE THE VOTE? NO. OKAY. I'M SORRY. WELL, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I THINK THE VICE MAYOR BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE STAFF REPORT IS A PIECE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE RECORD, BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD A PRESENTATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS IDENTIFIED AND PROVIDED HIS OWN COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON WHY HE BELIEVES ALL OF THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.

THEREFORE, IF COUNCIL AGREES WITH THAT, THEN YOU ARE ALLOWED TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE.

THAT'S WHY YOU ARE THE JUDGES IN THIS SITUATION.

SO, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. BECAUSE I WAS ELECTED TO DO SOME CRITICAL THINKING UP HERE.

THAT'S A YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHISON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. MAYOR.

HARTMAN. YES. IT PASSES SEVEN 6 TO 1. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK. VERY. APPRECIATE YOU.

[02:50:02]

WE ARE NOW TO 11 D PRESENTATION. YES. MAY I? YES, PLEASE.

[11.D) A Resolution Determining Live Entertainment Petition 26-LE2 Establishing Amplified Indoor Live Entertainment with Doors and Windows Closed for a Single Disc Jockey and Small-Scale Performances which Include Acoustic Music and No More than a Three-Piece Band, from 6 P.M. to 11 P.M. Monday Through Sunday, for the Restaurant Known as Unidos A Latin Kitchen and Bar, on Property Owned by One South Main, LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company and GORFI Properties Corp., a Massachusetts Corporation, Located at 1 9th Street South; More Fully Described Herein; and Providing an Effective Date.]

THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

PETITION 26 LA TWO ESTABLISHING AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED FOR A SINGLE DISC JOCKEY, AND SMALL SCALE PERFORMANCES WHICH INCLUDE ACOUSTIC MUSIC AND NO MORE THAN A THREE PIECE BAND FROM 6 P.M.

TO 11 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FOR THE RESTAURANT KNOWN AS UNIDOS, A LATIN KITCHEN AND BAR ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ONE SOUTH MAIN LLC, MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND PROPERTIES CORP., A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION LOCATED AT ONE NINTH STREET SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.

FOR 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.

THANKS. DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN HAVE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, BUT WANTED TO REVISIT THE SITE, WHICH I'VE DONE, AND OTHER THAN THAT, I'VE HAD NO CONTACT.

PARDON? FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, EATEN IN THE RESTAURANT AND MULTIPLE TIMES AND ONLY CONTACT HAS BEEN WITH STAFF. VICE MAYOR.

YES, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. BEEN TO THIS LOCATION FOR INSPECTION.

AND FOR THE RECORD, I'VE HAD NUMEROUS COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOW WELL RUN THIS BUSINESS IS.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. PETRANOFF FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, PATRON OF THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF REGARDING THIS.

KRAMER FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, VISITED THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF.

AND WITH THAT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. IT'S SEVEN MINUTES BEFORE NOON, SO IT IS STILL.

GOOD MORNING. SO GOOD MORNING. LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SAID STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

SALVADOR MUNOZ, REPRESENTING UNIDOS. AND WE'RE HERE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR FOR AN INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

ABSOLUTELY. THE INTENT OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ENHANCE THE DINING EXPERIENCE WHILE MAINTAINING FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARDS AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING USES. LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SAID, THE PROPOSED DAYS AND HOURS ARE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 6 P.M.

TO 11 P.M.. THE TYPE OF ENTERTAINMENT WILL BE EITHER A DISC JOCKEY OR NO MORE THAN A THREE PIECE ACOUSTIC BAND.

THE NOISE CONTROL WILL BE MITIGATED BY A DECIMAL MACHINE AND THE LOCATION OF THE AREA WHERE THE DJ WILL PLAY AND THE ACOUSTIC BAND IS RIGHT.

LIKE, IN I DON'T HAVE A PICTURE, I DON'T THINK, BUT IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN THERE BY THE SIGN.

SO IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A SMALL LITTLE AREA THAT WON'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE FOR THE GUESTS TO, TO DO THEIR THING AND DINE AND USE THE RESTROOM.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. NO WORRIES. BEAUTIFUL.

JUST RIGHT WHERE THE TABLE IS AT. SO AND THAT'S IT.

WE KINDLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS. I WANT TO ASSURE THE THE COUNCIL THAT UNIDOS IS NOT LOOKING TO OPEN THE NEXT NIGHTCLUB.

THIS IS JUST TO ENHANCE THE DINING EXPERIENCE.

AND YOU KNOW, MAKE IT MAKE IT ENJOYABLE FOR OUR GUESTS WHILE THEY'RE DINING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT.

TASHIMA LEWIS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEFORE USE TO DETERMINE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

PETITION 26 LI TWO ESTABLISHING AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED FOR A SINGLE DISC JOCKEY, AND SMALL SCALE PERFORMANCES WHICH INCLUDE ACOUSTIC MUSIC AND NO MORE THAN A THREE PIECE BAND FROM 6 P.M.

TO 11 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FOR THE RESTAURANT KNOWN AS UNIDO'S LATIN KITCHEN AND BAR, AND THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ONE MAIN CELL, ONE SOUTH MAIN LLC AND GODFREY PROPERTIES CORP.

AND LOCATED AT ONE NINTH STREET SOUTH. UNIDO'S LATIN KITCHEN AND BAR RESTAURANT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND EAST OF NINTH STREET SOUTH, WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT.

THEY ARE PROPOSING, AS MENTIONED, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED NEAR THE FRONT ENTRY AS YOU COME IN.

[02:55:01]

NOTICE FOR THIS VARIANCE WAS SENT OUT ON DECEMBER 19TH, 2025.

A TOTAL OF 727 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS OF AS OF TODAY, NO CORRESPONDENCE WAS RECEIVED FOR THIS PETITION.

STAFF REVIEWED THE PETITION INTERNALLY, SO CODE ENFORCEMENT, FIRE MARSHAL, AND POLICE AND THE FIRE MARSHAL HAVE APPROVED THEIR LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR OUTDOOR DINING FOR I'M SORRY FOR LIFE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION LOCATED AT ONE NINTH STREET SOUTH, AND FOUND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE.

LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO A SINGLE DISC JOCKEY AND NO MORE THAN A THREE PIECE BAND FROM 6 P.M.

TO 11 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY. ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL TO SOUND CREATED BY THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL NOT VIOLATE SECTION 2327 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND THREE CITY COUNCIL SHALL REVIEW THIS PERMIT APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF APPROVAL, AND MAY REVOKE OR ALTER THE APPROVED PERMIT OR IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAFF REPORT. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

VICE MAYOR? YEAH, FOR THE CITY MANAGER. THAT THIRD CONDITION THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW IS THAT THAT'S HARDWIRED. THAT WILL HAPPEN. IT'LL BE ON AN AGENDA.

THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT AREA WHERE JUST BECAUSE I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT WHERE IT'S BEING LOCATED, WHICH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE WINDOWS THAT ARE NORMALLY OPEN.

BEAUTIFUL AREA. CLARIFYING MISS MARTIN, WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED.

SO BECAUSE THIS IS AN APPROVAL FOR INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR REQUIRES THAT THE DOORS AND WINDOWS WILL BE CLOSED DURING THE PERFORMANCE TIMES SO THEY CAN HAVE THOSE DOORS AND WINDOWS OPEN DURING THE DAY, OR ANY TIME THAT THE ENTERTAINMENT IS NOT UNDERWAY.

BUT ONCE THE ENTERTAINMENT BEGINS, THEY'LL HAVE TO CLOSE THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS ALLOWS FOR PEOPLE COMING AND GOING FROM THE RESTAURANT. JUST YOUR NORMAL BUT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE THOSE DOORS AND WINDOWS PROPPED OPEN DURING PERFORMANCES. THANK YOU. AND THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN SHOWS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THREE PIECE ENTERTAINMENT. AND OR. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GAUGE HOW MUCH SPACE YOU NEED FOR THREE PIECE, BUT THEY DO. YES, HE'S. HE'S COMING. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF. YES. THE AREA THAT'S DESIGNATED HAS BEEN EVALUATED AGAINST THE FIRE CODE TO ALLOW ENOUGH SPACE FOR THREE PERFORMERS AND THEIR INSTRUMENTS.

OKAY. REAL QUICK. MADAM CLERK, WERE YOU SWORN IN? YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. PETRINO ON MONDAY'S LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. PETITIONS. YOU HAVE DEVELOPED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT SOME SOME BEST PRACTICES, INCLUDING THAT VOLUME CONTROLS ARE ARE MONITORED BY A BY A MANAGER THAT CAN DO THIS.

AND WE'RE NOT RELIANT ON BANDS COMING IN WITH THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT TURNING UP AND DOWN THE VOLUME AS WELL AS ANY, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER STAFF THERE? I DIDN'T SEE IT AS A REQUIREMENT IN THERE.

DID I THINK WE HAD A SO YEAH. FOR AMPLIFIED LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, WE HAVE SOME AND MOST OCCASIONS RECENTLY PUT IN A CONDITION THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THERE'S A NOISE CONTROL THAT'S PLACED ON THE ACTUAL SOUND SYSTEM.

YOU KNOW, THE AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM SO THAT IT WOULD PREVENT, YOU KNOW, AN EMPLOYEE THAT'S NOT AWARE OF THE REGULATIONS OR THE NOISE ORDINANCE FROM, YOU KNOW, GOING IN AND TURNING IT UP OR SOMEONE COMING IN WITH THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT. THAT WOULD BE LOUDER. THAT IS A REASONABLE CONDITION WE COULD PLACE ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

WOULD THE PETITIONER BE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YES, ABSOLUTELY. AND IT WOULD ALWAYS BE HANDLED BY BY MANAGEMENT.

YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S IDEA OF WHAT TOO LOUD IS, IS DIFFERENT.

SO WE WOULD ALWAYS MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MANAGEMENT, NOT THE ACTUAL PERFORMER OR YOU KNOW, ANYONE ELSE ON THE STAFF.

OKAY. SO THERE'LL BE A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE USED AS A BEST PRACTICE WITH OTHER RESTAURANTS TO BE ABLE TO, TO ALLOW FOR THAT. ABSOLUTELY. I CAN SEE IF I CAN FIND THAT. MADAM MAYOR, MAY I READ IN THE CONDITION I BELIEVE PETRANOFF IS REFERRING TO I PLEASE.

ALL LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL BE PLAYED THROUGH SPEAKERS REGULATED BY A CENTRAL VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM.

ACCESS TO THE CONTROL SHALL BE CENTRALIZED, LOCKED AND ACCESSIBLE ONLY TO THE MANAGER ON DUTY OR THEIR DESIGNEE,

[03:00:05]

AND THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE SUCH A MANAGER OR DESIGNEE ON SITE WHEN THE MUSIC IS BEING PLAYED.

AND THAT AND THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. JUST CLARIFICATION, MR. MCCONNELL. SO THAT IS PART OF OUR CODE AS A REQUIREMENT OR IT IS AN OPTION THAT IS NOT PART OF OUR CODE AS A REQUIREMENT. THAT IS A CONDITION THAT WE HAVE REGULARLY INCLUDED IN LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

JUST SO THAT YOU'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE BRINGING IN THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT WITH THEIR OWN AMPLIFICATION, AMPLIFIERS, AMPLIFICATION, ETC.. BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR ON WHAT SHE WAS REFERRING TO, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO COUNCIL ON WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THAT. I WOULD LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT JUST BECAUSE IT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW AS MANAGEMENT CHANGES OR DIFFERENT BANDS COME IN, IT JUST IS A WAY TO PREVENT ISSUES GOING ISSUES.

AND IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE.

WE'RE STARTING TO INSTALL MORE AND MORE IN THESE PETITIONS AND COUNCIL.

I THINK THAT'S A CONDITION THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLICABLE TO ALL OF THESE OUTDOOR.

I THINK THAT ALL OF THESE MUSIC REQUESTS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ALWAYS AS A CONDITION.

AND THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. OBVIOUSLY I LIKE IT.

I AGREE, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY A DIRECTION WE CAN GIVE TO STAFF.

I THINK TODAY, YOU KNOW, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, OUR SUGGESTION THAT THIS IF WE ALL AGREE THAT THIS BE SOMETHING THAT JUST BECOMES A STANDARD PART OF CONDITIONS FOR ANY LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. SO AT THIS POINT, A MOTION TO MAKE THAT TO KNOW WE HAVE TO STAY FOCUSED IN ON THIS PETITION.

I WE CAN I AM FOCUSED IN ON THIS. OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU MEANT FOR FOR THIS PARTICULAR.

YES. IT NEEDS TO BE A PART OF THE MOTION. COULD I JUST CERTAINLY.

I'M COMPLETE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. INCLUDING THE.

OKAY, SO THERE'S NO FURTHER. THAT WAS A DISCUSSION.

NOT A MOTION YET, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE ONE.

OKAY, SO THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

YES, VICE MAYOR. WELL, JUST TONGUE IN CHEEK A LITTLE BIT, BUT A IT'S GOING TO HELP US GET PAST THAT SIX MONTH REVIEW PROCESS WITH A HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF APPROVAL. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU PLAY THUNDERSTRUCK BY AC, DC, JUST TURN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT.

DONNA. DO WE EACH GET A CHOICE? OKAY. WITH THAT? DO I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. CLOSING REMARKS.

MR.. NO. SO I WAS HERE TWO YEARS AGO APPLYING FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT AND GRACIOUSLY GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE MY DREAM AND MAKE IT A REALITY. AND SO I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY TO JUST ADD ANOTHER PIECE TO IT.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. AND THIS IS 11 D RESOLUTION DETERMINING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 26 LEE TWO. I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY VICE MAYOR.

I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

MADAM CLERK MAYOR. MY APOLOGIES. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS? AND THE FOURTH CONDITION THAT I READ INTO THE RECORD? ALL OF THOSE? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. SO, YES, INTO THE MOTION THE SECOND.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. MOTIONS.

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

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

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

CRAMER. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU EVERYONE.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY.

THAT CONCLUDES ITEM 11 D. IT IS 12:00. WE'LL TRY AND GET THROUGH THIS NEXT PETITION. AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE'RE AT. FOR LUNCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. NO PROBLEM.

[11.E) 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.]

11 E A RESOLUTION DETERMINING NONCONFORMITY. PETITION 25 AND SIX, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4635 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW FOR THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF A NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R1 TEN 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.

[03:05:01]

THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO 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? I DO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN DROVE BY THE SITE TO FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH IT AND NO CONTACT.

COUNCIL MEMBER BURTON, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF AND MET WITH PETITIONER'S AGENT.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. MET WITH STAFF AND ALSO WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT.

KRAMER, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF AND ALSO SPOKE WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE SPOKE WITH STAFF.

THAT'S IT. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND NO CONTACT, AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

SPOKE WITH STAFF AND NO CONTACT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY GOOD MORNING, BUT IT'S AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON. HI, MY NAME IS MAUREEN MINKER AND I'M THE RESIDENTIAL STUDIO DIRECTOR WITH MHK ARCHITECTURE HERE IN NAPLES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO OUR NON-CONFORMITY PETITION FOR OUR PROJECT AT 2171 SOUTH WINDS DRIVE.

WE ARE REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF BOTH A HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2171 SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, LOCATED IN THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT IN AQUILINE SHORES.

SURVEY SHOWS THAT WE HAVE A DOUBLE FRONTED LOT WITH STREET FRONTAGE ON BOTH SOUTH WINDS DRIVE AND FOREST LANE, AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED AT GRADE AT 5.35FT AND HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT WATER INTRUSION FROM RECENT STORM EVENTS. OUR CURRENT BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS EIGHT FEET NAVED AND DESIGNED FLOOD ELEVATION IS NINE FEET.

NAVED. OUR SURVEY SHOWS THE EXISTING HOUSE IS SET BACK 25.71FT AND 25.68FT FROM THE FOREST LANE RIGHT OF WAY IS SET BACK 25.9FT FROM SOUTH WINDS DRIVE WITH A THREE FOOT OVERHANG. IT'S SET BACK 7.5FT FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, AND SEVEN AND 49FT FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

THE STRUCTURE REMAINS IN ITS ORIGINAL 1963 FOOTPRINT, AND THE LOT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 11,448FT².

THE EXISTING POOL IS COMPLIANT WITH CODE AND WILL NOT BE MODIFIED BY THIS PETITION.

WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE HOME, THE EXISTING HOME IS A NONCONFORMITY WHICH, ACCORDING TO SECTION 4635 A, IS DEFINED AS A LOT STRUCTURE OR USE OF LAND OR ANY 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 THE FOLLOWING. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, NO NONCONFORMITY SHALL BE EXPANDED, ENLARGED, OR CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT NONCONFORMITY, EXCEPT UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING.

WITH DUE PUBLIC NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4645 AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN THE SUMMER OF 2025, AND THEY'RE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR RENOVATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE STRUCTURES, FLOOD RISK AND ENHANCE ITS FUNCTIONALITY. THE RENOVATIONS COMPRISE THE FOLLOWING.

REBUILDING THE EXISTING GARAGE AT GRADE TO ACCOMMODATE A TWO CAR TANDEM CONFIGURATION, AND ALSO ALLOWING FOR INTERNAL INTERNAL ENTRY INTO THE HOME WITH THE EXISTING WHICH THE EXISTING HOME DOES NOT HAVE.

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 ENSUITES AND ELEVATING THE REMAINDER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO 9.35FT, AND THEY ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF A VERTICAL VERTICAL EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY TO ALLOW THE EXISTING HOUSE TO BE ELEVATED TO THE DESIGN. FLOOD ELEVATION OF 9.35FT, NAVY PERMITTING THE SECOND STOREY TO ENCROACH INTO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, AND THEY ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMITY TO PROVIDE THE STAIRS AND MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE ELEVATED

[03:10:06]

STRUCTURE. A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF NAPLES HISTORICAL RECORDS CONFIRMS THAT THE ORIGINAL RESIDENCE WAS PERMITTED, CONSTRUCTED AND INSPECTED IN 1963.

NO ORIGINAL PLANS OR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FROM THAT PERIOD ARE ON FILE.

THE EARLIEST EXISTING PLANS, WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 1996 POOL PERMIT, INDICATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS OF THE 1959 ZONING CODE, WHICH WAS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF THE HOME'S 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, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 1953, IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, SECTION 2827 OF THAT 1959 ZONING CODE, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.

DESCRIBE THE YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE 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 A SUBSECTION OF SECTION 2827.

TOUBY CLARIFIES THE DISCREPANCY REGARDING THAT WESTERN FACADE.

THAT 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, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 40 FOOT MINIMUM STIPULATED BY THAT SECTION 27.

28. TO BE GIVEN THE ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT, THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT CITY STAFF AT THE TIME APPROVED APPLIED THAT EXCEPTION CLAUSE TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, THEREBY ENSURING A REASONABLE BUILDABLE WIDTH.

THIS HISTORICAL ACTION ESTABLISHES THE BASIS FOR THE STRUCTURE'S STATUS AS A NONCONFORMITY UNDER SECTION 4636 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE EXISTING SITE PLAN SHOWS 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 WERE ASSESSED A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, IN THIS CASE ON THE EAST AND WEST, WITH ONE FRONTAGE POTENTIALLY REDUCED BY FIVE FEET, WHILE THE REMAINING YARDS NORTH AND SOUTH ARE CONSIDERED SIDE YARDS.

FOR THIS PROPERTY, THAT TRANSLATES TO A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS, A 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG FOREST LANE, AND 7.5FT SETBACKS PARALLEL TO THE 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, WITH THE NARROWEST POINT OF THE STRUCTURE MEASURED AT 25.9FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

IN OUR NEW PROPOSED SITE PLAN, THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS MAINTAINED IN THE RAISE TO THE CURRENT DF.

SO THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS THE EXISTING HOME IS MAINTAINED.

IN FACT, WELL, WITH A SLIGHT CHANGE ACTUALLY TO REDUCE SOME OF THE NONCONFORMITY, WHICH I'LL SHOW ON ANOTHER SLIDE.

WE ACTUALLY REMOVED TWO BAY WINDOWS AND WE CONVERT SOME OF THE NON-CONFORMING SPACE AT THE FRONT ENTRY TO NOT WE CONVERT IT FROM INTERIOR SPACE TO EXTERIOR FRONT PORCH SPACE.

SO WE'RE ACTUALLY CONVERTING A LITTLE OF THE NONCONFORMITY TO CONFORMING.

WE ALSO HAVE AN ADDITION HERE ON THE SIDE. TOTALLY COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A MASTER BED AND OUTDOOR LIVING AREA.

THE NEW PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN. WE DEMO THE EXISTING GARAGE BUT RETURN IT IN THE SAME LOCATION A NOW PROVIDING A TANDEM CAR CONFIGURATION WITH INTERIOR ACCESS TO THE HOME, WHICH I MENTIONED THE EXISTING HOME DOES NOT HAVE.

YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE TO GET INTO THE HOUSE FROM THE GARAGE.

[03:15:04]

WE HAVE AN OPEN KITCHEN, DINING AND LIVING SPACE.

WE HAVE NOW A PROPER MASTER BEDROOM SUITE WITH THIS FIRST FLOOR ADDITION, AND WE NOW HAVE AN OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE ON THIS FIRST FLOOR.

TO ACHIEVE THESE RENOVATIONS. CRITICAL RENOVATIONS FOR THE PETITIONER.

THEY SEEK A VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMITY, ALLOWING THE EXISTING HOUSE TO BE ELEVATED TO WITHIN ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT AND PERMITTING THE SECOND STOREY TO ENCROACH INTO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE.

THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION WILL BE PLACED DIRECTLY OVER THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, REPRESENTING NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED LINE OF NONCONFORMITY.

FOR THAT SECOND FLOOR, AGAIN, THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION REQUEST IS LIMITED TO THE STAIRS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE.

ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS ARE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT CODE.

IN THIS SLIDE, THE PEACH REPRESENTS THE EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG.

THE BLUE REPRESENTS THE NONCONFORMITY THAT WE'RE REMOVING IN THIS NEW DESIGN, AND THE GREEN REPRESENTS THE NONCONFORMITY RETAINED.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT 200FT² OF NONCONFORMITY, AND WE'RE REDUCING IT BY ABOUT HALF IN THE NEW DESIGN.

THE PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN ALLOWS FOR TWO BEDROOM ENSUITES, AND ALSO ALLOWS FOR A DOUBLE HEIGHT SPACE OVER OUR KITCHEN AND DINING SPACE. AGAIN, THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION IS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, SO WE DON'T HAVE A HORIZONTAL EXPANSION BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED LINE OF NONCONFORMITY WITH THAT SECOND FLOOR.

THE EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION ALONG SOUTH WINDS.

AT THE BOTTOM WE HAVE THE NEW PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION ALONG SOUTH WINDS, THE EXISTING EAST ELEVATION ALONG FOREST LANE.

THE PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ALONG FOREST LANE, THE EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION AT THE GARAGE.

THE PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION AT THE GARAGE. THE EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE POOL, AND THE PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE POOL.

WE HAVE SOME RENDERINGS. THIS IS THE RENDERING FROM THE NORTH END OF SOUTH WINDS DRIVE.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF ON SOUTH WINDS DRIVE FROM THE SOUTH, SURRENDERING FROM FOREST LANE.

WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM IMMEDIATE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

THIS LETTER IS FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH.

LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE SOUTH.

LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, AND A LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.

AND I CAN SAVE MY CONCLUSION FOR LATER OR AND TAKE QUESTIONS FIRST.

WHATEVER YOU PREFER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MAKER, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

COUNCIL. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT? GOOD. OKAY. WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THE STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU. MISS. MR. BRAMMER GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR.

COUNCIL AGAIN. JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PETITIONERS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE PROPERTY IS A ONE STORY RESIDENCE LOCATED 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 98FT.

NAV NAV WITH THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION OF NINE FEET AND SAVED.

THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1963 AT GRADE, WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER FIVE FEET.

NAVED. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY RECENT FLOODING, AND THE OWNER WISHES TO BETTER PROTECT THE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.

SECOND, THE OWNER WISHES TO ACCOMMODATE AN EXPANSION OF LIVING SPACE.

THIS INCLUDES A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITH NEW BEDROOM SUITES, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AND A NEW GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION IS PROVIDED DETAILS ON THE PROPERTY AND ITS ZONING HISTORY.

THIS INCLUDES THE REASONING FOR THE DEFICIENCY CONCERNING THE ORIGINAL FRONT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE, THE SOUTH WINDS DRIVE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 25FT INSTEAD OF 30FT, AND THAT BEING THAT BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLE FRONTAGES AND THE

[03:20:09]

SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT CREATED THAT SOME ALLOWANCES WERE GRANTED TO MAINTAIN A BUILDABLE AREA.

AND THIS HISTORY IS ALSO DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENDA MEMORANDUM.

HOWEVER, SINCE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, THE UNDERLYING ZONING HAS CHANGED.

TODAY, THE DOUBLE FRONTED PROPERTIES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRE A 30 FOOT SETBACK.

HOWEVER, THEY ALSO PROVIDE AN ALLOWANCE FOR A REDUCTION OF ONE FRONTAGE TO 25FT.

THE PETITIONER'S SURVEY CONFIRMS THAT THE EXISTING RESIDENT MEETS TODAY'S SETBACKS FOR A REDUCED FRONT YARD ALONG FOREST LANE TO THE EAST AND BOTH SIDE YARDS TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, BUT PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE REMAIN NON-CONFORMING ALONG SOUTH WINDS DRIVE, WHICH IS THE WEST BOUNDARY FRONTAGE.

TODAY, THE NARROWEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS A LITTLE OVER 25FT.

IT'S 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 FOUR FEET IN PLACE TO CURRENT FEMA FLOOD ELEVATION.

THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION WILL BE PLACED BASICALLY DIRECTLY ABOVE THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, REPRESENTING NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION BEYOND THE ALREADY EXISTING LINE OF NONCONFORMITY.

THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION IS LIMITED TO THE STAIRS NECESSARY TO ACCESS THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE.

EXPANDED RISERS WILL PROVIDE MEANS OF EGRESS TO A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED FRONT PORCH.

THE FRONT OF THE FRONT STEPS WILL BE LOCATED A LITTLE OVER 21FT AT ITS NARROWEST DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

GENERALLY, MEANS OF EGRESS ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH UP TO THREE FEET INTO A REQUIRED YARD, REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT.

ALL ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL 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 COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE. DETAILS OF THE REQUEST ARE RELATED TO ONE SECTION OF THE LDC.

THIS IS PURSUANT TO THE PROPERTY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND AS I SAID, CURRENTLY THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS LOCATED 25.19FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE 30FT IS REQUIRED. IN NOVEMBER, THE PETITION WAS NOTICED ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

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 C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF HAS HAVE APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR EXPANDING AND ENLARGING OR CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY, AND FINDS THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. LAST MONTH, THIS ITEM WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, PAB RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO COUNCIL 6 TO 1 SHOULD COUNCIL CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE PETITION, STAFF RECOMMEND THE INCLUSION OF TWO CONDITIONS. THESE ARE FAIRLY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NONCONFORMITIES, BUT I'LL READ THEM AGAIN.

NUMBER ONE, THE PETITION INVOLVES THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE REBUILDING OF NEW STRUCTURES.

IF THE STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED OR THE NONCONFORMITIES ARE REMOVED.

AND 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 THE PROPOSED PLANS, 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 INCLUDES. CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL PENMAN.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT RAISING HOMES IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO.

AND I'M THINKING THE LAST ONE THAT WE RAISED WAS CLOSER TO 13 TO 15FT IN ON FIFTH NORTH.

YES. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE. THE ONE IN RIVER PARK EAST.

YES. I THINK THEY END UP RAISING 13FT. I THINK SO, SO THAT'S WHY.

SO I'M WONDERING WHY THAT PARTICULAR HOME AND WE'RE LOOKING WE'RE LOOKING AT AQUILINE SHORES NOW AND FIFTH NORTH,

[03:25:04]

BOTH OF WHICH UNFORTUNATELY ARE VISITED BY THE WATER FAIRLY FREQUENTLY GIVEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

SO I'M I'M I'M INTERESTED NOT CONCERNED. I'M INTERESTED IN WHY JUST THE NINE FEET WHEN WE RAISED ANOTHER ONE FOUR FOOT HIGHER. RIGHT. THIS ONE IS IN A IN A FLOOD MAP ZONE OF E8, WHICH IS THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS AT EIGHT FEET NAVED, AND SO THE DESIGN FLOOD IS A FOOT HIGHER AT NINE FEET.

SO WE'RE GOING FROM A FIVE TO A NINE. SO ABOUT FOUR FEET HIGHER HERE.

SO WE'RE JUST REQUIRED TO DO THAT THERE. THE PETITIONER COULD RAISE IT HIGHER AS LONG AS OVERALL WE STAY WITHIN OUR SPATIAL ENVELOPE.

FOR THAT I BELIEVE WE'RE 30FT ABOVE THE DFA. YEAH.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE DFA CURRENT FEMA STANDARDS, CORRECT? YES. AND I GUESS PART OF MY CONCERN IS MY GUESS IS FEMA IS PROBABLY GOING TO RAISE THOSE STANDARDS HERE, DEPENDING AS LONG AS AS LONG AS YOUR CUSTOMER IS IS IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

THAT'S FINE. I JUST WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE DISPARITY INSOFAR AS THE TWO HOUSES WAS CONCERNED.

SOME DO. SOME DO WANT TO RAISE THEM HIGHER. WE HAVE SEVERAL CLIENTS RIGHT NOW WHO WANT TO RAISE THEM A FOOT HIGHER THAN THE DFA, BUT THAT REDUCES HOW HIGH YOUR OVERALL HEIGHT CAN BE, BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THAT SAME ENVELOPE, THAT SAME VOLUME. YOUR MAX HEIGHT CAN ONLY BE A CERTAIN HEIGHT ABOVE YOUR DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION, SO YOU STILL HAVE TO STAY IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.

I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I THINK COUNCILWOMAN THE THE HOUSE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK WAS A ONE STORY HOUSE. SO THEY WEREN'T GETTING NEAR THE THRESHOLD, THIS ONE, THEY'RE ADDING A SECOND STORY TO IT AND THEY WANT TO STAY UNDER THAT 30FT SO THEY WOULD BE GETTING CLOSER. THANK YOU. COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS MINKER IF YOU'D LIKE TO.

CLOSING REMARKS. YEAH. OUR PETITIONERS ARE SEEKING A VERTICAL EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMITY, WHICH ALLOWS THE EXISTING HOUSE TO BE ELEVATED WITH ITS WITHIN ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT, AND PERMIT THE SECOND STOREY TO ENCROACH INTO SLIGHTLY INTO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD.

SETBACK FROM SOUTH WINDS DRIVE. THE SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION WILL BE PLACED DIRECTLY OVER THE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, SO THERE'S NO HORIZONTAL EXPANSION BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED LINE OF NONCONFORMITY.

THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION REQUEST, AGAIN, IS LIMITED TO JUST THE STAIRS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE.

ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS ARE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT CODE.

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. SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

AND ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

YEAH. I'M ALWAYS HAPPY WHEN WE CAN HELP PEOPLE RAISE THEIR HOMES AND ACCOMMODATE FUTURE NEEDS.

SO THANK YOU TO THE PETITIONER FOR CONSIDERING THIS AND MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION PETITION 25 AND SIX, TO ALLOW FOR THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 21 771 SOUTH WIND DRIVE, INCLUDING THE TWO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND A SECOND HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMANN AND I HAVE A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISTMANN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENMAN. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AND THERE IS A HOUSE BEING LIFTED, IF YOU HAVEN'T.

WE DID IT LAST YEAR AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE FIRE STATION.

SO THEY'VE ELEVATED ONE PART OF IT. SO BEST OF LUCK.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WE ARE AT 1230 AND IN NEED OF A BREAK FOR LUNCH, SO, COUNCIL, IF WE COULD TAKE 20 MINUTES. OKAY, PERFECT.

1230. WE'LL TAKE A 20 MINUTE BREAK FOR LUNCH.

[03:30:07]

THANK YOU. GREAT. OKAY, WE'RE BACK FROM LUNCH, AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 11 F, MR.

[11.F) A Resolution Determining Live Entertainment Petition 26-LE1 Establishing Amplified Indoor Live Entertainment with Doors and Windows Closed for a Maximum of Two Performers or One Disc Jockey from 6 p.m. to 12 a.m. Wednesday Through Sunday for the Restaurant Known as Old Town Saloon, on Property Owned by 600 Good, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Located at 600 Goodlette-Frank Road North, Suites 111-113; More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

MCCONNELL. YEAH. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 26 DASH LA ONE ESTABLISHING AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED FOR A MAXIMUM OF TWO PERFORMERS OR ONE DISC JOCKEY, FROM 6 P.M. TO 12 A.M. WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FOR THE RESTAURANT KNOWN AS OLD TOWN SALOON, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY 600 LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOCATED AT 600 GOODLIFFE ROAD NORTH SUITES 111 THROUGH 113 MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, TO ALL THOSE INTENDING TO TESTIFY.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

OH, NO. I'M SORRY, I HAVE DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

NO CONTACT. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. PARDON? FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

SPOKE WITH STAFF, SPOKE WITH PETITIONER AND ALSO NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE PETITIONER.

THIS THIS BUSINESS IS A INSURANCE CLIENT OF MINE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

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

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH PETITIONER AND STAFF AND VICE MAYOR.

YEAH, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, NO CONTACT AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMUNICATIONS. AND NO FURTHER.

MET WITH STAFF. MAYOR, IF I MAY ASK. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON A FEW QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. DUE TO YOUR RELATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, CAN YOU BE IMPARTIAL IN YOUR DECISION MAKER TODAY? I CAN, WILL YOUR DECISION TODAY AND YOUR ANY SPECIAL BENEFIT GAIN OR LOSS TO YOU OR ANY RELATIVE OF YOURS? IT WILL NOT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS BOB MENZIES.

I'M A PARTNER AT THE LAW FIRM OF FISHER BROYLES HERE IN NAPLES.

AND I REPRESENT OLD TOWN SALOON. THE PETITIONER IN THIS MATTER THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY, MIKE BONO, IS HERE IN THE FRONT ROW. MR. BONO IS A SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANT OPERATOR IN THE CITY.

HE. THE LAST DOZEN YEARS, HE'S OPERATED, OWNED AND OPERATED THE TAVERN ON THE BAY AND BAYFRONT.

HE'S ALSO YOUR CONCESSIONAIRE AT LOUDERMILK PARK FOR THE.

I THINK IT'S CALLED FLIP FLOPS. THE RESTAURANT THERE AT THE BEACH.

SOMETIME LAST YEAR, MR. BOEHNER WANTED TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS AND OPEN A NEW OPERATION, AND HE LOCATED WHAT USED TO BE CALLED BAMBUSA AT THIS ADDRESS ON GOOD ROAD NORTH. AND HE SELECTED IT PRIMARILY FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE FACT THAT IT HAD IN PLACE AN EXISTING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT THAT HAD BEEN RENEWED OVER THE YEARS BY THE CITY. I THINK BAMBOO'S PERMIT WAS FOR KARAOKE, AS I RECALL. IN ANY EVENT HE OPENED THE TAVERN ON THE BAY, I BELIEVE, IN MAY.

EXCUSE ME. OLD TOWN SALOON IN MAY, AND WANTS TO ADD A LIVE MUSIC COMPONENT TO A FAMILY ORIENTED WESTERN STYLE BAR, IF YOU WILL, WITH A RESTAURANT. THE THE PETITION ITSELF AND THE AND THE STAFF'S PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM GOES OVER THE VARIOUS CRITERIA. THERE HAD BEEN LIVE MUSIC AT THIS, AT THIS LOCATION PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MR..

BONO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT ADJACENT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

AND THE OTHER CRITERIA PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN MET.

AS SHOWN BY THE STAFF'S REPORT HERE THERE IS ONE ITEM I DID WANT TO MENTION IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM.

IT IT SUGGESTS THERE'S NO COMMENT ABOUT SECURITY BECAUSE IT IS A BAR AND PLAYING LIVE MUSIC AT NIGHT.

IN THE TIME SINCE THE PETITION WAS FILED MY CLIENT HAS HIRED A SECURITY COMPANY.

ACCESS LOGISTICS IS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY THAT WILL BE ON SITE DURING THE EVENING HOURS WHEN THE MUSIC IS BEING PLAYED.

THE PETITION SEEKS THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, WITH THE DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY.

THE PETITION SEEKS FOR THAT PERMISSION TO PLAY THAT MUSIC FROM 6 P.M.

UNTIL MIDNIGHT WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED IN THEIR MEMORANDUM.

WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THOSE, AND INCLUDING WITH THE INCLUSION OF A CENTRAL CONTROL SYSTEM THAT WAS MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE EARLIER HEARINGS FOR CONTROLLING THE MUSIC. IN ADDITION TO SECURITY THAT'S BEEN RETAINED, PRIVATE SECURITY.

[03:35:06]

MY CLIENT HAS MANAGERS WHO ARE ON DUTY AT ALL TIMES.

THE RENDERING THAT YOU SEE THERE IS THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.

IN THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE, YOU'LL SEE A REFERENCE TO THE AV BOOTH.

THAT'S WHERE THERE WILL BE 1 TO 2 ENTERTAINERS THE AMPLIFIED MUSIC AND OR A DISC JOCKEY.

WITH THAT, WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS NOW OR LATER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. MR. MENZIES, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER'S AGENT? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT THE OLD TOWN SALOON.

THIS IS A CASUAL WESTERN THEMED BAR AND GRILL LOCATED IN THE 600 BLOCK OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD NORTH.

THE RESTAURANT IS OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 11 A.M.

TO CLOSE AND SATURDAY AND SUNDAY 3 P.M. TO CLOSE.

AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PROPERTY HAS HAD LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR MANY YEARS.

PREVIOUS OCCUPANT OF THE SPACE, BAMBOO BAR AND GRILL, HAD KARAOKE AT THE LOCATION.

OLD TOWN SALOON REPLACED BAMBOO LAST YEAR. PETITIONER IS NOW REQUESTING ENTERTAINMENT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT OF THEIR OWN.

THEY WOULD LIKE AMPLIFIED INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH NO MORE THAN TWO PERFORMERS OR ONE DISC JOCKEY.

PROPOSED HOURS FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ARE WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FROM 6 P.M.

TO MIDNIGHT. INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT MEANS THE DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED, BUT FOR ALLOWING PATRONS AND STAFF INGRESS AND EGRESS.

I WILL NOTE THAT GENERALLY CODE REQUIRES THAT SUNDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, NOT EXCEED PAST 11:30 P.M. THAT IS, UNLESS COUNCIL GRANTS A SPECIAL WAIVER, AND GRANTING A WAIVER IS ENTIRELY UP TO COUNCIL FOR THIS REQUEST. THAT AFFECTS WEDNESDAY AND SUNDAY, FOR WHICH THEY ARE REQUESTING A MIDNIGHT CUTOFF.

THURSDAY. FRIDAY. SATURDAY. THE CODE ALLOWS MIDNIGHT CUTOFF WITH THE REGULAR APPROVAL.

THE PETITION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING POLICE AND FIRE, WITH NO ISSUES.

AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS APPROVED THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

LAST MONTH, LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION WITH OBJECTIONS REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 56 125 F OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE PETITION FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET.

OF COURSE, THAT IS PURSUANT TO REVISING THE HOURS TO SEE CEASE LIVE INTERSTATE.

LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 11:30 P.M. ON SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAY.

SHOULD COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO PERFORMERS OR ONE DISC JOCKEY FROM 6 P.M.

TO 11:30 P.M. ON SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAY, AND FROM 6 P.M.

TO MIDNIGHT THURSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. NUMBER TWO, ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT USE SHALL REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL. NUMBER THREE SOUND CREATED BY THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL NOT VIOLATE SECTION 2237 THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. NUMBER FOUR, ALL LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL BE PLAYED THROUGH SPEAKERS REGULATED BY A CENTRAL VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM.

ACCESS TO THE CONTROLS SHALL BE CENTRALIZED, LOCKED, LOCKED AND ACCESSIBLE ONLY TO THE MANAGER ON THEIR ON DUTY OR THEIR DESIGNEE, AND THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE A MANAGER OR DESIGNEE ON SITE WHEN THE MUSIC IS BEING PLAYED.

AND NUMBER FIVE, CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THE PERMIT APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF APPROVAL, AND MAY REVOKE OR ALTER THE APPROVED PERMIT OR IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME.

THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

ON THE ON THE CURRENT RESTAURANT AND BAR SPORTS BAR OVER BAYFRONT.

THEY'VE BEEN OPEN FOR MANY YEARS, HAVE WE? AND IT WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT, I ASSUME.

HAVE WE HAD ANY ISSUES AT ALL? NOPE. NONE. IF THEY'VE ADHERED TO ALL OF THEIR APPROVALS.

OKAY. AND THEN I'M GLAD THAT YOU ADDED THE ONE SECTION IN THERE ABOUT SPEAKER CONTROL.

REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW, I I REALLY FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T REALLY SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS

[03:40:08]

AT ALL. I, I THINK THAT IT'S IT'S GOOD FOR THAT NECK OF THE WOODS.

I, I WISH THEM WELL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? NONE. THANK YOU. CLOSING REMARKS.

NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS, AS MR. BRIMMER MENTIONED, IS THE REQUEST THAT YOU ALLOW US TO CLOSE AT MIDNIGHT ON WEDNESDAY AND SUNDAY.

HONESTLY, MY CLIENT IS NOT WEDDED TO THAT, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE REQUEST.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF.

MAY I ASK STAFF WHY? WHY YOU PICKED THOSE HOURS OR WHAT? THOSE ARE IN THE CODE. THOSE ARE THE YOU'LL SEE IN THE CODE THERE ARE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

AND THOSE WERE THE STANDARD KIND OF PARAMETER HOURS THAT COUNCIL HAD ENACTED A LONG TIME AGO.

BUT THEY DID ALLOW FOR THE PROVISION THAT YOU CAN WAIVE THAT IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

OKAY. THERE. COMPETITION I WOULD IMAGINE IS OVER IN MAYBE THE DISTRICT, THAT AREA.

WHAT ARE THEIR OPERATING HOURS? THEIR OPERATING HOURS ARE UNTIL MIDNIGHT, I BELIEVE.

I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT. I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING LOOKING AT GOOGLE THAT THAT IS THAT YOUR COMPETITION IS THAT IT'S A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIBE ACROSS ACROSS THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.

BUT I BELIEVE, I MEAN, IS THAT WHY YOU SET THE HOURS IN THAT IN THAT MANNER? NO. SIMPLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE BAR, YOU KNOW, USUALLY CLOSES DOWN AROUND THAT TIME ANYWAY.

THAT'S THE REASON. BUT BUT I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL RECENTLY APPROVED A LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR THE DISTRICT AND THEIR CLOSING HOURS OF MIDNIGHT, I THINK. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT FOR CERTAIN.

AS I SAID, MY CLIENT ISN'T WEDDED TO IT, BUT WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR THAT CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL, IF YOU WILL. I MEAN, I WOULD HATE TO PUT YOU AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE IN A DIFFERENT, I DON'T THINK, SECTION. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO PROLIFERATION OF LOTS OF LOUD MUSIC, BUT IT'S A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A YOUR COMPETITION IS NOT IN THAT ZONING AREA.

IT'S NOT IN THAT CATEGORY, I'D SAY WOULD BE THE WAY TO SAY IT.

I'M STILL LOOKING. I'M SORRY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. BARTON, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IN REFERENCE TO THAT CLOSING TIME OF ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES, THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY APPROVE IT AS REQUESTED, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT OUR GUARDRAIL ON THERE OF CHECKING THIS OUT IN SIX MONTHS.

I MEAN, IF PEOPLE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH MIDNIGHT, THEY'LL LET US KNOW AND WE CAN ADJUST AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

I AGREE. ANY FURTHER, VICE MAYOR? YEAH, JUST, MADAM MAYOR, WHENEVER APPROPRIATE, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.

OKAY. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. CLOSING REMARKS. AND BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT.

NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. RIGHT. OKAY. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

VICE MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 11 F A RESOLUTION DETERMINING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

PETITION 20 6-L1. AND THIS COMES WITH FIVE CONDITIONS.

IN OUR MATERIALS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY ADDITION TO THAT.

AND IN THE IN THE CONDITIONS, IT DOES SAY OPERATING MAXIMUM OF TWO PERFORMERS FROM 6 P.M.

TO 1130 SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAY AND FROM 6 P.M. TO 12 MIDNIGHT THURSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ACCURATE. THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

YES. YES, SIR. AND WE SIMPLY WERE ASKING FOR THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION TO INCREASE WEDNESDAY AND SUNDAY TO MIDNIGHT.

OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, I THINK THAT MR. BREMER WANTS TO CORRECT THE.

YEAH, I THINK TO MR. BARTON'S POINT IS, I THINK HE SUGGESTED THAT YOU APPROVE THE HOURS THAT THEY REQUESTED.

YES. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WILL BE REVIEWED IN SIX MONTHS.

AND SO WE CAN WE CAN TWEAK THAT CONDITION. SO UNDER THE CONDITIONS ITEM ONE WHICH IS DISCUSSING THE OPERATING HOURS WE'RE I MOTIONING THAT WE APPROVE THE OPERATING HOURS FROM 6 P.M.

TILL MIDNIGHT, AND THAT IS SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAY AS WELL AS THURSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.

RIGHT. ALL DAYS. IT'S ALL DAYS. YES. AND THAT'S THE MOTION, MADAM MAYOR.

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

[03:45:03]

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. PENMAN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES.

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

YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THAT CONCLUDES 11 TAKING US TO 11 G. MR. MCCONNELL.

[11.G) A Resolution Determining Live Entertainment Petition 26-LE3 Establishing Amplified Indoor and Outdoor Live Entertainment 7 Days Per Week in Multiple Locations on Private Property Pursuant to Section 56-125 of the Code of Ordinances, for the Naples Beach Club Owned by Naples Beach Club Land Trust Trustee, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Naples Beach Club Owner, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Naples Beach Club Phase II and III Land Trust Trustee, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Located at 801, 802, 811, 891, 896, and 898 Gulf Shore Boulevard North, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PETITION 26 DASH LA THREE ESTABLISHING AMPLIFIED INDOOR AND OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 56 125 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE NAPLES BEACH CLUB, OWNED BY NAPLES BEACH CLUB LAND TRUST. TRUSTEE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NAPLES BEACH CLUB OWNER LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. AND NAPLES BEACH CLUB PHASE TWO AND THREE LAND TRUST TRUSTEE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND LOCATED AT 801802811891896 AND 898 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO ARE NOT PRIVILEGED.

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? I DO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I'VE HAD NO CONTACT.

PARDON? FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. DISCUSSIONS WITH PETITIONERS AND ALSO DISCUSSION WITH STAFF.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE ON THIS ISSUE? I HAD WAS HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AND ALSO WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PETITIONER.

KRAMER. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH BOTH STAFF AND THE PETITIONER.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, PETITIONER AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS AND VICE MAYOR.

YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS EMAILS ON THIS SUBJECT THROUGH MY GOVERNMENT EMAIL.

SO THOSE ARE ALL A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND NO CONTACT.

OTHERWISE, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I VISITED THE SITE AND I'VE HAD COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY SPOKE WITH THE PETITIONER AND WITH STAFF WITH THAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME. AND YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS DIEGO ANGARITA.

I AM THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE NAPLES BEACH CLUB.

ARE YOU PRESENTING? I AM PRESENTING. GREAT. THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE RESORT.

I WANT TO FIRST OFF, MAKE SURE AND ASSURE YOU THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF COMMUNICATION, AND MAYBE EVEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ASK FOR.

TO BE VERY CLEAR, THE GOAL OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, WITH THE AMOUNT OF LOCATIONS THAT WE HAVE SET UP IN THE APPLICATION, REALLY IS FOR A POINT OF FLEXIBILITY. WE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INTENDING TO USE THESE ALL ALL THESE LOCATIONS AT THE SAME TIME FOR MULTIPLE SITUATIONS. ALSO, WE ARE READY TO COMMIT TO HAVING A LIMITATION OF ALL OUTDOOR MUSIC BEING STOPPED AT 10:00 AT NIGHT.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ALREADY COMMUNICATED AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CLEAR.

AND ALL FOR THE COMMUNICATION I DID PREPARE A BRIEF PRESENTATION, WHICH I WILL RUN THROUGH.

FIRST OFF, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE RESORT, ALTHOUGH STILL VERY GEARED AND ENSURING THAT IT'S PART OF THE COMMUNITY, WE HAVE REBRANDED TO BE A FOUR SEASONS RESORT, A LUXURY RESORT. AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IS OUR INTENTION TO ENSURE THAT THAT REPRESENTS THE EXPERIENCE OF A LUXURY RESORT, WHICH IS MUCH MORE ABOUT PERSONALIZED EXPERIENCES, LESS VOLUME.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IN PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, THE RESORT WAS VIEWED IN A MANNER OF HOSTING A LOT OF VOLUME. THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION. OUR INTENTION IS SIMPLY TO SUPPLEMENT THE BUSINESS THAT THE RESORT IS BRINGING.

[03:50:06]

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU WILL SEE THAT MOST OF THESE LOCATIONS ARE REALLY, AGAIN, THERE FOR FLEXIBILITY.

SOME OF THESE MAY BE USED VERY RARELY ON A ONE OFF BASIS.

THERE'S REALLY ONLY, I THINK, TWO LOCATIONS IN THE WHOLE PROJECT THAT WILL BE USED REGULARLY, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO POINT OUT IN A MINUTE. ALSO, WE VIEW AND I VIEW THE RESORT AS AN ENCOMPASSING RESORT, NOT JUST A HOTEL AND RESIDENTIAL.

SO WE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD AFFECT THE RESIDENTIAL SIDES AT THE HOTEL SITE AND VICE VERSA.

WOULD WE DO SOMETHING IN THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE THAT WOULD AFFECT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE HOTEL SITE? WE VIEW THIS AS ONE ENCOMPASSING RESORT AND ENSURING THAT THE EXPERIENCE IS THE SAME ALL ACROSS.

WITH THAT SAME SAID, WE VIEW THIS ALSO AS IMPORTANT FOR OUR NEIGHBORS.

AND I THINK YOU WILL ALL AGREE WITH ME THAT THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE ALREADY IN THE FIRST 60 DAYS OF THE RESORT ARE IN FAVOR OF BRINGING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRINGING BACK THE SUNSET BAR FROM HBS AND MOST RECENTLY, THE NAPLES TRADING COMPANY, WHICH IS OUR GRAB AND GO, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO REPORT DOES MORE BUSINESS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN IT DOES FROM OUR OWN GUESTS.

AND THAT IS TRULY THE INTENTION THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE RESORT.

AGAIN, I MENTIONED WE ARE COMMITTED TO ENFORCING AND LIMITING OUR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT TO STOPPING AT 10:00 AT NIGHT.

WE WILL ADHERE TO THE CODE TO EXCEED OR NOT TO EXCEED THE DECIBELS AT PROPERTY LINE.

AND WE WILL OBVIOUSLY WORK TO ENSURING THAT SPEAKER PLACEMENT AVOIDS ANY FURTHER OR ANY DIRECTION DIRECTLY TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

BUT IT IS ALL ENCOMPASSING TO THE PROPERTY. I HAVE DIVIDED THE RESORT INTO FOUR ZONES, WHICH I HAVE SIGNALED OUT HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU SEE THIS IN THE FULL SCHEME, IT CAN SEEM DAUNTING WITH SO MANY LOCATIONS. BUT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, I WOULD LOVE TO JUST TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE ZONES AND POINT OUT SOME OF THESE LOCATIONS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS.

BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN NOW IS THE HOTEL WHERE YOU CAN SEE SUNSET BAR AND BEES.

THIS IS AN AREA WHERE CLEARLY ONLY ONE LOCATION WILL SEE REGULAR LIVE MUSIC, WHICH IS LOCATION FIVE, WHICH IS THE SUNSET BAR. AND IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS THERE IN THE PREVIOUS RESORT.

EVERYWHERE ELSE YOU WILL SEE THAT BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY AND TRULY SPACE IN THOSE AREAS, I AM LIMITED TO HOW MANY PERFORMERS WE CAN HAVE THERE. I WOULD SAY THAT IN 90% OF THESE LOCATIONS, I WOULDN'T HAVE MORE THAN THREE.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY OF EACH OTHER, I WOULDN'T HAVE MORE THAN TWO EVENTS AT THE SAME TIME PLAYING HERE AT THIS AT ANY ONE TIME BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY, IT IS A EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LARGE ON THIS MAP IT IS ACTUALLY QUITE CONTAINED AS I MOVE ACROSS GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. SORRY. FIRST TO THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.

AGAIN, THIS IS OUR THESE ARE AREAS THAT WE HAVE ADDED SEVERAL LOCATIONS PURELY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF FLEXIBILITY.

I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT AREAS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT TO BE ONLY ACOUSTIC ONLY.

AND IN MY MIND, THESE ARE REALLY GEARED TO WHEN A RESIDENT OF OURS OR HOMEOWNER WANTS TO DO A FAMILY DINNER AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A GUITARIST OR A VIOLINIST ACCOMPANY THAT THAT MEAL.

SO THAT REALLY IS THE INTENTION OF OF THIS. AGAIN AS I MOVE OVER TO THE ACROSS THE STREET TO GULF SHORE.

THIS IS CLEARLY WHAT THE MAJORITY OF OUR MEETING SPACE IS LOCATED.

BUT AGAIN, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE PROXIMITY OF A LOT OF THESE LOCATIONS OUTDOOR LIMIT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO MULTIPLE EVENTS AT THE SAME TIME. AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO COMMIT THE SAME WAY THAT WE WOULDN'T DO MORE THAN TWO EVENTS AT ONCE IN THESE AREAS.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THESE OUTDOOR AREAS WILL BE USED FOR COCKTAIL RECEPTIONS, THE INTENTION OF THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WOULD BE TO SUPPLEMENT THAT AS BACKGROUND EFFECT AND COULD BE VERY EASILY LIMITED TO AMOUNT OF PERFORMERS.

AND LASTLY, ON THE SECTIONS WE HAVE THE GULF AREA.

[03:55:02]

I'VE HIGHLIGHTED TWO AREAS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE GULF IS NOT COMPLETED AS YET AS YOU WELL KNOW.

BUT THIS IS IN MY ANTICIPATION OF POTENTIALLY BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING HERE IN THE FUTURE.

AGAIN, LIMITED TO COCKTAIL AND HAVING BACKGROUND MUSIC.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFY ANY POINTS THAT I'VE COVERED.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. PETRANOFF. WE HAD TALKED ON THE PHONE ABOUT POSSIBLY MEETING WITH RESIDENT GROUPS THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THESE. ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE 100%, 100%, 100% HAPPY TO SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY, BRING THEM IN, LET THEM UNDERSTAND THE LOCATIONS AND THE INTENT BEFORE THIS IS APPROVED TO GO IN AND SEE GO THROUGH THIS.

I WOULD BE VERY WILLING TO GO AHEAD. AND I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT INDOOR OPPORTUNITIES.

IN A LATER COUNCIL MEETING, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS FIRST.

HOWEVER, IN THE MEANTIME, THERE ARE SOME EVENTS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE DISCUSSED FOR EXCEPTIONS.

MR.. I KNOW I SPOKE WITH MR. YOUNG CITY MANAGER YOUNG, ABOUT DOING INTERIM STUFF UNTIL THEY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK YOU DO HAVE THE BEST OF INTENTIONS, BUT THIS LOOKS VERY SHOCKING.

YOU KNOW, THE 27 LOCATIONS, MOST OF THEM ARE OUTSIDE.

SOME OF THEM ARE ON THE BORDERS. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME DISCUSSION WITH A COUPLE COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO SORT THROUGH IT, BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN SINCE YOUR OPENING, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN THIS IS A THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER MUSIC.

AND SOMETHING THAT WE ON COUNCIL HAVE SEEN AGAIN AND AGAIN CREATE CREATE ISSUES.

IT BE I THINK IT WOULD BE A SMART TO GET THE COMMUNITY INVOLVED FIRST AND THEN COME FORWARD, BECAUSE I THINK THEY'D BE VERY WILLING PARTNERS IN, IN DOING SOMETHING VERY REASONABLE.

AND I THINK MR. YOUNG CAN PROBABLY SPEAK FOR HIMSELF ON HIS WILLINGNESS TO DO AN INTERIM SOLUTION.

YEAH. AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO, TO COUNCIL'S GRANTING THAT.

BUT I WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW AND I'VE DISCLOSED TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHEN I MET WITH YOU INDIVIDUALLY, THAT OVER THE LAST TWO MONTHS, THE NAPLES BEACH CLUB HAS PROVIDED AN ARRAY OF EVENTS THAT THEY HAD SCHEDULED IN ANTICIPATION OF THEIR OPENING AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO WE'VE MONITORED THAT. AND AS LONG AS IT WAS LIFE SAFETY HAD BEEN APPROVED AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THEN I'VE, I HAD TOLD THEM I'M NOT GOING TO SEND DOWN THE, YOU KNOW, THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT POLICE.

I WANT TO WORK WITH YOU AS A COMMUNITY PARTNER.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO GO ABOUT IT IN THAT WAY, AS THEY WOULD NOTIFY US OF THE EVENTS.

AND THEN WE CONTINUE TO MONITOR FOR FOR COMPLIANCE.

AND THEY'VE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS IN THAT REGARD.

AND I'VE TRIED TO HAVE A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO TO MAKING SURE WE GET THROUGH THIS TOGETHER.

SO I WOULD CONTINUE THAT WITH COUNSEL'S INDULGENCE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, MYSELF INCLUDED GOT A LETTER LAST NIGHT ABOUT INDOOR AIR OR.

WELL, IT WAS JUST SAYING ENTERTAINMENT THAT WAS GOING TO BE REVIEWED A WHOLE MONTH FROM NOW.

I WOULD IMAGINE. AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU THAT YOU MIGHT BE HAVING SOME EVENTS, OR YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME EVENTS IN BETWEEN THEM. CORRECT. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO GET THAT STUFF SORTED OUT BEFORE? YEAH. AND THE PART THAT I HAD ACTUALLY DISCUSSED, AND I HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF STAFF AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS LATE AS LAST FRIDAY, I BELIEVE, AND THEY SAID AT THE TIME WAS WAITING ON THE FINAL APPLICATION TO GET IN.

AND I SAID I WANTED AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE AND PROVIDED ALL THE LIFE SAFETY IS THERE AND I WOULD CONTINUE TO USE THE EXACT SAME REASONABLENESS THAT I USED IN THE OUTDOOR.

I WAS TRYING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK OF A POSITIVE, PROACTIVE WAY TO DO THIS TO US. YOU ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE SEE YOU AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY. POSITIVE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

YOU ARE THE SOUTHERN ANCHOR OF THE MIRACLE MILE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE OR NOT, BUT IT SURE MAKES SENSE TO ME.

AND THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO IN IF I WERE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WOULD BE SEEING IF YOU CAN GET TOGETHER WITH SOME RESIDENTS, WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE THE WORDS RIGHT AND THE CONDITIONS RIGHT FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE ON, YOU KNOW, ON DOING 1,000,001 OF THESE AND, AND THEN COMING FORTH ON THE OUTDOOR SIDE AND THEN IF WE CAN GET THE, YOU KNOW THE OKAY TO TO WORK ON THIS INTERIM SOLUTION TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO DO THE BUSINESS THAT THEY NEED TO DO ON THE INDOOR SIDE, PRONTO. I SUPPORT THAT AND WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER, JUST AS WE HAVE BEEN TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THEM.

[04:00:01]

SO THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL HOW HOW ALL OF YOU FEEL.

I JUST THINK IT'S A, IT'S A IT'S A COMMON SENSE WAY.

IT MIGHT BE NOT A, IT MIGHT BE AN ALTERNATIVE WAY, BUT I THINK IT IS THE FRIENDLIEST WAY TO DO THIS.

MAYOR. YEAH, WE ALL HAVE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS, THAT'S FOR SURE.

IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSAL IF I.

WELL, HOLD ON, COULD YOU PLEASE FINISH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? JUST THE NEIGHBORS ARE CRITICAL TO THIS AND COMPLETE DELIBERATIONS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

AND I KNOW YOU WANT TO BE A FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR.

BUT I THINK GETTING TOGETHER WOULD BE A WAY TO GO.

I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE THAT OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE IN OUR PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS, I HAD ALSO MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY IS 28 LOCATIONS, UNLIMITED TYPE OF PERFORMERS, UNLIMITED HOUR, UNLIMITED EVERYTHING. AND IT YOU KNOW AND I WAS REASSURED.

OH, WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE TODAY WHAT I'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY IS THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO PUT PROPOSE SOME PARAMETERS.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOT SIT HERE AND GO THROUGH EACH LOCATION.

I WOULD PREFER I WOULD PREFER IF THEY WOULD COME TO US WITH A REASONABLE PROPOSAL.

THEY'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, REALISTICALLY, IT WOULDN'T BE MORE THAN TWO IN THIS QUADRANT AND WE'D BE LIMITED IN SPACE TO THE NUMBER OF PERFORMERS.

I'D LIKE THEM TO TELL ME THAT SO THAT WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPROVE.

THAT ISN'T JUST A 14 PAGE RESOLUTION ADDRESSING EACH ONE THAT WE CREATE HERE TODAY WITH IN THE ROOM.

I WOULD I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU. FAIR ENOUGH. KRAMER.

AND WITH THE I'M SORRY. REALLY QUICK TO ADDRESS THE INDOOR.

SO THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS REQUESTING INDOOR AND OUTDOOR.

HOWEVER, WE THEN DISCOVERED THAT THEY HADN'T ACTUALLY SUBMITTED ANY LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR INDOOR LOCATIONS THROUGH THE FIRE MARSHAL.

SO THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE SAID THAT IF THEY MOVE FORWARD TODAY, IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE OUTDOOR LOCATIONS, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO THEN SUBMIT THE LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR REVIEW FOR THE INDOOR, AND THEY WOULD BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE. WE RECEIVED THOSE PLANS AT 122 TODAY FOR THE INDOOR, SO THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM.

HE IS LOOKING AT THEM RIGHT NOW IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

BUT YEAH, WELL, HE'S TAKING HIS TIME, BUT. SO THAT'S JUST.

THAT'S WHY THE DOUBLE NOTICE. I HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT WHY. WHY DID WE GET A NOTICE FOR A JANUARY DATE AND A NOTICE FOR A FEBRUARY DATE? THEY ARE SPLIT INTO TODAY WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ONLY OF THE OUTDOOR, AND FEBRUARY WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ONLY OF THE INDOOR LOCATIONS.

BUT IF WE DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THEM ALL TOGETHER, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. I AGREE, EXCUSE ME, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

IF I CAN JUST SUPPLEMENT ONE ASPECT, MR. NEWMAN.

YES. THANK YOU. SO. HI THERE. JAY NEWMAN, THE ATHENS GROUP DEVELOPER AND PART OF THE OWNERSHIP TEAM OF THE NAPLES BEACH CLUB.

HONORABLE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

JUST WANTED TO AVOID ANY TYPE OF MISUNDERSTANDING, AS YOU KNOW, AND AS MANY OF YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WE HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE OUTREACH OVER THE LAST 5 OR 6 YEARS.

I THINK IT'S BEEN UNPRECEDENTED. WE BELIEVE IN THAT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND THAT WHOLE INTERACTION, AND I CAN ALWAYS POINT TO THE HAUL ROAD AS AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

ALL THESE THINGS HAVE MADE THIS PROJECT BETTER.

AND I THINK YOU'VE SEEN, AS DIEGO SPOKE TO IT, JUST HOW THE COMMUNITY HAS EMBRACED THE, THE SUNSET BAR AND, AND WE WERE TRUE TO OUR WORD. WORD. AND IT STARTS WITH THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHY WE LOVE WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE THE TRADING COMPANY.

SO WE ARE TOTALLY COMFORTABLE CONTINUING THAT PROCESS.

WE THOUGHT IT'S FOUR SEASONS. IT IS NOT NO OFFENSE.

IT'S NOT MARGARITAVILLE. AND WE ARE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN EVEN THE PRIOR NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB.

WITH THAT SAID, PEOPLE STILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PLACE, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE, AS ERICA WAS SAYING, VERY, VERY PRUDENT. WE'RE VERY OPEN TO ALL OF THAT.

WHAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER PETRINO'S SUGGESTION THAT IN THE INTERIM, CITY MANAGER YOUNG WOULD HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO REVIEW EACH OF THESE OUTDOOR USES AND BASICALLY APPROVE THEM SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE. AND I THINK WE'VE OPERATED IN A VERY RESPONSIBLE FASHION.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, YES, WE WILL DO THAT, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO REALLY ESTABLISH THE HOTEL AS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE COMMUNITY GATHERING PLACE.

[04:05:01]

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. KRAMER. DIEGO, THANK YOU.

AND I AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO TIGHTEN THIS UP SOME.

WE'VE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AND WITH THE PETITIONER. I JUST WANT TO. I'D BE WITHOUT MAKING PEOPLE ANGRY.

I LOVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET COMMUNITY INPUT.

THAT'S GREAT. BUT IN THE END, LET'S SAY WE GOT UNANIMOUS LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF LET'S DO THIS.

IN THE END, THAT'S NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR OF IF THIS THING WORKS OR DOESN'T.

OUR OUR CODE, WE'RE IT. MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILWOMAN PETRANOFF, WE HAVEN'T HAD ON COUNCIL.

IT'S BEEN, THERE'S BEEN I WON'T SAY CONTENTION, BUT CONCERN ABOUT MUSIC AND WHATEVER AREAS IS ALWAYS BEFORE THE FACT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY FUSSING ABOUT STUFF ONCE.

IT'S ACTUALLY UP AND RUNNING, BECAUSE I THINK WE DO A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH THE SIX MONTH CHECK IN AND WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND WE'VE HAD NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON ALREADY, SPEAKS VOLUMES.

SO I SAY ALL TO SAY, LET'S SAY IT'S ALL KUMBAYA AND EVERYBODY'S, YES, LET'S ROLL WITH WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE.

WE STILL HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET, HOWEVER THIS THING GOES.

AND WE'RE WE'RE TRUSTING ALL OF OUR, OUR BUSINESS OWNERS AND CITIZENS TO FOLLOW FOLLOW THOSE RULES THEY HAVE SO FAR.

AND I BELIEVE THEY'LL DO THAT IN THE FUTURE. AND WITH THAT SAID, IF YOU LET ME, I'LL MAKE A MOTION MAYOR.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TIME YET. NO, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE COMPLETE STAFF REPORT, RIGHT.

CHRISTMAN. I'M HAPPY TO HAVE HER. GIVE THE REPORT OR I CAN MAKE A COMMENT.

NOW. WHAT ARE WE. WHERE ARE WE NOW? QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER OR JUST GENERAL DISCUSSION, OR. WE'RE WAITING FOR ERICA. STAFF REPORT. YEAH, WE'RE WE'RE A PETITIONER.

QUESTIONS? OKAY. MAYOR, IF I IF I COULD REAL QUICK, UNLESS I MISHEARD THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE THIS ITEM IS GOING TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY TO HANDLE THEM BOTH TOGETHER. ALLOW THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE PUBLIC AND PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION.

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. CORRECT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR A DECISION TODAY.

WELL, ULTIMATELY ESPECIALLY WITH THE SIX MONTH LOOK BACK THAT YOU GET TO DO, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN OUR BUSINESS.

RIGHT? AND WE ARE GOING TO DEFER TO THE COUNCIL.

OBVIOUSLY, IT'S ULTIMATELY YOUR DECISION, BUT WE WOULD WELCOME A DECISION ON THIS TODAY.

BUT IF THE COUNCIL FEELS IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT OUTREACH DIEGO IS VERY COGNIZANT OF WHAT HE ENVISIONS FOR EACH OF THESE SPACES, THE TYPE OF USES.

HE'S ALSO VERY COGNIZANT OF WHEN THOSE SPACES WILL BE UTILIZED.

WE'RE HERE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED TO HEAR HOW WE ENVISION THIS ALL WORKING.

AS HE SAID THAT NO ONE TIME WOULD HE EXPECT IN CERTAIN IN THOSE AREAS THAT YOU'D HAVE MORE THAN TWO SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS.

IT'S REALLY THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, AND SO WE WILL TAKE OUR DIRECTION FROM YOU IF AND IF YOU FEEL AS COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER SAID, BASED UPON HIS ASSESSMENT THAT YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT.

IF A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL FEELS AS IF ADDITIONAL OUTREACH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND MORE DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S COUPLED WITH THE INTERIM DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WITH THE CITY MANAGER, WE WILL DO WHICHEVER YOU THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL BELIEVES IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF NAPLES.

WELL, IF I COULD IF I COULD THEN CONTINUE THEN WITH SOME COMMENTS.

I I, I THINK COUNCILWOMAN PETRINO'S SUGGESTION IS A GOOD ONE. YOU KNOW, MORE MORE CONVERSATION IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN LESS.

AND AND IN TERMS OF GETTING PEOPLE COMFORTABLE I THINK EVERYONE PRETTY MUCH WAS SURPRISED PERHAPS, YOU KNOW WHETHER WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR NOT, JUST, YOU KNOW, THE THE LARGE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL VENUES ON ON THE PROPERTY THAT WERE SUGGESTED AND THE VERY LIMITED SETTING OF PARAMETERS.

SO I THINK HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS IS GOOD, YOU KNOW I THINK

[04:10:08]

THAT WHAT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM MR. ANGARITA IS THAT IS TWO THINGS THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AND POSITIVE.

NUMBER ONE, THAT IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT, TELL ME IF I DID THAT NO MORE THAN TWO LOCATIONS ON THE EAST SIDE OF GULF SHORE BOULEVARD AND NO MORE THAN TWO ON THE WEST SIDE OF GULF SHORE BOULEVARD WOULD BE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVATED AT ANY ONE TIME.

SO THAT ALONE REDUCES THE NUMBER FROM 27 TO 4.

IN PRACTICAL TERMS. RIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THE STATEMENT THAT NO LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WILL OCCUR BEYOND 10 P.M..

IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT. HAVING SAID THAT, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THESE CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AND COMMUNITY COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS SHOULDN'T OCCUR. I THINK THEY'D BE VERY HEALTHY.

BUT I THINK THOSE TWO THINGS ALONE SET A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

AND YOU MAY HAVE OTHER THINGS AS WELL YOU WANT TO ADD.

SO AS LONG AS LONG AS WE ARE CLEARLY CREATING A PROCESS THAT IN THE INTERIM ALLOWS YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLY MANAGED EVENTS TO OCCUR AT THE FOUR SEASONS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER.

I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST TO HAVE THESE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS AND THEN BRING THIS BACK HERE, PERHAPS AS A PACKAGE, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT TOGETHER FOR A FUTURE VOTE.

JUST AN ADDENDUM TO THAT ONE SENTENCE, OF COURSE.

THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS IN ADDITION TO THAT ALSO GIVES OUR STAFF WHICH WHICH JUST GAVE US A REQUEST REALLY TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NARROW DOWN THE LANGUAGE AND REALLY MAKE THIS MAKE THIS A PETITION A LOT MORE CONCISE IN ITS LANGUAGE.

AND I THINK THAT WAS A WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST FROM FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR US AND FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND FOR FIRE IN THE FUTURE.

IF WE HAD ALL OF THE PARAMETERS IN THE SUBMITTAL BEFORE YOU THAT YOU COULD APPROVE, INSTEAD OF HAVING A SET OF PLANS THAT ARE THEN AMENDED BY A TON OF CONDITIONS AND A RESOLUTION THAT THAT'S WHERE WE RUN INTO ISSUES ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE.

SO SORRY. DIEGO. WHEN WE SPOKE, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE. AND YOU JUST STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WEREN'T.

BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING. I, I BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I'M SURE THE COMMUNITY HAS REACHED OUT TO YOU.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT STAFF HAS CONCERNS.

COMMUNITY HAS CONCERNS. AND FOR YOUR RUNNING YOUR BUSINESS THAT THERE ARE PARAMETERS FOR YOU.

I BELIEVE THAT, LIKE I SAID TO YOU, YOU MAY NOT HAVE A REQUEST FROM SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO DO A BIRTHDAY PARTY.

THEY ALL OF A SUDDEN DECIDE THEY WANT TO DO IT IN THE ONE AREA AND TO COME TO COUNCIL.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME. SO I UNDERSTAND THE BROAD REQUEST, BUT WE DON'T DO THAT FOR ANYONE ELSE.

WE DON'T JUST GO, OKAY, WE TRUST YOU, WHICH I DO.

YOU JUST DO WHATEVER YOU WANT SO IT WOULDN'T BE RIGHT AND FAIR OR JUST TO, TO DO THAT.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO GO BACK AND DO THESE DETAILS.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON THE RECORD, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT ANYONE HAS, THAT THEY SHARE IT NOW SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE ISSUES AT THIS POINT.

AND THE ONE PLACE I HAVE AN ISSUE IS OUT IN THE GULF AREA.

WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT THAT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? IS THIS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW? AND WE TWO LOCATIONS, ONE BY THE PRO SHOP AND FM OUTLET THERE.

AND NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE DRIVING RANGE. AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE USED FOR COCKTAIL RECEPTIONS IN THE BACKGROUND.

MUSIC. OPPORTUNITY. THIS WOULD NOT BE A LIFE LARGE EVENT OR A BAND.

AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE ONLY TO SUPPLEMENT BUSINESS THAT IS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS IN THE HOTEL.

WE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FOR LACK OF A BETTER PHRASE, SELLING TICKETS TO OUTSIDE PATRONS OR DECIDING TO HAVE A RECEPTION THERE WITH A THREE PIECE BAND.

CORRECT. SO THAT CAN BE OPENED UP WOULD BE DEFINITELY LIMITED TO BACKGROUND MUSIC FOR COCKTAIL RECEPTION.

[04:15:05]

OKAY. ALSO, THE TIMES WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SAID.

AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, AS I SHARED WITH YOU, FOR ME TO DO A LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR A BUILDING THAT ISN'T BUILT YET.

CORRECT. SO AGAIN, I AGREE THAT TWO OF THESE AREAS, THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED YET.

AND GOLF, AS YOU WELL KNOW, IS STILL BEING IN PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION.

SO I AM HAPPY TO AMEND TO THE TWO AREAS THAT ARE COMPLETED RIGHT NOW.

COME BACK WITH THAT AND THEN LOOK AT THESE AREAS AS THEY ARE FULLY COMPLETED AND DISCUSS THOSE.

SOMEONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE ONLY OTHER COUNCIL.

DID YOU READ YOUR COVER LETTER IN HERE? AGAIN? YES. AMENDED AGM TO PUT ON THE RECORD FOR THAT.

OKAY, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK. BUT WE WEREN'T GOING THERE. NO ONE MENTIONED THAT. THEY REALIZED THAT THERE WAS YOU KNOW,.

YEAH, IT'S BEEN CORRECTED. I EMAILED TO COUNCIL.

WE ALL GOT IT, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS GOING TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

BUT YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN A STAFF REPORT. OKAY, SO WE'LL CONTINUE STILL WITH STAFF.

VICE MAYOR. SO, MAYOR, IF I COULD JUST REAL QUICK, IF YOU DON'T MIND, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE HEARING.

WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING. IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS RESPECT.

I MEAN, AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY CAUSE OF JUDICIAL HEARINGS WORK. SO IF IF THE FEELING IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS, I THINK WE'VE GIVEN THEM PARAMETERS.

IT'S OKAY TO SAY TO GIVE THEM SOME ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS.

BUT TO START ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ACTUAL LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHOULD HAPPEN AT THE NEXT HEARING.

NO QUESTIONS FOR ME, JUST STATEMENTS. DID SOMEONE SAY THEY WERE GOING TO CONTINUE IT? I THINK STAFF ESSENTIALLY REQUESTED IT BASED ON MORE INFORMATION, AND I BELIEVE I'VE SEEN A LOT OF HEAD NODS.

MAYOR THAT'S WHERE I WAS MOVING. YES. OKAY. DEFINITELY.

ALL RIGHT. SORRY, VICE MAYOR. THAT'S OKAY. SO SEVERAL HAVE MADE COMMENTS BEFORE WE TAKE AND GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

I JUST WANT TO GET SOME COMMENTS ON THE ON THE RECORD SO THAT AS WE PREPARE FOR THE NEXT PHASE, WHICH I WON'T BE HERE. SO JUST SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT TIME COMMITMENTS HAVE CHANGED AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S IN THE RECORD.

SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT, IT'S A BLANKET 10 P.M.

FOR OUTDOOR. FOR OUTDOOR? YES. FOR OUTDOOR. CORRECT.

OKAY. INASMUCH AS IT'S POSSIBLE TO EXECUTE IT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD SOME OF OUR DELIBERATIONS TODAY EARLIER WHERE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOUND CONTROLS.

YES. RIGHT. SO INASMUCH AS IT'S AVAILABLE TO DO SO, IF THESE LOCATIONS, THESE 27, 28 LOCATIONS, IF THEY'RE CONSTANTLY MOVING AROUND, EVEN WITHIN A GIVEN AREA AROUND THE SHED OR WHEREVER IT IS.

IF THEY'RE CONSTANTLY MOVING AROUND AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME LOCATION, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC.

IF THEY'RE CONSISTENT, THEN CONSISTENCY ALWAYS HELPS IN MY OPINION.

AND IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOUND CONTROLS.

RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF PERCEPTION THAT THE SOUND IS CHANGING AND WIND AND STUFF CAN DO THAT.

BUT REALITY CAN BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THE MAYOR'S ALREADY ADDRESSED WRITTEN COMMITMENTS AND THOSE WRITTEN COMMITMENTS ADDRESSING THE OMNI ENTERTAINMENT ASPECT AND CONCURRENCY OF THE OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.

RESIDENT INPUT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. I'M ADVOCATING FOR THAT.

AND REALLY THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD, AND IN LOOKING AT THE MATERIALS I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE COMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTY IS BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN THE MAPS.

AND BUT I SEE ON THE CHART THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A COMMERCIAL ASPECT.

COULD YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHERE THAT IS? IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL.

WELL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS A COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON YOUR DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL IN IN THE CODE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S SUBJECT TO THE CHARTER NOW WAS CLARIFIED.

SO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSIDERED A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

HBS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S A COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT.

SO IN THE CHART IN THE PACKET YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL LIST.

[04:20:06]

OR CAN I JUST ASK WHAT CHART WE'RE REFERRING TO JUST SO I CAN BE THERE TOO IN THE PACKET.

SO THAT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF THE AGENDA MEMORANDUM.

OKAY. AND PAGE FIVE YOU SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF 41.

THE EAST SIDE OF 41. IS. SO THE EXISTING LAND USE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO US 41. SO ON THE EAST SIDE OF US 41, THERE'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE.

YES. OKAY. BUT ON THIS PROPERTY IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL.

SO, NOPE. THE PROPERTY WHEN IT COMES TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS THE ENTIRE THING.

SO THIS IS THE ENTIRE NAPLES BEACH CLUB PROPERTY.

SO IT EXTENDS ALL THE WAY FROM THE GULF TO 41.

AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHEN WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, I SEE R THREE, T 18 AND THE PD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

SO BUT BY DEFINITION IN YOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES IN CHAPTER 44 DEFINED IT, IT LISTS OUT WHAT DISTRICTS ARE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSIDERED A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

OKAY, SO MY POINT IN THIS IS THIS THAT AS WE LOOK AT THESE 27 LOCATIONS FOR ENTERTAINMENT, RIGHT, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WE'RE IN AND AROUND AND I'M THINKING, I'M REALLY NOW SINCE YOU'RE CLARIFYING THAT IT'S COMMERCIAL, NOT RESIDENTIAL, OR THERE'S ASPECTS OF COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THIS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT THAT COULD BE HAPPENING IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. WHEN WE'RE SO CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

AND REMEMBER THE PREVIOUS STATE, WHAT THE PREVIOUS STATE WAS THAT WE HAD A HOTEL THERE AND A RESORT, AND I'M NOT SURE. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY LIVE MUSIC LOCATIONS WERE THERE? FIVE. TWO. SO WE'RE GOING FROM 5 TO 27. AND THAT'S WHERE THE THE POTENTIAL FRICTION POINTS ARE.

AND WE'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE MANY TIMES, BUT MY ASK IS JUST LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT ENGAGEMENT AND, AND HAVE A CHANCE TO COMMIT IT TO WRITING. THAT'S CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT.

THAT'S IT, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU.

I'M LOOKING AT THE CITY ATTORNEY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE WAS STATED AT THE BEGINNING OF HEARING OF THIS ITEM WHEN YOU READ THE RESOLUTION THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CONTINUANCE. I'M CONFUSED. NO, I THINK ONCE I READ THE TITLE, EVERYONE WAS SWORN IN.

THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM STAFF.

THERE ARE TALKS. I'M GETTING A FEELING. THEN PETITIONER TALKED ABOUT HAVING MORE TIME.

THERE WAS REQUESTS. WE'RE HEADING THE CONTINUANCE.

WAIT. WE DON'T HAVE TO. IF WE WANT TO HANDLE THIS, THAT'S FINE.

I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. I DID NOT HEAR ANYONE ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE.

AND THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING IN ORDER. BUT I DID HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'M CONFUSED. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE. AT THE BEGINNING.

OKAY. I IF I IF I'LL CLARIFY, I WAS TALKING I TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THIS THIS AND TO THE PETITIONER.

IT NEEDED TO BE TIGHTENED UP. BUT WHAT I'M ALSO TRYING TO SAY IS.

WHETHER WE ALLOW THIS OR NOT. LET ME REPHRASE.

LET ME STOP. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS THEM GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT OUR CODE AND ORDINANCE DEMANDS? IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. AND WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

AND THIS IS ALSO DOESN'T SET THE PRECEDENT THAT EVERYBODY ELSE FROM NOW ON HAS TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR OUTDOOR MUSIC.

AND I JUST I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT YOU DO, WHICH ISN'T REQUIRED.

AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SAY. LIKE I SAID, THEY COULD ALL BE ALL FOR IT RIGHT NOW. IT STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE ENFORCE AND MONITOR NOISE LEVELS. THAT IS GOING TO BE IN EFFECT, WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT.

THEY COULD LOVE IT AND ALL WANT IT. AND WE SAY, HEY, IT'S TOO LOUD. SO I SAY THAT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THAT.

[04:25:02]

AND I STILL THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED UP. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS UNTIL WHEN THE THE INDOOR PORTION OF THIS LIVE ENTERTAINMENT REQUEST WAS ADVERTISED FOR THE FEBRUARY 18TH MEETING, FEBRUARY 18TH.

THEN DOES THAT IF THAT WORKS WITH THE PETITIONER? YES, IT DOES, WITH THE PROVISO THAT THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS THEY HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY MANAGER MANAGING THE EVENTS THAT ARE GOING THERE NOW.

RIGHT. SO CLAY BROOKER, FOR THE RECORD. YEAH.

WE'RE WELCOME. WE'RE WE'RE WILLING TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY IF THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WHERE WE'RE GOING, THE EXTENSION, I THINK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND NOTICE PERSPECTIVE, IF WE COULD EXTEND TO A DATE CERTAIN I BELIEVE IT'S FEBRUARY 18TH, THE ENTIRE APPLICATION, BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR, WITH THE EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE OPERATING THE HOTEL FOR A HANDFUL OF EVENTS IN THE INTERIM PERIOD ONLY UNTIL WE COME BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

MY ONLY QUESTION IS, I THOUGHT THE INDOOR WAS NOTICED SEPARATELY.

SEPARATELY HAS A SEPARATE APPLICATION. SO BEFORE US TODAY WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN A DECISION BASED ON OUTDOOR.

THEREFORE, I THINK THEY WILL LINE UP IF WE COULD JUST GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE.

TO FEBRUARY 18TH TO BE HEARD WITH THE INDOOR APPLICATION.

THEN I MOVE THAT WE. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, MR. YOUNG? I'M SORRY. NO. OKAY. NO. I WAS LIKE, TWO STATEMENTS CAN BE TRUE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EXPRESSIONS.

I, IN FAIRNESS TO BOTH YOU AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.

MAYOR. I THINK HE'S RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION EVERYONE WAS GOING.

BUT IN FAIRNESS TO YOU, IT WASN'T IT SAID THAT WAY.

SO I JUST WANTED. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON I TURNED MY LIGHT ON IS I THINK WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

GET THERE, IF I MAY, MAYOR, I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO MOVE THAT WE REVISIT THIS AT THE FEBRUARY 8TH. THE OUTDOOR THE OUTDOOR MUSIC PORTION OF THIS REQUEST WILL BE CONTINUED TO THANK YOU.

LEE 2026 LEE THREE TO FEBRUARY 18TH, WHEN WE'LL HEAR BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? SECOND. SECOND. NO, A QUESTION DISCUSSION.

CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? I HAVE A SECOND AND DISCUSSION WOULD BE.

AND THIS IS JUST A I GUESS YOU CALL IT A TECHNICAL POINT, BUT THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US TODAY IN THE AGENDA PACKET WAS PREPARED AS A 26 LA THREE. AS A MATTER REGARDING INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, NOT JUST NOT JUST OUTDOOR. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION WE'RE MAKING HERE DOES NOT CREATE A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF HOW WE LINE THINGS UP. ON FEBRUARY 18TH, I WAS TOLD THE INDOOR WAS REMOVED.

THE REQUEST THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY STAFF TODAY IN MY STAFF REPORT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO ONLY INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR PORTION OF THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND I HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THAT BEFORE THE MEETING. I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING WHAT WAS PREPARED AND SENT IN AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD TALKS ABOUT INDOOR AND OUTDOOR.

AND I'M JUST THIS IS REALLY THIS IS REALLY A CITY ATTORNEY QUESTION, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT RUNNING INTO ANY TECHNICAL OR LEGAL ISSUES AS WE TEE THIS UP FOR FEBRUARY 18TH. THAT'S ALL.

I APPRECIATE IT. I THINK THE MOTION THAT'S MADE IS SUFFICIENT.

I THINK JUST CONTINUING THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 18TH, THEY'RE BOTH GOING TO LINE UP ANYWAYS IS SUFFICIENT AS WELL.

BUT FOR THE DUE PROCESS ASPECT OF THIS QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOTICE WAS MAILED OUT TO THE RADIUS FOR AGAIN FOR THE FEBRUARY 18TH FOR THE INDOOR ASPECT OF THIS. SO I THINK IT HAS TO BE NOTICED AGAIN.

NO. IF YOU CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN WHICH THE MOTION ALREADY DOES, THEN IT WILL ESSENTIALLY LINE UP WITH THE INDOOR AND BOTH WILL BE HEARD AT THE SAME HEARING. VERY GOOD QUESTION.

YEAH. THIS THE THIS CONVERSATION INITIATED HAVING TO DO WITH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RELATIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR PETITION. THAT'S NOT IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW THAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED THAT THERE WILL BE SOME COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT BEFORE FEBRUARY 18TH. THAT WAS NOT IN PART, PART AND PARCEL OF THIS, OF THIS MOTION. CORRECT. SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE MOTION IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

[04:30:10]

NOW WE'RE HAVING FUN. YEAH. WELL, WE COULD PASS THIS AND THEN MAKE A SECOND MOTION HAVING TO DO WITH COMMUNITY.

WE CAN. BUT THE RECORD PRIOR TO THE MOTION ON CONTINUANCE IS VERY CLEAR.

COUNCIL REQUESTED THINGS. APPLICANT AGREED TO THEM.

THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE CONTINUING TO A DATE CERTAIN IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADD IN THE MOTION THAT THE CONTINUANCE IS BECAUSE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WORKING WITH STAFF.

THAT IS COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN CLEAR ON WHAT'S SAID THAT THAT IS WHAT THE REQUEST IS BASED ON, BUT THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH YOU ADDING IT TO THE MOTION IF THE MOTION MAKER WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.

LET'S GET A CONSENSUS ON THE PART OF CONSENSUS ON WHAT THAT MEANS.

I MEAN, IF I COULD ADD SOMETHING TO THIS CONVERSATION, GIVEN THE CONVERSATION THAT'S OCCURRED THUS FAR ABOUT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, IF WE WERE TO SHOW UP ON FEBRUARY 18TH BEFORE YOU AND HAD NOT ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY, WE WOULD BE DOING SO AT OUR EXTREME PERIL.

I MISSED THAT, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT A LITTLE LOUDER.

YOU WOULD. EXTREME PERIL. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

SO THEY WILL DO IT. ALL RIGHT. BUT. BUT IT IS NOT.

I'M SORRY. I MEAN, I TRUST YOU. BUT BUT I THINK IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE LANGUAGE.

I. NO OFFENSE TAKEN AT ALL. THANK YOU. SIR. WITH WITH RESPECT, I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION OKAY, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THIS PETITIONER VERBATIM TO DO SOMETHING THAT NO ONE ELSE IS REQUIRED TO DO.

I'M NOT DOING THAT. OKAY? SO IF SOMEBODY ELSE FEELS COMFORTABLE DOING THAT, THEN FEEL FREE.

I'M NOT DOING THAT. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. DO WE VOTE ON THAT? NO. VOTE ON THAT. AND IF IT PASSES, FINE. IT JUST LET'S VOTE.

YEAH. YEAH. NO. WELL, YOUR MOTION STANDS. WE'LL VOTE ON IT AND IT'LL PASS OR NOT.

OKAY. MOTION A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE HOLD THE COUNCIL. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BURTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

PASSES 6 TO 1. WELL DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WE JUST CONTINUED. 11 G. COULD WE TAKE FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU. YOU KNOW. OKAY, WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK, AND WE ARE CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 13 B, I MEAN, 13 A. EXCUSE ME. OH, AND I ASKED THE ATTORNEY TO CHECK

[13.A) Consideration of the Repeat Special Event Applications Enumerated Below:1. St. Patrick Parade – Golden Anniversary – Downtown Naples2. Naples Pride Fest – Cambier Park]

THE HEAT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL.

YOU ARE CORRECT. THE HEAT WAS ON. OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT.

SO WITH WITH ITEM 13 A MAYOR. WE DO HAVE TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.

I AM ASSUMING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. PEOPLE HAVE IDENTIFIED 13 A AS THE ITEM THEY WANT TO SPEAK ON.

WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE SAINT PATRICK'S PARADE FIRST.

SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ASK ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE SO THAT WE ARE ENSURING THAT WE ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION, THAT THEY'RE HERE FOR, THAT. IF ANYONE'S HERE FOR THE SAINT PATRICK'S PARADE TO RAISE YOUR HAND.

JUST. OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE TWO OVER HERE THAT ARE HERE TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE'LL READ THE RESOLUTION, WE'LL DISCUSS IT, HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN TAKE THE VOTE.

CORRECT. SO WE WILL HANDLE EACH ONE SEPARATELY.

WE'RE NOT AT THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION YET, BUT GOOD TO KNOW THEY'RE THERE.

OKAY. AND WITH THAT WE CAN START WITH STAFF MAYOR.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAD MERRITT, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THE TWO THAT ARE HERE, ACTUALLY THE ORGANIZERS.

SO THEY HAVE THEIR REQUEST. SO WE WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THEM TO STATE THEIR REQUEST FOR THIS EVENT DURING THE GET TO THAT PART.

SO I'M GOING TO ALLOW DANIELLE, SHE'S GOING TO HANDLE THE DETAILS OF THIS EVENT AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON I'M DANIELLE, A SPECIAL EVENTS AND MARKETING SUPERVISOR.

[04:35:02]

THE FIRST EVENT IS THE SAINT PATRICK PARADE, THEIR GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY.

THE APPLICANT IS THE NAPLES SAINT PATRICK FOUNDATION.

THEY ARE A NONPROFIT. THE EVENT DATE IS MARCH 14TH, 2026.

THE LOCATION WILL BE THROUGHOUT DOWNTOWN NAPLES.

THE SETUP TIME IS FROM 8 A.M. TO 11 A.M.. THE EVENT TIME IS FROM 11 A.M.

TO 1 P.M., AND THE TAKEDOWN TIME IS FROM 1 P.M.

TO 2 P.M. ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE IS AROUND 10,000.

THIS IS A COMMUNITY EVENT. THERE WILL BE AMPLIFIED SOUND.

THERE WILL NOT BE ALCOHOL. THERE WILL NOT BE TENTS.

THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL SANITARY FACILITIES.

AND THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED 120 DAYS PRIOR.

COUNCIL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ANTICIPATED ATTENDANCE.

THE STREET CLOSURES AMPLIFIED SOUND, AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ASKING FOR FEES TO BE WAIVED.

AND AT THIS TIME WE WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT, IF POSSIBLE, TO COME UP AND AND REQUEST FOR OR I GUESS, ADVISE YOU OF THEIR REQUEST. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT I WANT TO MAKE CLARIFICATION THAT THIS EVENT HAS NEVER BEEN HAS NEVER ASKED OR HAS HAD THE COST WAIVED. CORRECT.

AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE, IT HAS NOT. SO I CAN'T SPEAK FROM PRIOR TO.

BUT SINCE MY ARRIVAL, WE HAVE NEVER HAD THAT REQUEST.

THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

YOU SAID IT'S A COMMUNITY EVENT TO FIND THAT JUST MEANING IT'S OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY TO ACCESS.

SO IT'S NOT A PRIVATE EVENT. OKAY. ANY IS THERE ANY OTHER DETAILS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED EXCEPT FOR THE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER? OKAY. IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD TO THE FRONT PODIUM AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME, THANK YOU AND MAKE YOUR REQUEST.

OKAY. I REPRESENT THE NAPLES SAINT PATRICK FOUNDATION, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO READ A LITTLE SOMETHING HERE.

WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE CITY WAIVE THE MUNICIPAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAPLES SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE.

WE ARE ALSO ASKING FOR BARRICADE COSTS. THE CITY IS NOW REQUIRING US TO BARRICADE THE ENTIRE ROUTE.

AND THAT WOULD BE A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $43,000.

THE COSTS HAVE RISEN TO A LEVEL THAT OUR SMALL GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS CAN NO LONGER SUSTAIN.

OUR BILL FROM THE CITY IN 2024 TOTALED OVER $20,000, A FIGURE THAT JEOPARDIZES THE FUTURE OF THIS CHERISHED EVENT A TRADITION, A TRADITIONAL EVENT. IN ADDITION, WE ENSURE THE CITY'S STREETS FOR THE DAY.

WE PROVIDE THE PORTA POTTIES, WE PAY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND COUNTLESS OTHER EXPENSES.

WITHOUT THE CITY'S ASSISTANCE, THIS WILL LIKELY BE THE FINAL YEAR WE ARE ABLE TO BRING THIS PARADE TO THE STREETS OF NAPLES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MANY EVENTS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE SEEKING SIMILAR SUPPORT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WHAT SETS THE NAPLES SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE APART.

A HISTORIC LEGACY EVENT THIS MARKS THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF NAPLES SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE, ONE OF THE CITY'S CITY'S LONGEST RUNNING AND MOST BELOVED TRADITIONS.

PROVEN ECONOMIC IMPACT. ACCORDING TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

OUR PARADE IS THE MOST INQUIRED ABOUT EVENT OF THE YEAR, CONSISTENTLY DRIVING SIGNIFICANT LOCAL ACTIVITY.

IT'S ENTIRELY VOLUNTEER RUN. WE ARE A SMALL GROUP OF COMMITTED VOLUNTEERS.

NO ONE RECEIVES COMPENSATION AND WE DO NOT CHARGE THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND OR ENJOY THE EVENT.

WE SUPPORT THE YOUTH AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS. EACH MARCHING BAND THAT PARTICIPATES RECEIVES A $2,000 GRANT TO SUPPORT THEIR SCHOOL'S MUSIC PROGRAM.

ADDITIONALLY, WE SUPPORT THE EDUCATION FOUNDATION, STAR ABILITY AND PACE.

SHOULDN'T THESE FUNDS WE PAINSTAKINGLY RAISE GO TO THE CHILDREN? IT'S A MEANINGFUL AND PATRIOTIC CEREMONY. BEFORE THE PARADE, WE HOST A HISTORIC FLAG RAISING DOWN AT CRAYTON COVE, WHERE WE HONOR VETERANS, SERVICE MEMBERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL A CEREMONY IN WHICH NAPLES MAYORS HAVE PROUDLY PARTICIPATED IN FOR DECADES. A TRUE COMMUNITY EVENT. THIS IS NOT A OH, THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

IT'S A CELEBRATION FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS, UNITING FAMILIES ACROSS GENERATIONS.

WE ARE A SAFE, WELL-MANAGED EVENT. THE PARADE HAS NEVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH DISTURBANCES OR UNRULY BEHAVIOR.

NAPLES POLICE CONSISTENTLY REPORT ZERO ARRESTS OR INCIDENTS, FROM INFANTS IN STROLLERS TO SENIORS WITH CANES,

[04:40:04]

AND EVEN FAMILY PETS. THE PARADE IS ADORED BY EVERYONE.

AGAIN, IT IS WITH DEEP REGRET THAT WE SHARE THAT WITHOUT YOUR PARTNERSHIP, IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS IS OUR FINAL YEAR ORGANIZING THE EVENT. WE ARE ASKING WITH GREAT HOPE FOR YOUR HELP TO SAVE THE PARADE.

THANK YOU AND I'LL JUST FOR DECORUM, NO CLAPPING, NO BOOING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM STAFF? NOTHING FROM US. MAYOR COUNCIL. VICE MAYOR? WELL, I'VE ALWAYS ENJOYED THE SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE.

IT'S THE ONE OF THE FEW TIMES I GET TO DRESS UP AND LOOK RIDICULOUS.

AND SMILE. BUT AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FEES, BUT FOR ME, THAT IS PROBLEMATIC IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. KRAMER. I FEEL TERRIBLE SAYING MUCH THE SAME. I'M A PAST GRAND MARSHAL. I LOVE IT.

MY FAMILY LOVES IT. THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT WE'D GET YOUR VOTE FOR US.

WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT SAFETY IS FIRST FOR US.

LIKE IN THIS CITY. THAT'S FIRST. AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW BEST PRACTICES FOR EVENTS.

ALL EVENTS. AND. AND THEN, LIKE YOU SAID, IT COMES.

WELL, WHICH WHICH DO YOU WAIVE AND WHICH DON'T YOU.

AND WHICH IS WHY I HAD WANTED STAFF TO DEFINE WHAT COMMUNITY EVENT MEANT, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALSO OTHER EVENTS THAT WE LIKE THE MARTIN LUTHER KING PARADE THAT WE SPONSOR, AND CHRISTMAS AND 4TH OF JULY. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND SO THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT I'VE BEEN BEATING THIS DRUM SINCE BEFORE I GOT ON COUNCIL ABOUT.

WE GOT TO FIGURE WE GOT TO GET OUR EVENTS RIGHT. WE HAVE TOO MANY EVENTS.

WE HAVE TOO MUCH GOING ON. WE ARE NOT AN EVENT VENUE.

THE PEOPLE THAT VOTE FOR US HAVE SAID THIS RESOUNDINGLY.

AND WE WE'RE GOING TO THIS SPRING. I LOOK FORWARD TO US TIGHTENING THIS UP.

GETTING MUCH MORE SPECIFIC AND LIMITING EVENTS.

THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, WE'RE NOT REALLY ADDRESSING THAT UNTIL THE SPRING. SO AT THIS POINT, I WILL SAY I LOVE THE PARADE, BUT THERE'S NO WAY THAT I CAN SUPPORT WAIVING THE FEES.

YES. BARTON. SADLY, I'VE GOT SIMILAR SENTIMENTS.

THEY PARADE IS FANTASTIC. IT'S IT'S IT'S A BLAST.

IT'S A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY EVENT. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. IT'S A COMMUNITY EVENT THAT BRINGS OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER. AND I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF THE PARADE HOWEVER TRYING TO FIND A JUSTIFICATION FOR OFFSETTING THE COST FOR THIS ONE VERSUS OTHERS, YOU KNOW, WE START TO SET PRECEDENTS AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO JUSTIFY DECISIONS.

AND AND IT PUTS US IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION.

SO WITH THAT SAID WHAT I WOULD AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THIS YEAR TO BE THE LAST YEAR, AND MY GUESS IS THAT WITH SOME EFFORTS FROM YOUR VOLUNTEERS, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO FIND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT ARE GOING TO BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE FINANCIALLY TO HELP THIS CONTINUE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT ENJOY THE HECK OUT OF THIS THING.

AS, AS MR. MERRITT JUST MENTIONED A SECOND AGO THE EXPECTED PARTICIPATION FROM FROM CONSTITUENTS AND RESIDENTS AND, AND PARTY GOERS IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 10,000.

SO I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW, CORPORATE SPONSORS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU GUYS WILL FIND A WAY TO, TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK THAT WE AS A CITY, AS A MUNICIPALITY, ARE GOING TO BE IN A POSITION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COST OF THAT.

OTHER COMMENTS. COUNCIL? OKAY. ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL APPROVING THE EVENT BUT NOT APPROVING THE PARTICIPATION OR WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO HERE? YOU MEAN WAIVING THE. YES. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT, IS THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO APPROVE THE EVENT AND NOT WAIVE THE FEES, BUT YOU DO NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EVENT BASED ON SIZE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. STAFF SAID. ALL RIGHT.

THE MOTION, MADAM MAYOR. YES, I WOULD SUBMIT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EVENT, BUT BUT NOT WAIVE THE FEES.

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

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL.

[04:45:08]

COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. YES.

VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YEP. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES.

MAYOR. YES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE PARADE THIS YEAR.

THANK YOU.

MR. MERRITT? YES, AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAD MERRITT, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR.

SORRY, I HAD TO SWITCH UP A LITTLE BIT. THE NEXT EVENT IS THE NAPLES PRIDE FEST.

THE APPLICANT IS NAPLES PRIDE. THEY ARE A NONPROFIT.

THE EVENT DATE IS APRIL 18TH, 2026. THIS YEAR, THE EVENT LOCATION IS CAMBIER PARK.

THE EVENT HOURS IS. THEY WILL DO A SETUP FROM 6 A.M.

TO 11 A.M.. THE EVENT TIME WILL BE FROM 11 A.M.

TO 4 P.M.. TAKE DOWN IS 4 P.M. TO 6 P.M. ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE IS 4000 IS A COMMUNITY EVENT.

THIS IS A. THEIR PARKING WILL BE IN SURROUNDING LOTS.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A STREET CLOSURE OR WE WILL HAVE STREET CLOSURES.

AMPLIFIED SOUND ALCOHOL WILL BE PRESENT. THEY HAVE.

THEY WILL HAVE TO FILL OUT AND SUBMIT AND HAVE A TENTS APPROVED.

THEY WILL HAVE SANITARY FACILITIES. THEY DID SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION AT LEAST 120 DAYS IN ADVANCE.

STAFF FEEDBACK AND CONCERNS WITH THE 2025 EVENT.

THE EVENTS FOOTPRINT AND SIZE AFFECTED NORMAL PARK USAGE AND USE OF CITY RESOURCES.

FOR EXAMPLE, TEMPORARILY CLOSING THE OPERATION OF THE TENNIS CENTER IN NORRIS CENTER.

WE HAD STREET CLOSURES. WE HAD PARKING ISSUES AS WELL AS THERE WERE STAFF AND BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS, STAFF FEEDBACK AND CONCERNS WITH THE 2026 APPLICATION.

THE SPECIAL EVENT COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND IDENTIFIED SEVERAL CONCERNS.

BASED ON THE CURRENT PROPOSED EVENT, THE ESTIMATED SECURITY STAFFING WOULD EXCEED MPD'S CAPABILITIES, NECESSITATING ASSISTANCE FROM COLLIER COUNTY AS WELL AS OUTSIDE OTHER OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

ADDITIONALLY, BEST PRACTICE FOR AN EVENT THIS SIZE AT THIS PART WOULD REQUIRE CLOSURE OF SURROUNDING STREETS.

THE ADEQUATE TO ADEQUATELY MANAGE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.

ADDITIONAL FRENCH BARRICADES WOULD BE REQUIRED, WHICH IS RESULTING IN AN ESTIMATED INCREASE OF ABOUT 20 TO 30,000 IN CITY COST.

I DID GET A QUOTE. THAT QUOTE IS CLOSER TO ABOUT 17,000, AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE AMPLIFIED ENTERTAINMENT. THE CROWD SIZE OVER 1500 AND THE OFF SITE PARKING AND STREET CLOSURE.

AND I WILL ALLOW THEM TO TAKE OVER WITH WHATEVER THEY HAVE.

SO BEFORE YOU START, IF I COULD, MAYOR REAL QUICK JUST TO STAY IN LINE WITH WHAT WE DID WITH SAINT PATRICK, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO HEAR FROM THE EVENT ORGANIZER ON THEIR REQUEST SPECIFICALLY, AND THEN WE CAN GO TO ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE STREET CLOSURES.

FROM OUR MPD. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CALLAN SULLIVAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I AM A NAPLES PRIDE BOARD MEMBER AND OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY ON APPROVING OUR APPLICATION.

I AM ALSO A NAPLES NATIVE, A NAPLES RESIDENT, IN 34102, A MOTHER AND A LAWYER.

AND THE CITY HAS APPROVED THIS FESTIVAL BEFORE WITH FAMILY FRIENDLY DRAG PERFORMANCES OUTSIDE ON OUR BEAUTIFUL CAMBIER PARK'S MAIN STAGE.

THE LAST TIME WAS IN 2022, WHEN EVERY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WAS SERVING AT THAT TIME VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE IT IN THAT EXACT FORMAT, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE OUR STRONGEST CRITICS.

FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, OUR PERMIT WAS ONLY APPROVED IF DRAG REMAINED INDOORS AND ADULTS ONLY.

WHAT CHANGED IN 2023 WAS NOT NAPLES PRIDE OR THE FESTIVAL.

IT WAS THE POLITICAL CLIMATE OF MISINFORMATION THAT MADE DRAG PERFORMERS AND THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY TARGETS.

[04:50:04]

ACCORDING TO THE NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SAFETY INCIDENTS, NO FINDINGS OF LEWD CONDUCT AND NO VIOLATIONS OF LAW BY NAPLES PRIDE FACTS THIS CITY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED. CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER PUBLIC OPINION FOR THE CITY'S POLICY CHOICES, LIKE WHETHER TO MAKE CAMPERS PARK A TREE THEME OR A BOAT THEME, OR WHOSE CHRISTMAS PARADE FLOAT WAS THE BEST.

BUT HERE, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT DECIDED BY A POPULARITY VOTE OR SHOW OF HANDS.

AND TO BE CLEAR, RESIDENT OPPOSITION IS NOT A VAST MAJORITY.

WE DID A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST OF EMAILS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AND COUNCIL OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS, AND IT JUST DOESN'T INDICATE THAT. AND WE UNDERSTAND IT MAY FEEL EASIER TO ASK OUR GROUP TO MAKE OURSELVES SMALLER SO THAT SOME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, OR TO SHIFT THE COST OF ANTICIPATED HOSTILITY TOWARDS LGBT INCLUSIVITY ONTO OUR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT GOOD GOVERNANCE OR THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS.

ONE FEAR BECAME BECOMES THE MEASURE OF SAFETY.

HOSTILE ACTORS ARE GIVEN A VETO POWER OVER LAWFUL SPEECH.

THEY ARE GIVEN A BLUEPRINT. CREATE FEAR AND YOU CAN SILENCE WHATEVER SPEECH YOU WANT.

THAT IS NOT SAFETY. IT IS SURRENDER. HISTORY TELLS US THAT IT RARELY STOPS THERE.

EVEN AFTER DRAG WAS RESTRICTED LAST YEAR, TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS STILL VOTED AGAINST HAVING THE FESTIVAL AT ALL.

WE FEAR IS PRIDE IN ANY FORMAT IN ANY PUBLIC PARK ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.

NEXT. WE ARE NOT OUTSIDERS AND WE ARE NOT EXTREMISTS.

WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS. WE ARE LOVING PARENTS.

SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, VOLUNTEERS, CHURCHGOERS AND PEOPLE REBUILDING AFTER HURRICANES JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HERE.

YET THE CITY HAS SPENT YEARS ASKING US TO RETREAT FOR COMFORT'S SAKE AND MORE RECENTLY, TAXPAYER TIME AND MONEY LITIGATING HOW WE CELEBRATE IN OUR PARKS.

YOU ARE ALL HAVING TO GOVERN DURING A DIFFICULT AND VERY DIVIDED TIME.

SOMEWHERE, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, SOME IN OUR COMMUNITY HAVE LOST SIGHT OF RESPECTING ONE ANOTHER AND BEING ABLE TO HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

DISAGREEMENT IS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. IT IS THE HEARTBEAT OF DEMOCRACY.

CENSORSHIP IS WHAT TURNS DISAGREEMENTS INTO DIVISION, AND THE CURE FOR MISINFORMATION AND FEAR IS VERY RARELY LESS SPEECH, BUT MORE SPEECH. THESE ARE THE SMALL TOWN VALUES WE SHOULD UPHOLD RESPECTING ONE ANOTHER, ALLOWING OURSELVES TO HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AND UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION. AS THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE RECOGNIZED IN DENYING THE CITY'S MOTION JUST A FEW DAYS AGO TO DISMISS OUR CASE, NAPLES PRIDE DRAG PERFORMANCE IS, QUOTE, EXPRESSIVE, EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST COMMITMENT.

EXCUSE ME, FIRST AMENDMENT AND QUOTE, INDISPUTABLY PROTECTED SPEECH FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES.

AND THIS CITY'S RESTRICTIONS WERE IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

APPROVING THIS PERMIT. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO ENDORSE OUR BELIEFS.

WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO ATTEND OUR PRIDE FESTIVAL.

AND WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO UPHOLD QUEER ART.

YOU ARE FREE TO HOLD YOUR OWN BELIEFS. WE ARE ASKING THAT AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOU STAND ON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, RELY ON SAFETY PLANNING WITH OUR NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHO HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXECUTE THIS EVENT SAFELY SINCE 2017.

RATHER THAN FEAR POTENTIAL HOSTILE ACTORS AND SHOW THAT EVEN WHEN IT'S HARD, AND EVEN WHEN IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE, THAT NAPLES IS A BEACON OF DEMOCRACY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COREY, OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT IS GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE HERE TODAY.

AS YOU KNOW, OUR PRIDE FESTIVAL IS AN EVENT THAT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY LOOKS FORWARD TO EVERY YEAR.

IT'S A CHANCE FOR PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER BECAUSE.

BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT HAS BECOME AN EVENT THAT HAS CREATED DEEP DIVISION OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST STARTED COMING HERE, I WOULD SIT IN THE BACK WITH BARELY ANYONE AROUND.

OUR FESTIVAL WOULD BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. STAFF WOULD SAY, OKAY, WE'RE DONE.

AND I DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY A WORD. BUT THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN TREACHEROUS.

WE HAVE HAD TO COME HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO DEFEND OURSELVES, MAKING PRESENTATIONS AND LISTENING TO VILE COMMENTS AND SEEING HATEFUL SIGNS.

WHY? NOTHING ABOUT OUR FESTIVAL HAS CHANGED. IT IS STILL THE SAME FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENT, FUN DAY AND CAMBIER PARK.

[04:55:06]

WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE WORLD AROUND US. ALL OF A SUDDEN, PEOPLE LEARNED THAT HATEFUL RHETORIC PAYS OFF AND THE EASIEST TARGET BECAME OUR LGBT COMMUNITY. SUDDENLY, PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR US AND FOR OUR FAMILIES, AS IF WE ARE NO LONGER CAPABLE OF DOING SO OURSELVES.

YET WE HAVE SHOWN OVER AND OVER AGAIN EXACTLY WHAT OUR FESTIVAL IS A CELEBRATION WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME TOGETHER, ENJOY ONE DAY AND CAMBIER PARK AND FEEL A SENSE OF BELONGING.

I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN THERE. SOME OF YOU HAVE VOLUNTEERED.

YOU WISH US THE BEST YOU'VE SEEN WITH YOUR OWN EYES HOW MUCH JOY AND COMMUNITY THIS FESTIVAL CREATES, AND WE TRULY APPRECIATE THAT WHEN THINGS CHANGE, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT FIGHT IT AND SOME PEOPLE EMBRACE IT.

EVERYONE IS FREE TO DO EITHER. BUT THERE IS A CONSTITUTION WE ALL MUST ABIDE BY.

AND SO ARE YOU. ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT EVERYONE, NO MATTER THE MESSAGE.

WE DON'T ALL HAVE TO AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER. BUT YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO UPHOLD YOUR OATH AND NOT ALLOW PERSONAL BELIEFS OR THE BELIEFS OF A FEW TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, INCLUDING OURS.

UNFORTUNATELY, WHILE WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS CITY COUNCIL IS DOING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

YOU HAVE LISTENED TO A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR FESTIVAL OR OUR MESSAGE, WHILE IGNORING THOSE WHO SHOW UP HERE IN SUPPORT, AND THE THOUSANDS MORE THAT SHOW UP THAT ONE DAY IN THE PARK.

SHOULDN'T THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO CELEBRATE LOVE, INCLUSION AND COMMUNITY HAVE MORE WEIGHT THAN THE FEW WHO ARRIVE WITH HATEFUL SIGNS.

SHOULDN'T PARENTS BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER TO BRING THEIR CHILDREN? SHOULDN'T THOSE WHO WANT TO SEE A DRAG PERFORMANCE BE ALLOWED TO DO SO? AREN'T YOU TIRED OF THIS DIVISION? WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP FOR THE RULE OF LAW, THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERYONE'S FREEDOMS? JUST DAYS AGO, THE FEDERAL COURT DENIED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN NAPLES PRIDE LITIGATION.

IN DOING SO, THE COURT ALLOWED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM TO PROCEED, UNDERSCORING THE RESTRICTION TIED TO CONTENT OF EXPRESSION, PARTICULARLY THOSE AFFECTING DRUG PERFORMANCES, RAISE SERIOUS FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTIONS.

THEIR RULING OFFERS IMPORTANT GUIDANCE AS THE CITY COUNCIL, AS THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS THIS YEAR'S PERMIT.

I RESPECTFULLY ENCOURAGE THE CITY TO GOVERN WITH THAT CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN MIND, AND TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT DO NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON VIEWPOINT. AS YOU CONSIDER HOW TO NAVIGATE THIS PERMIT REQUEST, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO FIND JOY AT OUR PRIDE FESTIVAL AND THE MANY MORE WHO RELY ON OUR CENTER FOR RESOURCES, HEALTHCARE, AND SUPPORT. WHETHER SOMEONE CHOOSES TO ATTEND IS THEIR CHOICE.

BUT PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THAT CHOICE AWAY FROM THOSE WHO WANT TO BE THERE.

I AM ASKING YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND APPROVE THIS PERMIT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.

EVERY MINUTE WE SPEND HERE IS A MINUTE WE COULD BE HELPING SOMEONE IN NEED.

WE FORGET THAT THE MISSION OF LIPASE IS TO SERVE THOSE WHO NEED IT THE MOST.

AND INSTEAD WE ARE HERE TIME AFTER TIME, FIGHTING FOR VISIBILITY, FIGHTING TO BE HEARD.

FIGHTING FOR ALL OF US TO BE SEEN, INCLUDING OUR DRAG COMMUNITY.

I HAVE SEEN WHAT FREEDOM MEANS TO PEOPLE. THE HUGS FROM THOSE WHO FINALLY HEAR THEIR CHOSEN NAME LEGALLY RECOGNIZED.

I HAVE WIPED THEIR TEARS, AND I HAVE SEEN THE JOY ON THEIR FACES AND THE FACES OF THEIR FAMILIES WHEN THEY ARE FINALLY FREE TO LIVE AS THEMSELVES AND BE SEEN AS SUCH.

THIS IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO BE ALLOWED TO CELEBRATE AS FREE PEOPLE.

WE ARE NOT HERE TO IMPOSE ON ANYONE'S RIGHTS.

WE ARE HERE TO STAND UP FOR OUR OWN. WE ARE NOT ASKING ANYONE TO ATTEND OUR FESTIVAL IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, BUT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO LET US. TO LET THOSE WHO DO WANT TO BE THERE ENJOY THAT DAY WITH THEIR FRIENDS, THEIR FAMILY, AND THEIR COMMUNITY SO THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT ALONE.

SO THEY KNOW SOMEONE IS LISTENING. SO THEY KNOW THERE'S LOVE.

SO THEY KNOW THEY ARE EXACTLY WHO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE SMILE YEAR TO YEAR BECAUSE THEY FINALLY FOUND FRIENDS.

[05:00:04]

I KNOW SOME WHO ARE NO LONGER ISOLATING THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY FOUND ACCEPTANCE AND SUPPORT.

OTHERS ARE FINALLY RECEIVING THE MENTAL COUNSELING, MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING THEY DESPERATELY NEED AND THEY CAN SEE THE LIGHT.

IS IT EVERYONE? NO. WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

I HAVE SHARED MANY STORIES WITH YOU OVER THE TIMES I'VE STOOD HERE, AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE MORE.

I JUST HOPE THOSE STORIES CONTINUE TO BE ABOUT LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE RATHER THAN FEAR AND HATE.

I ASK YOU TO VOTE TODAY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO STILL NEED TO FIND THAT LIGHT, THAT FRIEND, THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY.

LET THAT GUIDE YOU. VOTE ON THIS PERMIT NOT ONLY WITH COURAGE, BUT WITH YOUR HEART.

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT SHOWED UP IN SUPPORT TODAY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE TODAY, BUT JUST KNOW WE ARE HERE IN THIS TOGETHER AND WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WITH THAT THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE RESPECT OF DECORUM. WE WILL.

WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU NEEDED TO ADD TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE EVENT? ANY CHANGES TO THE EVENT? YEAH. LIEUTENANT O'REILLY, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE STREET CLOSURES REAL QUICK? YEAH, I'LL START WITH THE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT GO INTO.

I'M SORRY, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL O'REILLY, NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT GO INTO THE DECISION PROCESS FOR LARGE EVENTS LIKE THIS ARE ARE PREDICATED ON CERTAIN FACTS. THE ATTENDANCE SIZE, THE FOOTPRINT SIZE THE IDENTIFIED CHARACTERISTICS AND VULNERABILITIES OF THE PARK AND ALSO THE EVENT ITSELF, WHETHER THERE'S ALCOHOL INVOLVED, WHETHER THERE'S LIVE OR AMPLIFIED MUSIC, WHICH AFFECTS OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES.

SO BASED ON THOSE FACTORS, AND THE REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED LAST YEAR FROM DHS REGARDING THE SECURITY OF THE PARK, WHICH WE'RE ALL AWARE OF WE'VE HAD TO CHANGE OUR SECURITY PLANS FOR THE PARK FOR ANY LARGE EVENT TO INCLUDE THE CLOSURES OF THE SURROUNDING STREETS.

EIGHTH STREET SOUTH IN FRONT OF CAMBER CAMBER PARKWAY BETWEEN EIGHTH STREET AND PARK STREET.

AND DEPENDING ON THE FOOTPRINT, WE MIGHT ALSO HAVE TO CLOSE PARK STREET ITSELF BETWEEN CAMBER PARKWAY AND SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH, EFFECTIVELY MAKING A U AROUND THE PARK. THIS IS DONE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE EVENTS AND THE PARK ITSELF.

THE ISSUE WAS VULNERABILITIES TO OUTSIDE ACTORS, WHETHER DELIBERATE OR ACCIDENTAL.

AND IT WOULD HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.

SO FOR AN EXAMPLE, IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, WE HAVE HAD SIX EVENTS THAT WERE OF A SIZE THAT REQUIRED THIS CLOSURE, AND WE HAVE CLOSED THE ROADS, AND IT HAS WORKED BETTER THIS LAST WEEKEND THAN IT DID THE FIRST WEEKEND.

BUT IT HAS BEEN WORKED THROUGH, AND IT GETS BETTER EVERY WEEKEND BETWEEN NOW AND THE ANTICIPATED DATE FOR THE PRIDE EVENT, WE WILL HAVE 12 MORE EVENTS, SO WE'LL HAVE HAD A TOTAL OF 18 EVENTS THAT HAVE THESE ROAD CLOSURES IN PLACE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WITH THE ORGANIZERS BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION FOR THIS YEAR, UNLIKE LAST YEAR'S, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE CLOSURE OF EIGHTH STREET SOUTH.

WE AGREE. HOWEVER, WHEN WE CLOSE EIGHTH STREET SOUTH, THAT IS FOR OUR SECURITY PURPOSES, BASED ON AN OFFSET RULE FROM THE DHS THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DISTANCE FROM ANY VEHICLES THAT COULD TRANSIT TO WHERE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WALKING.

SO I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE ORGANIZERS ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO ACTIVELY USE THAT AREA, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE INCORPORATED. WE WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS THE REQUIREMENT THAT EIGHTH STREET SOUTH IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT ZONE AS A BUFFER FOR SAFETY OF THE EVENT, SAME AS WITH CAMBIER PARKWAY AND SAME AS WITH PARK STREET.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM STAFF.

NONE. OKAY. I HAVE NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS, SO I'LL IF IT'S OKAY, COUNCIL, I'LL GO STRAIGHT TO THOSE SPEAKERS. AND IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE IN LINE, I'LL TRY AND READ 3 OR 4 PEOPLE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A Q JACQUELINE ESCOBAR. I SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW.

YES. MADELEINE. WEIRDER. RICHARD. SCHROEDER. ANA.

[05:05:04]

PEREZ. IF YOU'LL JUST STAND UP AND AND GET IN THE QUEUE, THAT'D BE GREAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JACQUELINE ESCOBAR.

34120. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THIS PERMIT, WHERE THEY'RE REQUESTING TO HOLD THE EVENT, THE DRAG QUEEN EVENT IN CAMBIER PARK. AND WITH NO AGE RESTRICTION, THE GREATEST TRICK THE DEVIL EVER PULLED WAS CONVINCING THE WORLD HE DIDN'T EXIST. FRAMED AS A FREE SPEECH CHALLENGE. NAPLES PRIDES LAWSUIT FOLLOWS THE CITY OF NAPLES DENIAL OF A PERMIT TO HOST ADULT THEMED DRAG PERFORMANCES IN CAMBIER PARK WITHOUT AGE RESTRICTIONS.

THE INSISTENCE ON STAGING SUCH AN EVENT IN A PUBLIC PARK OPEN TO MINORS EVIDENCES A CALCULATED EFFORT TO OBTAIN JUDICIAL APPROVAL TO EXPOSE CHILDREN TO SEXUALLY LEWD AND OBSCENE CONDUCT, THEREBY COMPELLING PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO TOLERATE CONDUCT.

THE LAW EXISTS TO PREVENT. IN ADDITION, NAPLES PRIDE CLAIMS THAT THIS IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT I'VE BEEN TO FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENTS AND THIS TYPE OF AUDIENCE OR ATTENDEES THAT ARE WEARING THANK YOU SHIRTS AND ARE EXPOSING THEMSELVES.

I'M SORRY, BUT WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT ON. THAT'S NOT A FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENT.

I'M SORRY. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROTECT CHILDREN, THERE'S LAWS TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU. COULD I HAVE MADELINE? WEIRDER. FOLLOWED BY RICHARD SCHROEDER.

GOOD AFTERNOON. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

I JUST WANTED TO START WITH. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR WHY I'M HERE TODAY.

I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE SOMEONE'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

THIS IS ABOUT A DECISION TO HOST A DRAG SHOW ON A STAGE DIRECTLY NEXT TO A CHILDREN'S PARK.

THAT MATTERS. THIS IS ABOUT BOUNDARIES AND THE DELIBERATE REFUSAL TO RESPECT THEM.

THIS IS NOT A MISUNDERSTANDING. THIS IS NOT A CONFUSION.

THIS IS A CHOICE. A CHILDREN'S PARK EXISTS FOR CHILDREN, TODDLERS, YOUNG FAMILIES.

IT IS MEANT TO BE A SAFE SPACE, ONE OF THE FEW PLACES LEFT WHERE KIDS ARE ACTUALLY FREE TO BE KIDS.

AND IT'S HONESTLY VERY SAD THAT WE ARE EVEN. HAVE YOU BACK AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT? SORRY. OKAY. A PLAYGROUND SHOULD BE FILLED WITH LAUGHTER, IMAGINATION.

IT'S SAD THAT WE'RE EVEN DISCUSSING THIS TODAY.

PLACING ADULT THEMED PERFORMANCE ON ADULT THEMED ENTERTAINMENT ON A STAGE BESIDE A PLAYGROUND DOES NOT MAGICALLY MAKE THIS APPROPRIATE.

PROXIMITY MATTERS. EXPOSURE MATTERS. COMMON SENSE MATTERS.

FLORIDA LAWMAKERS HAVE ALREADY PASSED LEGISLATION AIMED AT KEEPING MINORS AWAY FROM ADULT LIVE PERFORMANCES.

BECAUSE WE ARE FAILING AS ADULTS, PROTECTING CHILDREN, ALLOWING ADULT EXPLICIT PERFORMANCES AT A CHILDREN'S PARK.

THANK YOU. I HAVE RICHARD SCHROEDER, FOLLOWED BY ANNA PEREZ.

GOOD AFTERNOON, RICHARD SCHROEDER, RETIRED PHYSICIAN.

AS I HAVE EXPRESSED HERE BEFORE PRIDE FEST IS JUST ONE OF THE TERMINAL EVENTS AND A WHOLE SERIES OF PLANNED OPERATIONS WITH THE GOAL OF SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN, ALL DESIGNED TO MAKE US MORE CONTROLLABLE AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, ACT AS AN AGENT OF DE-POPULATION.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS LONG TRANSITION I CAN RECALL DURING MY LIFETIME HAVE INCLUDED THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DRUG CULTURE, NORMALIZING DIVORCE, AND IN THE PRESENT DECADE IS EVEN TIED IN WITH THE INTRAFAMILIAL DISCORD SOWN BY THE FORCED ISOLATION AND OTHER SEPARATION TECHNIQUES USED DURING THE RECENT SO-CALLED PANDEMIC PANDEMIC.

ONE CAN CERTAINLY SEE HOW ELEMENTS OF THE PRIDE FEST FITS THIS FAMILY UNIT DISRUPTIVE PATTERN, WITH VIBES OF TRANSGENDER PROPAGANDA DIRECTED AT YOUNG CHILDREN AND OTHER SUGGESTIBLE INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, OR THOSE THAT MAY FEEL DIFFERENT IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS.

THANK YOU. WE CAN STOP BEING VICTIMS OF THIS GAME.

WE CAN REFUSE AT LEAST ONE STEP ON THE WAY TO OUR ENSLAVEMENT BY BOUNCING PRIDE FEST FROM OUR COMMUNITY ONCE AND FOR ALL.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNA PEREZ, FOLLOWED BY MARIA WERDER, FOLLOWED BY ANDREA WERDER.

[05:10:08]

GOOD AFTERNOON. JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. YES, SORRY.

HI, MY NAME IS MARIA WERDER. I AM LOCATED IN THE ZIP CODE 34110.

THANK YOU. FLORIDA LAW, STATE AND POLICY UNDER THE GOVERNOR, RON DESANTIS ARE CLEAR THAT CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE EXPOSED TO ADULT ORIENTED EVENTS OR PERFORMANCES. THAT PRINCIPLES EXIST TO PROTECT MINORS AND ENSURE PUBLIC EVENTS FOLLOW CLEAR STANDARDS.

WHAT CONCERNS MANY RESIDENTS IS THAT THIS EVENT HAS REQUIRED LITIGATION TO SECURE ACCESS.

INVOLVING CHILDREN. THE FACT THAT THIS LAWSUITS WERE NECESSARY TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MINORS ATTENDING SHOULD GIVE THE COUNCIL SERIOUS PAUSE WHEN CONSIDERING PERMIT APPROVAL.

PERMITS ARE A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. WHEN AN EVENT RAISES UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS ABOUT ADULT CONTENT, COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, THE RESPONSIBLE ACTION IS TO DENY OR DELAY APPROVAL UNTIL THOSE ISSUES ARE FULLY AND TRANSPARENTLY ADDRESSED. FOR THOSE REASONS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS PERMIT.

THANK YOU. ONE MORE THING I WANT TO QUICKLY NOTE IS THAT THIS WHEN YOU ARE VOTING NO, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING NO TO HAVING THE DRAG SHOW, NOT THE EVENT. THE EVENT IS STILL BEING TAKEN PLACE THERE, BUT OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS HAVING THE DRAG SHOW AT A CHILDREN'S PARK.

THANK YOU. AND YOUR NAME IS MARIA? YES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNA PEREZ.

ANDREA. WATER. OKAY. HI, I'M ANDREA. WATER.

34117. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT POLICY.

AND THAT YOU VOTE NO ON THE PERMIT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT VIEWPOINTS OR EXPRESSIONS.

THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY APPLIES ITS RULES CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY TO EVERY APPLICANT.

ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, AN APPLICANT MUST BE IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE CITY.

THAT INCLUDES PAYING ALL OUTSTANDING FEES, COSTS AND OBLIGATIONS FROM PRIOR PERMITTED EVENTS BEFORE BEING APPROVED FOR A NEW PERMIT.

NAPLES PRIDE FAILED TO PAY WHAT THEY OWED FROM THEIR PREVIOUS EVENT.

THAT IS A DOCUMENTED VIOLATION OF PERMIT TERMS UNDER THE CITY'S OWN POLICY.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS, INCLUDING FAILURE TO MEET FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, IS GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF FUTURE PAYMENTS. IF ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION FAILED TO PAY REQUIRED COSTS, THEY WOULD NOT BE GRANTED ANOTHER PERMIT UNTIL THESE OBLIGATIONS WERE SATISFIED.

THANK YOU. GRANTING AN EXCEPTION HERE WOULD UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CITY'S PERMITTING PROCESS, AND EXPOSE THE CITY TO CLAIMS OF. I'M SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF.

I HAVE ANNA PEREZ J. KOHLHAGEN. FOLLOWED BY MEGAN TYPEKIT.

FOLLOWED BY CYNTHIA OK ARENA. ANNA PEREZ. OKAY. THANK YOU. JAY COLGAN, FOR THE RECORD, WHAT I HAVE HERE IS THE EVENT SPECIAL PERMIT MANUAL. AND ON PAGE NINE IS THE VIOLATIONS. AND LET'S GO OVER SOME OF THESE BULLET POINT VIOLATIONS AND CHECK THE BOXES OF THESE VIOLATIONS.

NO OUTSTANDING BALANCES ARE DUE TO THE CITY FROM PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES.

WELL, LITIGATION DOESN'T RELEASE OBLIGATION ON CONTRACTED EVENTS.

THIS EVENT GENERALLY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY.

CHECK THAT BOX. THE APPLICANT. COMPLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO ANY PREVIOUS GRANTED PERMITS.

CHECK THAT BOX AND THE EVENT IS IS NOT DEEMED SAFE AND FREE FOR SAFETY CONCERNS.

WE ASK WE'RE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO HOLD NAPLES PRIDE TO THE SAME STANDARD AS THEY WOULD OF ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, AND SIGN THE APPLICATION. LAST YEAR THEY AGREED TO PAY ALL FEES WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT.

AND NOW NAPLES PRIDE HAS YET HASN'T PAID, SO SHAME ON THEM FOR NOT PAYING AND SHAME ON US IF WE GIVE THEM ANOTHER PERMIT WHEN IT TAKES LITIGATION TO ACCESS CHILDREN. THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE CITY, THE COUNTY, OUR COUNTRY.

I'M ASKING YOU TO FOLLOW YOUR OWN PERMIT CONDITIONS AND NOT ALLOW THIS PERMIT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MEGAN TYPEKIT FOLLOWED BY.

CYNTHIA. AUDRINA. ADRIANA. WELL. THANK YOU. KRAMER.

HI. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AND GOOD AFTERNOON.

AT THIS POINT, MY NAME IS MEGAN TITCOMB. I'M HERE AS A PARENT, A LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS OWNER,

[05:15:02]

AND A PROUD MEMBER OF THE NAPLES COMMUNITY. AS A PARENT, I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

I DECIDE WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR MY CHILDREN.

NOT THE GOVERNMENT, NOT PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW MY FAMILY, AND NOT FEAR BASED NARRATIVES THAT DON'T REFLECT REALITY.

NAPLES PRIDE FEST IS A LAWFUL, FAMILY FRIENDLY, FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENT WITH A LONG HISTORY IN THIS COMMUNITY.

FAMILIES CHOOSE HOW THEY PARTICIPATE, JUST LIKE THEY DO AT PARADES, FESTIVALS, CONCERTS AND ART SHOWS THROUGHOUT NAPLES.

IF DRAG IS PRESENT, PARENTS DECIDE NO ONE IS FORCED TO ATTEND, BUT FAMILIES LIKE MINE SHOULD NOT BE PUSHED OUT OF PUBLIC SPACES BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S DISCOMFORT. AS A BUSINESS OWNER, I ALSO SEE THE POSITIVE IMPACT THAT PRIDE FEST HAS SUPPORTING LOCAL RESTAURANTS, SHOPS, HOTELS AND WORKERS. IT STRENGTHENS OUR LOCAL ECONOMY AND BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER.

BUT MORE THAN THAT, THIS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY OF NAPLES APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY, RESPECTS FREE EXPRESSION, AND TRUSTS PARENTS TO PARENT THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CYNTHIA. THANK YOU.

KRAMER. OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS REVEREND AND SHARON HARRIS EWING, FOLLOWED BY CHRIS.

THANK YOU. FOLLOWED BY CHRIS. AARON. THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD, I AM SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION.

THANK YOU. MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS REVEREND DOCTOR SHARON HARRIS EWING.

I AM THE PRESIDENT, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA.

WE ARE PEOPLE OF MANY FAITHS AND BELIEFS WHO HAVE COME TOGETHER ON THE BASIS OF SHARED VALUES.

AS PEOPLE OF FAITH, WE AFFIRM UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE INTRINSIC WORTH AND ALL ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL DIGNITY, AND EQUAL RESPECT WITHIN OUR SOCIETY, NO EXCEPTIONS.

WE SUPPORT ACTIONS THAT PROMOTE EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, AND OPPOSE ACTIONS THAT LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF SOME PEOPLE, OR PRIVILEGE SOME PEOPLE'S RIGHTS OVER OTHERS.

THAT IS THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF OUR DEEP COMMITMENT TO STAND WITH AND ADVOCATE FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.

WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR NAPLES PRIDE AND THE IMPORTANT SERVICES AND PROGRAMS IT PROVIDES TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS, HELPING TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ALL FEEL SAFE, CELEBRATED AND VALUED.

SOME PEOPLE CLAIM THAT THEIR FAITH GIVES THEM THE RIGHT, OR EVEN COMPELS THEM TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST VULNERABLE GROUPS LIKE THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY. SOME BELIEVE THAT THEIR PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS VIEW IS THE ONLY TRUE VOICE OF FAITH.

IT IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. FAR RIGHT CHRISTIANS OR OTHERS DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL PEOPLE OF FAITH.

THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR US. RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT MUST BE SEPARATE.

WE CHALLENGE EVERY ATTEMPT TO MERGE THEM TOGETHER, OR TO IMPOSE A SINGLE RELIGIOUS VIEW ON EVERYONE THROUGH PUBLIC POLICY OR LEGISLATION. WE OPPOSE, IN THIS CASE, ANY ATTEMPT TO USE RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION TO DENY NAPLES PRIDE ITS PERMIT FOR THE PRIDE FEST, OR TO TURN DOWN ITS REQUEST FOR A FAMILY FRIENDLY DRAG SHOW RECOGNIZED AS A FREE EXERCISE OF SPEECH.

EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH. THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE HAS HAD A TABLE AT PRIDEFEST SINCE OUR FOUNDING IN 2023.

WE HAVE ATTENDED PRIDE FEST AND ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO.

WHAT A WONDERFUL EVENT! IT IS JOYFUL, COLORFUL, FUN, A BEAUTIFUL COLLAGE OF OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITY GATHERED TO ENJOY AND SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER.

AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROVE PERMITS FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS AT CAMBIER PARK.

THAT INCLUDES TREATING ALL COMMUNITY GROUPS FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ON BEHALF OF OUR INTERFAITH ORGANIZATION. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE THE NAPLES PRIDE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR PRIDE FEST

[05:20:07]

2026 WITH THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS YOU WOULD GIVE ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, AND I WILL CLOSE SIMPLY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT ON SUNDAY, APRIL 19TH, THE DAY AFTER THE PRIDE FEST THAT WE HOPE WILL HAPPEN, THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA IS HOSTING AN INTERFAITH PRIDE SERVICE, WHICH IS A WONDERFUL WORSHIP SERVICE. AGAIN, THAT BRINGS PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS AND TRADITIONS TOGETHER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. CHRIS SCHMIDLKOFER.

THANK YOU. I'M ALSO SPEAKING FOR ORGANIZATION FOR COLLIER COUNTY.

SO COULD THEY CHANGE THE TIME? THANK YOU. HELLO, MADAM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINA SCHMIDT. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS WITH LGBTQ STUDENTS.

THOUGH I DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY OF NAPLES, MY ORGANIZATION SUPPORTS BUSINESSES SUCH AS NAPLES PLAYERS TO RESTAURANTS AND STORES.

I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE NAPLES PRIDE FEST AS A WORTHWHILE AND FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENT.

IT STANDS FOR INCLUSIVITY AND REPRESENTS NAPLES IN A POSITIVE LIGHT.

NAPLES PRIDE HAS HAD EVENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY PARK BEFORE WITHOUT ANY INCIDENTS.

THE FIRST SEVERAL YEARS THERE WERE NOT HOLD UPS FOR THE PERMITS FOR PRIDE FEST.

THERE WERE EVEN PROCLAMATIONS FROM CITY HALL AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTENDED.

IT IS THE SAME FESTIVAL FROM THAT TIME. NAPLES PRIDE FEST IS A PLACE FOR ALL LGBTQ COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES OPENLY AND FREELY.

IT IS WELCOMING AS WELL TO ALLIES AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE OPEN MINDS AND OPEN HEARTS.

NAPLES PRIDE FEST SERVES A PURPOSE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT HAS MORE THAN JUST LGBTQ PEOPLE.

IT ESTABLISHES A PLACE FOR PEOPLE, FOR INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS FAMILIES, TO BE THEIR BEST SELF AND RECOGNIZE THE INDIVIDUALITY OF PEOPLE AND INCLUDE THEM IN A WELCOMING FASHION. IS A GOOD USE OF CAMBIA PARK IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, BEING ACCESSIBLE TO A LARGE POPULATION INCREASES BUSINESSES TO HOTELS AND SURROUNDING RESTAURANTS. PLEASE DO NOT LET HATE RULE YOU AND SUPPORT NAPLES PRIDE IN THE 2026 PRIDE FEST.

I ASK YOU TO KEEP IT AS ONE OF YOUR ANNUAL EVENTS.

PLEASE SUPPORT THEM AND PLEASE APPROVE THE EVENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN AARON, FOLLOWED BY LISA FREUD, JANET HOFFMAN, KAREN CONEY. OH, HI. IT'S CHRIS. AARON. OKAY.

LAKE PARK 34102. MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

EXCUSE ME. MUCH OF THE CONCERN RAISED ABOUT PRIDE FEST HAS CENTERED ON DRAG, OFTEN DESCRIBED IN ALARMING TERMS AS IT WERE INHERENTLY LEWD OR INAPPROPRIATE.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE SPEAK CLEARLY AND HONESTLY ABOUT WHAT DRAG ACTUALLY IS.

DRAG IS A PERFORMANCE ART. IT'S COSTUME, MAKEUP, MUSIC, COMEDY, DANCE, AND THEATRICAL.

IT BELONGS TO THE SAME ARTISTIC FAMILY AS THEATER, OPERA AND TELEVISION COMEDY MRS. DOUBTFIRE, TRADITIONS IN WHICH PERFORMERS REGULARLY PLAY WITH GENDER, CHARACTER AND SATIRE.

THIS IS NOT NEW AND IS NOT DANGEROUS. LABELING AN ENTIRE ART FORM AS LEWD IS NOT A FACTUAL CLAIM.

IT IS A MORAL JUDGMENT. CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT CODIFY ANYONE'S PERSONAL PREJUDICE INTO PUBLIC POLICY.

NAPLES HOSTS ALL KINDS OF EVENTS THAT ARE. DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH, NOT A THREAT.

THIS DECISION IS ABOUT MORE THAN ONE FESTIVAL.

IT'S ABOUT WHETHER NAPLES WILL ALLOW FEAR BASED NARRATIVES TO DEFINE WHAT KINDS OF ART AND EXPRESSION ARE PERMITTED, OR WHETHER IT WILL UPHOLD FAIRNESS, ARTISTIC FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LISA FREUND FOLLOWED BY JANET HOFFMAN, FOLLOWED BY KAREN CONEY MAYOR HEITMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

I'M HERE AS A AN ALLY OF NAPLES PRIDE AND ALSO THE PARENT OF A VERY SUCCESSFUL, VERY LOVING TRANSGENDER ADULT SON.

I'M HERE TODAY TO URGE YOU ONCE AGAIN, AS I DID IN FEBRUARY 2021, 24, 25, TO SUPPORT THE LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY AND APPROVE THE PERMIT FOR THE 2026 ANNUAL NAPLES PRIDE FESTIVAL.

TO QUOTE FROM A PROCLAMATION BY YOU, MAYOR HEITMAN ON JUNE 16TH, 2021.

WHEREAS NAPLES PRIDE HOSTS AN ANNUAL FESTIVAL SINCE 2017 CELEBRATING LGBTQ PLUS SOCIAL AND SELF-ACCEPTANCE, ACHIEVEMENTS, LEGAL RIGHTS AND PRIDE IN NAPLES CAMBIER PARK.

WHEREAS NAPLES PRIDE DAY IS A DAY FOR THE LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY TO CELEBRATE ACHIEVEMENTS, PROMOTE VISIBILITY,

[05:25:02]

PURSUE EQUALITY, AND HONOR THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT JUNE BE DESIGNATED AS NAPLES PRIDE MONTH.

SO WHAT'S CHANGED? THANK YOU. JANET HOFFMAN, FOLLOWED BY KAREN CONEY, FOLLOWED BY GREG DAUGHTERY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

I AM JANET HOFFMAN, AND I BELIEVE THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE SACRED.

EACH PERSON POSSESSES INHERENT WORTH AND DESERVES THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, THEIR IDENTITIES, AND THEIR CREATIVITY WITHOUT FEAR OF DISCRIMINATION OR EXCLUSION.

FOR DRAG PERFORMANCES TO BE DENIED DIMINISHES A CULTURAL TRADITION AND A MEANS OF EXPRESSION, AND ULTIMATELY HARMS ALL OF US. COMMUNITIES ARE HEALTHIER WHEN DIFFERENCES ARE ACCEPTED AND ALL FEEL VALUED AND THAT THEY BELONG. THESE EVENTS CREATE CONNECTION.

NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO GO WHO IS NOT INTERESTED.

WE NEED. WE NEED TO REMEMBER AND HONOR THE WORTHY OF WORTHINESS OF EVERYONE.

STAND UP AGAINST HATE AND DISCRIMINATION AND HAVE A TRULY HEALTHY, THRIVING COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER, KAREN CONEY.

FOLLOWED BY GREG DAUGHTERY. FATHER GREG DAUGHTERY.

GREETINGS, ALL. THIS IS KAREN CONEY. I'M A LONGTIME CITY RESIDENT.

34102. I'M ALSO A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, AND I'VE RAISED MY CHILDREN HERE.

WE'VE ALL HAPPILY ATTENDED PRIDE FEST MANY TIMES IN MY 32 YEARS HERE.

THIS MARKS MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING BEFORE ALL OF YOU AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT.

I'M STATING THIS TO UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE TO ME AND I HOPE ALL OF YOU.

I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF PRIDE FEST EVENT, INCLUDING THE DRAG SHOW AND THE PRIDE ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS A SMALL NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO SERVING OUR COMMUNITY AND A WELCOMING, SUPPORTIVE AND INCLUSIVE WAY.

PRIDE FEST ISN'T ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, BUT EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW AS APPLIED TO OTHER PERMITTED AND LONG STANDING EVENTS.

IT SHOULD BE A GIVEN. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS FOR ALL OF US, AND IF IT ISN'T, IT'S FOR NONE OF US.

OUR CONSTITUTION IS OUR CORNERSTONE. YOU HAVE A CLEAR PATH TO MAKE IT A CONNECTOR.

RESPECTFULLY, I ASK YOU TO REMEMBER THIS. AND GOVERNED BY LAW, PRECEDENT, PRINCIPLE, AND THE RESPECT OF EVERYONE'S RIGHTS AND NOT ACT OUT OF FEAR AND HATE. THANK YOU, FATHER DAUGHTERY. KAREN. RADCLIFFE.

FOSS BY FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINA HAUSER. KAREN RADCLIFFE FOSS 34114. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

I HAD MANY PAGES EXPECTING THE REGULAR TIME, AND I UNDERSTAND IT NEEDS TO BE CUT SHORT FOR EVERYONE TO BE HEARD.

AS A WOMAN, AS A HETEROSEXUAL WOMAN, I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRESS PROVOCATIVELY AND EXHIBITION MYSELF OUT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE, IN FRONT OF CHILDREN, TO DRESS WHATEVER WAY I CHOOSE AND DANCE WHATEVER WAY I CHOOSE.

THAT WOULD BE RESERVED FOR A GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, OR FOR THE INTIMACY AND PRIVACY OF MY HUSBAND AND MINE'S BEDROOM.

THIS IS NOT A GAY ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL ISSUE.

THIS IS PROTECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. IT'S A PUBLIC PARK.

THIS IS WHERE CHILDREN GO, WHERE THEY SHOULD GO.

I THINK THAT PEOPLE THAT WANT THIS VENUE CAN HAVE A VENUE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. AND THAT WAS ACCOMMODATED THE LAST TIME VERY GRACIOUSLY BY OUR CITY COUNCIL AND BY OUR CITY.

SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER THE CITY IN MINNESOTA, AND WE ALL SEE CITIES EVERY TIME WE TURN ON THE TV DEVOLVING INTO CHAOS.

OUR POLICE ARE ALREADY STRETCHED. HOW MUCH MORE DO WE NEED TO PAY? NOT JUST IN POLICE PROTECTION, BUT IN EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CITY IS KEPT SAFE? LET'S DO CHRISTMAS PARADE, SWAMP BUGGY PARADES.

GIVE THOSE AWARDS. DO THE RIGHT THING. VERY RESPECTFULLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KRISTINE HOLZER.

I ALWAYS PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME INCORRECTLY ALSO.

SORRY. THANK YOU. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THE ADDITIONAL TIME I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION, LIBERTY COUNSEL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE THAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M CHRISTINA HEUSER.

I AM AN ATTORNEY WITH LIBERTY COUNSEL, AND WE LITIGATE FIRST AMENDMENT CASES ACROSS THE NATION.

I'M ALSO THE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE WOMAN FOR COLLIER COUNTY.

WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE. AND THE QUESTION WAS RAISED, WHAT CHANGED FROM PAST YEARS, PRE-COVID TO WHERE THIS ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAME A

[05:30:06]

CONTROVERSIAL EVENT? AND ALTHOUGH I ONLY MOVED HERE IN 2019 I WOULD SAY WHAT'S CHANGED IS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DRAG ELEMENT INTO THE PRIDE FEST. BUT FORTUNATELY FOR YOU, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN THIS DECISION OUT OF YOUR HANDS.

BECAUSE IN THE 2023 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS SB 1438, IT INCLUDES A PROVISION ENACTING FLORIDA STATUTE 250 5.7. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION FOR WHATEVER REASON IN THE PAST PLEASE WRITE THIS DOWN AND LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF. FLORIDA STATUTES 255.

70 MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR YOU GUYS. ANY LOCALITY, ANY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR A PERFORMANCE SUCH AS THE ONE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. A SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PERFORMANCE.

THAT WOULD BE THAT MINORS WOULD POTENTIALLY BE EXPOSED TO.

NOW, THE REASON THIS HASN'T NECESSARILY IMPACTED YOUR DECISION IN THE PAST IS BECAUSE THE LAW WAS CHALLENGED AND THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THAT STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT WAS JUST LIFTED BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT LAST MONTH.

SO NOW IT'S FULLY ENFORCEABLE. AND AGAIN, IT REMOVES THE DECISION FROM YOUR HANDS.

YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ISSUE THE PERMIT AS REQUESTED.

SO LAST YEAR, NAPLES PRIDE CAME BEFORE YOU, AND THEY DREW A LINE IN THE SAND AND THEY SAID, WE DON'T WANT A PERMIT. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE PERMISSION FOR A DRAG SHOW.

AND FRANKLY, I WISH THAT YOU HAD JUST GIVEN THEM THEIR WISH AND DENIED THE PERMIT.

AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE AGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THE WHOLE PRIDE FEST IS OUT OF STEP WITH THE COMMUNITY.

BUT AT LEAST ONE OF YOU PIVOTED, I THINK IT WAS COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN, AND OFFERED THEM A COMPROMISE AND SAID, WE'LL GRANT YOU YOUR PERMIT, BUT WE JUST WANT THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU AGREED TO THE PRIOR TWO YEARS THAT THIS DRAG SHOW BE CONTAINED INDOORS, THAT IT BE TICKETED, THAT ONLY ADULTS AGES 18 AND UP BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND.

THEY DECLINED THAT YOU ISSUED THE PERMIT. AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.

THEY SUED YOU AND YOU'RE EMBROILED IN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURT.

THEY'VE AMENDED THEIR COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE THIS YEAR'S EVENT, EVEN THOUGH YOU GUYS HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION ABOUT IT YET.

SO WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS FOR YOU GUYS TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND WHAT ACTUALLY THE LAW NOW REQUIRES YOU TO DO AND DENY THE APPLICATION.

AND WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE THAT WILL COME FROM THAT? THEY'LL SUE YOU. THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. AND AS WAS MENTIONED, THEY HAVE NOT PAID THEIR SECURITY FEES FROM LAST YEAR.

WE HEARD, SADLY, FROM THE SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE ORGANIZERS THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR PARADE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY FEES.

IMAGINE THEM NOT PAYING THEIR FEES AND ASKING COMING BEFORE YOU ASKING TO HAVE THE PARADE SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

THEY WOULDN'T DO SUCH A THING. IT'S AUDACIOUS FOR THIS ORGANIZATION TO DO SUCH A THING.

SO WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THE PERMIT ON ALL OF THOSE GROUNDS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHIEF. CAN CAN YOU MAKE.

OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JANICE HOSCHLER, FOLLOWED BY JOHN MIHO, FOLLOWED BY DONNA ADAM. JANICE HERSCHLER. JOHN MITCHELL. JOHN MAYO. AND MY NEXT ONE.

GO AHEAD. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A REQUEST. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

CAN I GET A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN ONE MINUTE? YOU CAN HAVE TWO MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S BETTER THAN ONE. SO LET ME GO OVER SOME STUFF.

LET ME PUT A PERIOD AT THE END OF WITH CHRISTINA JUST TALKED ABOUT.

OH, I FORGOT MY NAME, JOHN MAYO. 34105. SORRY.

NOBODY'S HERE HATING ANYBODY. LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR.

AND YOU DIDN'T GIVE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER A TIME TO SHOW THIS, BUT I'M SHOWING YOU THIS.

OKAY. IS THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S NOT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL WHERE A LITTLE CHILD IS GOING TO PUT A DOLLAR BILL IN THE PANTIES OF SOME GUY. IF THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S SEXUALLY PROVOCATIVE, I DON'T KNOW, WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT THING? HANGING OUT FROM THAT GUY? DID ANY OF THESE WOMEN IN HERE DO THAT? WALK AROUND IN THE PARK? IT CAN BE A PARK TO DO THAT.

I KIND OF DOUBT IT. CHECK THIS ONE OUT. TALK ABOUT THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

[05:35:04]

WHEN DID YOU EVER SEE THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST WELCOMING SATAN FOLLOWERS? WHAT DOES IT SAY ON HIS SHIRT? WHAT DOES IT SAY THERE? THIS IS WHAT'S BEING SHOWN IN THAT PARK. YOU GUYS HAVE AN OBLIGATION.

YOU GOT AN OBLIGATION TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. I'M TIRED OF HEARING THE HATE.

NOBODY HATES ANYBODY. YOU WANT TO GO DO THIS STUFF? GO DO IT IN YOUR BEDROOM. GO DO IT IN SOME PRIVATE PLACE.

I ASKED THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE COUNTY OF COLLIER IF I WANTED TO OPEN A STRIP CLUB IN COLLIER COUNTY.

WOULD I BE PERMITTED TO? HIS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY NOT.

AND I QUESTIONED HIM AND I SAID, WHY NOT? IT'S PRIVATE.

IT'S ADULT, AGE RESTRICTED. WHY NOT? WELL, IF THAT'S AGAINST THE THE THE COUNTY RESOLUTION AND THE COUNTY PRINCIPLES, WHY IS THIS HORRENDOUS, PROVOCATIVE. CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL ALLOW TO BE SHOWN, ESPECIALLY WITH CHILDREN. SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU ALL GOT A REAL OBLIGATION TO COME UP WITH THE RIGHT ANSWER.

I HOPE YOU DO. GOD BLESS YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE JANICE.

HI. THANK YOU. JANICE HESSLER 2171. OUR FAMILY'S BEEN HERE FOR 50 YEARS.

I LOVE NAPLES, OBVIOUSLY, LIKE EVERYBODY DOES.

STEP AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE JUST A LITTLE BIT. GET IT DOWN OR UP? BACK. GO BACK. SORRY. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY, OKAY, I'M CATHOLIC, I'M PRO-LIFE, I'M A CONSERVATIVE.

THAT'S WHO I AM. BUT I HAVE TO REITERATE WHAT THIS MAN JUST SAID, BECAUSE HONEST TO GOD, I LOVE EVERYBODY.

I JUST LOVE EVERYBODY. BUT AS GOD SAID, BUT WE DON'T LOVE THE BEHAVIOR.

AND THAT MAN JUST DEMONSTRATED WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

AND I JUST FEEL LIKE SAYING WE KIND OF, I JUST CAN'T GO FOR THIS.

I CAN'T, I JUST CAN'T ALLOW THAT PRIDE FEST WITH OUR CHILDREN OVER HERE IN CAMBIER PARK.

AND THE WHOLE THING IS NOW, TO ME, GOTTEN OUT OF HAND.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT KEEPS, YOU KNOW, ACCELERATING TO THIS POINT WHERE WE'RE.

IT'S OBSCENE. IT'S TERRIBLE. SO ANYWAY, I JUST HAVE TO SAY, I'M LIKE, I SAID, GOD LOVE EVERYBODY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CELEBRATE THE BEHAVIOR. IF THIS IS JUST PERVERSE, I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THAT.

AND I'M I'M GLAD TO KNOW WITH THE LIBERTY COUNCIL THAT SAID, IT'S ILLEGAL.

OH, I LOVE THAT. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

JUST. IT'S. YOU CAN'T DO IT. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

THANK YOU. DONNA. AND FOLLOWED BY LINDA SHAPIRO.

I HAVE FIVE.

I'M ALSO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION.

THANK YOU. I JUST SAID THAT TO THE CLERK. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME OR GOOD AFTERNOON? MY NAME IS DONNA EDEN, AND I'M A ZIP CODE 34102.

AS WE HAVE ALL HEARD TODAY AND AT OTHER COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE CITY OF NAPLES HAS GUIDELINES, CODES AND ORDINANCES THAT RESIDENTS, AS WELL AS BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY NEED TO ADHERE TO.

I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I DIDN'T READ ANYWHERE IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCES THAT NAPLES PRIDE IS EXEMPT.

IN ADDITION TO NOTING THAT NAPLES PRIDE HAS YET TO PAY THE FEES OWED TO THE CITY FROM THEIR JUNE 2025 EVENT, WHICH CAN AND SHOULD RESULT IN THEIR APPLICATION DENIAL.

TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A FEW THINGS FOR PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT AS THEY LISTEN TO NAPLES PRIDE AND THEIR DEFENDERS TRY TO CONVINCE US THAT THEIR EVENT IS FAMILY FRIENDLY, AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EXPOSING CHILDREN TO THEIR LEWD AND OBSCENE PERFORMANCES AND ATTENDEES.

THE PHRASE FROM THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES ONE NINE IN THE BIBLE COMES TO MIND.

THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. IN ESSENCE, WHAT PRIDE GROUPS IN HOLLYWOOD ARE DOING IS NOTHING NEW, WHICH IS WHY THE BIBLE IS AS RELEVANT TODAY AS IT WAS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

THE BIBLE WARNS AGAINST PAGANS WHO WORSHIP BAAL AND BAPHOMET, ESSENTIALLY TRANS DEITIES, AND SACRIFICED CHILDREN.

THE BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL NEVER ENDS. NOW, TODAY, WE SEE CELEBRITIES TRANCING AND MUTILATING THEIR CHILDREN, NAPLES PRIDE AND OTHER PRIDE GROUPS HOSTING TRANS AND NONBINARY EVENTS FOR TEENS.

THIS IS AT NAPLES PRIDE. ON THEIR WEBSITE YOU CAN SEE IT AS WELL AS PROMOTING MENTAL HEALTH CLINICS.

SO I ASK WHAT CAME FIRST TRANS IDEOLOGY, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, DEGENERACY, OR THE MENTAL ILLNESS AND GENDER CONFUSION THAT FOLLOWED? IS THIS PROGRESS OR BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY? NO.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS JUDGE IT BY ITS FRUITS.

LOOK AT ALL THE CELEBRITIES WHO SUFFER FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, DRUG DEPENDENCY OR SUICIDE.

LOOK AT PRIDE GROUPS AND THEIR DEFENDERS WHO SUFFER THE SAME FATE.

PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT OTHERS, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN, WANT TO SEE THEM LIVE A HEALTHY AND HAPPY LIFE.

[05:40:06]

CARING PEOPLE DON'T ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO HARM THEMSELVES OR MUTILATE CHILDREN.

CONSIDERING NAPLES PRIDE HAS NOT ONLY VIOLATED THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT RULES AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE EVENTS MANUAL, I ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY NAPLES PRIDE'S APPLICATION TODAY AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, JUST LIKE THEY WOULD ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. I ALSO ASKED CITY COUNCIL TO ADHERE TO THE VISION OF NAPLES DOCUMENT, WHICH STATES THE ENDURING CHARACTER OF NAPLES REFLECTS OUR COMMITMENT TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR SMALL TOWN FEEL AND CHARM.

THESE PICTURES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NAPLES PRIDE DOES NOT REFLECT NAPLES SMALL TOWN FEEL AND CHARM, OR FAMILY FRIENDLY COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO RESIDENTS STAND STRONG.

PROTECT HOME RULE, PROTECT THE CITY, PROTECT THE CHILDREN, DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE NO TO NAPLES PRIDE EVENT APPLICATION TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE.

JUST LIKE THE LGBT COMMUNITY MOVED ON FROM MITCHELL SHOWS, IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON FROM DRAG QUEEN SHOWS INSTEAD OF PRIDE.

SHOW SOME HUMILITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FOLLOWED BY LINDA SPANO, FOLLOWED BY JOHN STRAND.

SHE DID NOT. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. COULD I HAVE YOURS? YOU HAVE IT FOR A LARGE GROUP. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR.

AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M HERE REPRESENTING ADVOCATES FOR DISABLED AMERICANS, VETERANS, POLICE, FIREMEN AND FAMILIES ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CHIEF, DARREN AQUINO, WHO IS SCHEDULED TO SPEAK.

HOWEVER, HE HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AND ASKED ME TO SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF.

HE ALREADY DID THAT. WE WE JUST WANT TO READ THE STATEMENT THAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO THE MAYOR, GOVERNOR AND OTHER ESTEEMED MEMBERS.

OUR CORE PURPOSE, THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ABOUT SILENCING ANYONE'S IDENTITY OR LAWFUL EXPRESSION.

IT IS ABOUT ADULT THEMED SEXUAL CONTENT AND LEWD CONTENT.

CONDUCT OCCURS WHEN MINORS ARE PRESENT IN A PUBLIC SPACE DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN.

WHAT WE STAND FOR FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS FOR ALL AMERICANS.

CHILD SAFETY IN PUBLIC PLAYGROUND SPACES. EQUAL ACCESS FOR FAMILIES, INCLUDING FAMILIES WITH DISABLED AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, TO ENJOY PARKS WITHOUT BEING FORCED OUT BY ADULT SEXUAL CONDUCT.

THE LEGAL LINES OBSCENITY IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.

MILLER VERSUS CALIFORNIA 41 THREE US ONE FIVE, 1973.

GOVERNMENT MAY PROVIDE HEIGHTENED PROTECTIONS FOR MINORS FROM SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL DEEMED HARMFUL TO MINORS.

GINSBURG VERSUS NEW YORK, 390 US 629, 1968. CITIES MAY ENFORCE CONTENT NEUTRAL PUBLIC INDECENCY.

PUBLIC NUDITY RULES AS REGULATION OF CONDUCT.

CITY OF ERIE VERSUS PAPP AM 529 US 277. IN 2000.

RESTRICTIONS MUST BE NARROWLY TAILORED, NOT SWEEPING OR OVERBOARD.

ERS VERSUS CITY OF JACKSONVILLE FOR 22 US 205.

IN 1975 FLORIDA LAW TWO ANCHORS FLORIDA STATUTE 800.03.

INDECENT EXPOSURE VULGAR OR INDECENT PUBLIC CONDUCT FLORIDA STATUTE 847 013.

EXPOSING MINORS TO HARMFUL MOTION PICTURES. EXHIBITION SHOWS OR REPRESENTATIONS FLORIDA STATUTE 800.04, WHICH ADDRESSES INCLUDE OR LASCIVIOUS OFFENSES AGAINST PERSONS UNDER 16 BY DISABILITY.

FAMILIES RAISED THIS MORE URGENTLY. FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN WHO HAVE DEVELOPMENTAL OR COGNITIVE DISABILITIES MAY EXPERIENCE GREATER CONFUSION, FEAR, AND DISTRESS FROM SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGERY AND LEWD EXHIBITION.

THE PRACTICAL RESULT CAN BE EXCLUSION. FAMILIES AVOID THE PARK, LOSE EQUAL ENJOYMENT OF A PUBLIC SPACE DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN.

THE NARROW, LAWFUL PRINCIPAL. ADULT THEMED CONTENT BELONGS IN ADULT VENUES OR CONTROLLED ACCESS SPACES.

CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS. PARKS. PLAYGROUND PARKS SHOULD REMAIN FAMILY SAFE USING NEUTRAL, ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE AND FLORIDA LAW. IN CLOSING, WE CAN COEXIST AS A COMMUNITY UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FOUNDING OF THE UNITED STATES.

FREEDOM FOR ALL. PROTECTION FOR THE VULNERABLE AND EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT INFRINGING ON ANYONE'S RIGHTS.

IT IS ABOUT SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN AND MAINTAINING LAWFUL, FAMILY SAFE USE OF A PUBLIC PLAYGROUND PARK.

FURTHERMORE, IT RAISES A LARGER QUESTION EVERY ADULT SHOULD ASK WHAT IS THE INTENT AND WHAT IS THE CONSCIENCE BEHIND PLACING LEWD,

[05:45:05]

OBSCENE, OR SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT IN FRONT OF CHILDREN? LET CONSCIENCE BE YOUR GUIDE, ALONG WITH YOUR DUTY OF SERVICE, TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR SERVICE TO THE GREAT CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA.

THANK YOU. AND OUR LAST SPEAKER IS JOHN STRAND.

AND I'M ALSO REPRESENTING A GROUP. YEAH. HELLO.

MY NAME IS JOHN STRAND. 34108I AM THE CREATIVE DIRECTOR OF AMERICA'S FRONTLINE DOCTORS.

I'M A REPUBLICAN PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN HERE IN NAPLES AND A CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS IN FLORIDA'S 19TH DISTRICT.

I'M ALSO A CHRISTIAN, AN UNCLE, AND A MAN WHO HAS LEARNED A VERY PAINFUL LESSON ABOUT WHAT IT COSTS TO TELL THE TRUTH WHEN POLITICAL AGENDAS STRIKE.

I'M HERE TODAY FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON. BOUNDARIES MATTER.

MORALITY MATTERS. AND WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE.

BECAUSE ONCE A COMMUNITY STOPS DEFENDING ITS MORAL BOUNDARIES, EVERYTHING ELSE BEGINS TO ERODE.

LET ME START WITH THE TRUTH. THAT USED TO BE SO OBVIOUS IT NEVER HAD TO BE SAID.

SEX IS PRIVATE AND FOR ADULTS ONLY. THAT PRINCIPLE BUILT STRONG FAMILIES.

IT PROTECTED CHILDREN. IT ALLOWED FREE PEOPLE WITH VERY DIFFERENT LIVES TO SHARE THE SAME PUBLIC SQUARE IN PEACE.

SO WHAT CHANGED? WELL, CERTAINLY NOT HUMAN NATURE.

WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE LANGUAGE. PRIDE HAS BEEN REDEFINED, TOLERANCE HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED, AND INCLUSION IS NOW USED TO PRESSURE COMMUNITIES INTO ACCEPTING WHAT NO DECENT SOCIETY EVER WOULD.

THE PUBLIC SEXUALIZATION OF CULTURE, ESPECIALLY AROUND CHILDREN.

I'VE LIVED IN LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK CITY. I'VE WORKED AS AN ACTOR AND MODEL WITH MANY HOMOSEXUAL FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES.

BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT PRIVATE CONDUCT. IT NEVER WAS.

THIS IS ABOUT PUBLIC BEHAVIOR, PUBLIC SPACES, AND PUBLIC STANDARDS.

STRIP AWAY THE PROPAGANDA AND BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT PRIDE IS.

IT IS AN EXPLICITLY SEXUAL ENTERPRISE BASED ON PROMOTING AN ASSORTMENT OF SEXUAL PREFERENCES, AND THEY PUSH PERFORMANCES DESIGNED TO BLUR ADULT BOUNDARIES IN PLACES WHERE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN ARE PRESENT.

IF WE DESCRIBE THAT ACCURATELY, WITHOUT THE SLOGANS, NO EUPHEMISMS, THIS WOULDN'T EVEN BE A DEBATE.

NO PARENT CONSENTS TO THAT, NO COMMUNITY BENEFITS FROM IT, AND NO CITY IS OBLIGATED TO TOLERATE IT.

NAPLES DOES NOT EXIST TO VALIDATE EVERY LIFESTYLE.

NAPLES IS THE CROWN JEWEL OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, AND IT EXISTS TO PROTECT FAMILIES, UPHOLD DECENCY, AND MAINTAIN A PUBLIC SQUARE WHERE CHILDREN ARE NOT THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE OF ADULT IDEOLOGIES.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE LAWSUIT. YOU ARE BEING TOLD THAT REJECTING THE PRIDE SEXUALIZATION MOVEMENT IS SOMEHOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT PROTECTING CHILDREN IS DISCRIMINATION, THAT MORAL STANDARDS EQUAL HATRED.

THIS IS A LIE. THE ISSUE OF REJECTING AND BANNING PRIDE FROM OUR PUBLIC DOMAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH.

WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT IN PUBLIC, AS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.

WE ALREADY RECOGNIZE THAT FREE SPEECH IS NOT A LICENSE FOR SEXUAL GROOMING IN PUBLIC SPACES, AND WE ALREADY UNDERSTAND THAT CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS TOO, INCLUDING THE RIGHT NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SEXUAL CONTENT BEFORE THEY ARE READY TO PROCESS IT. THE VERY FACT THAT PRIDE IN THEIR MARKETING EMAILS, WHICH I GET, TRIES TO ARGUE THEY ARE FAMILY FRIENDLY AND DENIES THAT THEY'RE SEXUALIZING CHILDREN, SHOWS YOU JUST HOW DISHONEST AND DESTRUCTIVE THEY REALLY ARE.

THE WHOLE POINT OF PRIDE IS NORMALIZING UNCONVENTIONAL SEXUALITY.

THAT'S THE PREMISE. SO HERE'S MY ENCOURAGEMENT TO YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T JUST HOLD THE LINE. NAME THE LINE.

DECLARE WITHOUT APOLOGY THAT NAPLES IS A SANCTUARY CITY FOR DECENCY.

A CITY WHERE FAMILIES COME FIRST. CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED, SEX STAYS PRIVATE, AND PUBLIC SPACES REMAIN APPROPRIATE FOR ALL AGES.

THAT'S NOT EXTREMISM, THAT'S CIVILIZATION. THE BIBLE TELLS US THAT WHEN FOUNDATIONS ARE DESTROYED, THE RIGHTEOUS MUST ASK WHAT CAN BE DONE? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE REBUILD THE FOUNDATIONS.

YOU WERE NOT ELECTED TO SURRENDER TO ACTIVIST PRESSURE OR LEGAL INTIMIDATION.

YOU WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, RAISE FAMILIES HERE, AND EXPECT THEIR CITY TO REFLECT TIMELESS TRUTHS, NOT RADICAL POLITICAL WARFARE. IF NAPLES DRAWS THE LINE HERE, OTHER CITIES WILL FIND THE COURAGE TO DEFEND DECENCY.

BUT IF WE FOLD, THE PRESSURE WILL ONLY INCREASE.

HOLD THE LINE. PROTECT THE INNOCENT AND STAND WITH GOD AS WE DEFEND LIBERTY AND MORALITY.

HERE IN THE FREE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.

[05:50:08]

COUNCIL. WE HAVE BEFORE US 13 A ITEM. TWO ANY DISCUSSION, ANY COMMENTS? I HAVE A MOTION. MOTION. I CAN'T HELP, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO REITERATE THAT WE'RE NOT AN EVENT VENUE. I'VE BEEN SAYING IT SINCE BEFORE I GOT ON COUNCIL.

I CAN'T WAIT FOR US TO REVISIT ALL THIS STUFF.

AND IT BECAUSE I JUST SIT HERE AND THE ASSUMPTION IS FROM EVERYBODY THAT COMES IN THAT SOMEHOW THEIR EVENT BELONGS IN OUR TOWN.

EVERYBODY AND THE PEOPLE THAT VOTE FOR US, THE 18,000, WHATEVER.

DON'T THINK THAT WAY. JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, I MEAN, WE DO GREAT STUFF.

I KNOW, BUT THIS. WE GOT TO GET A HANDLE ON IT.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER BURTON. I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PERMIT, AS IT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR WITH THE CONDITION THAT DRAG SHOW BE HELD INDOORS WITH AN 18 YEAR OLD AGE LIMIT, AND THAT THE STREET CLOSURES ARE MADE AS RECOMMENDED BY LIEUTENANT O'REILLY.

SECOND. CAN I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR? NO DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES.

VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN.

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

YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 13 B CAN WE TAKE TWO MINUTES? JUST CAN WE HAVE TWO MINUTES? YES. WELL WE'LL TAKE TWO MINUTES.

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

[13.B) A Resolution Approving A Right-Of-Way Use Agreement Between SAWCC, Inc., A Florida Not For Profit Corporation And The City Of Naples For Construction Of A One-Way Driveway Connection And Landscape Islands Within The Public Right-Of-Way At 960 2nd Avenue North; Authorizing The City Manager To Execute The Agreement; And Providing An Effective Date.]

MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT OF WAY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SA, CC INC, A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, AND THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RUNWAY, ONE WAY DRIVEWAY CONNECTION AND LANDSCAPE ISLANDS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AT 960 SECOND AVENUE NORTH, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

DISCLOSURES. MADAM CLERK, FOR THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

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

DISCLOSURES. FROM FROM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

NOT NO CONTACT, NO DISCLOSURES, NO DISCLOSURES.

PETRANOFF VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. NO CONTACT.

VICE MAYOR. YEAH. FOR MAYOR. NO CONTACT. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

NO CONTACT. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DAVID CORBIN, PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT WITH DAVID CORBIN ARCHITECTS, 5012 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH. AND YOU SEE, THERE'S NO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS HERE, BUT THE SHELTER IS A LONG TIME CLIENT OF MINE, AND I HELPED THEM SHEPHERD THEM THROUGH THIS, THROUGH THIS PROJECT.

AND JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, S A W IS THAT'S THE NAPLES WOMEN'S SHELTER.

SO IT'S LIKE IT'S JUST IN CASE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS TO START WITH.

BUT SO THIS IS THE THE SHELL, THE OPTION SHOP THAT'S ON SECOND AVENUE NORTH IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING I GUESS YOU'D CALL IT, LIKE, A CONSIGNMENT THRIFT STORE THERE FOR, FOR A LONG TIME. AND WE THEY CAME TO US WITH AN ISSUE ABOUT CONGESTION IN THEIR PARKING LOT, AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS TO, TO SOLVE THAT.

AND MY FIRST, I FIRST HOW LONG THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN GOING ON.

I MET WITH THE CRA DIRECTOR AND MISS BICKET IN NOVEMBER 23RD.

SO THIS HAS KIND OF BEEN GOING A WHILE. SO AS A LOT OF THE PARKING LOTS AND KIND OF SITES IN, IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THERE'S A LOT OF CONGESTION, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT ARE BUSY.

[05:55:03]

OFTEN YOU KIND OF LOOK AT A PLAN. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY LOOK LIKE A PLAN THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.

AND SO WITH WHAT THEY HAVE THERE CURRENTLY, ESPECIALLY DURING SEASON, YOU HAVE PEOPLE DROPPING OFF DONATIONS.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE TAKING FURNITURE THAT THEY'VE PURCHASED.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE WALKING INTO THE STORE, WALKING OUT OF THE STORE.

AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF KIND OF THERE'S A LOT OF CONGESTION TRAFFIC WISE.

SOMEBODY THAT PARKS THERE HAS TO DO A THREE POINT TURN TO GET OUT AND THEN GO AGAINST PEOPLE WALKING AND TRYING TO GET IN.

SO IT'S REALLY JUST A MESS. AND SO A WAY THAT IN TALKING WITH CIVIL ENGINEERS A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT AND THE WAY THAT THAT THE SHELTER THOUGHT WAS A GOOD WAY TO DO IT WAS TO MAKE THE DRIVE, THE MAIN DRIVE THROUGH THEIR PARKING LOT, GOING FROM NORTH TO SOUTH ONE WAY AND OPEN UP A ONE WAY ENTRANCE INTO THAT PARKING AREA FROM SECOND AVENUE NORTH.

AND SO WE'VE SHOWN THIS TO STAFF AND AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION WE'VE, WE'VE KIND OF COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT'S GOT LANDSCAPING THAT WAS REQUESTED BY STAFF.

WE'VE CHANGED THE THE PARKING LAYOUT FROM A 90 DEGREE PARKING TO BE 70 DEGREE TO MAKE THE BACKING UP INTO THE INTO THE AISLE WAY EASIER. ANOTHER THING THAT WAS ASKED WAS THAT WE REACH OUT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO SEE IF THERE MIGHT BE SOME WAY OF DOING A SHARED ACCESS. WE MADE THAT THAT OR AT LEAST THE SHELTER MADE THAT CONNECTION.

AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST DID NOT WANT TO TO DO A SHARED ACCESS.

BUT IN LOOKING AT IT, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE MUCH SENSE.

IT WOULD STILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPACES. THERE WAS A DUMPSTER INVOLVED, AND IT WOULD REDUCE MORE SPACES FROM THE SHELTER IN THE SAME AREA.

WE DO LOSE THREE PARKING SPACES ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, ALTHOUGH THERE IS WHEN YOU WHEN YOU CALCULATE THE PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.

IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE ON STREET PARKING ADJACENT TO YOUR BUILDING AND YOUR YOUR OFFSITE PARKING.

AND THEY STILL HAVE A EXCESS OF FIVE PARKING SPACES, EVEN BY REMOVING THESE SPACES.

SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A MINIMALLY INTRUSIVE ACTION HERE THAT WILL, I THINK, MAKE THINGS SAFER FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY EASIER FOR THE SHELTER, WHO'S OBVIOUSLY A LONGTIME NONPROFIT PROPERTY OWNER HERE.

AND WE HOPE YOU GUYS WILL WILL, WILL SEE. WE'LL SEE, WE'LL SEE THIS AND AND APPROVE IT.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER? AGENT? NO. OKAY. STEPH. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON.

CITY COUNCIL. ALISON BICKETT, CITY ENGINEER, ACCOMPANIED BY ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

TODAY, CITY COUNCIL HAS ASKED TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FOR UTILIZATION OF THREE ON STREET PARKING SPACES UNDER RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND RIGHT OF WAY USE AGREEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE DROP OFF FOR THE SHELTERS. OPTION SHOP AT NINE 6968 TO 968 SECOND AVENUE NORTH.

THE DONATION AREA IS A CRITICAL PART OF THE PROGRAM, AS 100% OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE SHELTER OPTION SHOP SUPPORT THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES LOCALLY TO PREVENT ABUSE, PROTECT VICTIMS, AND HELP REBUILD THE LIVES OF THOSE IMPACTED.

THE DONATION AREA FOR THE PROPERTY HAS HISTORICALLY OPERATED FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

DAVID, COULD YOU PULL UP OR. I'M SORRY. ERICA.

CAN YOU. THE AERIAL. YES, PLEASE. THEY'VE HISTORICALLY OPERATED FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, AS ALREADY MENTIONED. WITH ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY.

THIS RIGHT HERE IS AN OVERLAY THAT KIND OF ALLOWS YOU TO SEE THE PLAN AND UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M JUST REFERRING TO.

YOU CAN SEE THE THE ACCESS ALONG THE ALLEY IN THIS WHERE I HAVE THE POINTER.

THE PROPERTY ABUTS THAT ALLEY ON THE SOUTH SIDE, CONNECTING EAST TO 10TH STREET, NORTH AND WEST TO NINTH STREET.

US 41 AND SECOND AVENUE NORTH. SECOND AVENUE NORTH TO THE NORTH.

THE WIDTH IS PLOTTED TO BE 20FT WIDE FOR THAT ALLEYWAY THAT THEY ARE ABUTTING.

HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS ARE CONSTRAINED WITH PRIVATE UTILITIES.

IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH THERE LANDSCAPING, ADJACENT PARKING AND BUILDINGS ALONG THAT BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED PLAN PROVIDES A ONE WAY ACCESS DRIVEWAY CONNECTION FROM SECOND AVENUE NORTH.

LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN TO DELINEATE THE DRIVE ACCESS FROM THE PARKING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VISUAL CUES OF THE ONE WAY TRANSITION.

[06:00:02]

THE ON SITE PARKING IS IDENTIFIED TO BE MODIFIED AND ANGLED APPROPRIATELY.

SO AS YOU ENTER, WE DID NOTE AND THIS IS THIS IS REQUEST IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT LOOKING AT THE SITE CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD BE UNDER A SEPARATE REQUEST, WE DID LOOK AT THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXISTING LAYOUT DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO THE ADJACENT THE ADJUSTMENT OF THAT PARKING IS MADE TO BE ANGLED SO THAT IT ALSO GIVES YOU THAT VISUAL CUE AS YOU'RE ENTERING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CORRECT DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW THE THE EXISTING ONSITE PARKING CONDITIONS, AS I MENTIONED, ARE NOT COMPLIANT WITH SECTION 5103 OF THE CITY CODE, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 24FT ACCESS AISLE FOR PERPENDICULAR PARKING.

THAT'S WITH THE REQUIREMENT. AND TO BRING THAT UP, THIS ONSITE SITE PARKING IS PROPOSED TO BE 70 DEGREES TO ACCOMMODATE A MINIMUM OF ACCESS AISLE 18FT ACCESS AISLE UTILIZING THE ALLEY FOR THE DROP OFF AND PICKUP AS THE CURRENT FACILITY OPERATES, PROVIDES A HIGHER VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT ALONG THE ALLEY THAN THE PROPOSED ONE WAY, AS PEOPLE WOULD BE ENTERING IN OFF OF SECOND.

IN LIEU OF COMING IN AND EXITING OFF OF THE ALLEYWAY.

AND SO THEY WOULD PROCEED FROM SECOND AND EXIT IN THE ALLEY.

THE DONATION DROP OFF ACCESS FROM SECOND AVENUE NORTH IS THE ADDRESS STORE LOCATION AND IS ALSO GIVES THAT THE NEW VISITORS THAT WOULD MIGHT MIGHT LIKELY TRAVEL THERE. THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT'S WHERE THEIR DESTINATION IS TO TO BRING THOSE DROP OFFS.

THE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PARK STAFF, AS WELL AS THE STREETS DIVISION, FOR PROPOSED IMPACTS RELATED TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO CHALLENGES PROPOSED ON STRAIGHT ON ON THE SITE.

REVIEWS OF THE RESTRIPING WILL BE REVIEWED IN MORE DETAIL BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

SHALL THIS BE APPROVED? ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS AND CHANGES MAY BE NECESSARY AT THAT TIME FOR THE ON SITE CHANGES PROPOSED.

THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS APPROVAL, AS I MENTIONED, FOR REMOVAL OF THOSE THREE ON SITE ON STREET PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ZOOM IN. HERE WE GO. BUT THESE ARE THE THREE SPACES THAT ARE IMPACTED RIGHT HERE. TO GIVE YOU A BETTER PERSPECTIVE WITH THAT I CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION REPORT AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. OKAY. PETITIONERS CLOSING REMARKS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OH VICE MAYOR. YES, MADAM MAYOR, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'D LIKE TO.

I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION. YES. YES. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM 13 B APPROVING A RIGHT OF WAY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CW, CC AND THE CITY OF NAPLES.

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

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTEN. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHESON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. MAYOR HEITMANN I ABSTAIN.

SO IT PASSES SIX ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. REAL QUICK SO WE'RE REQUIRED TO VOTE.

IF YOU ABSTAIN, THEN YOU HAVE TO FILE A FORM EIGHT B WITH WITH THE CLERK, AND YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY DISCLOSE.

WHY ARE YOU ABSTAINING? I'M ABSTAINING BECAUSE I OWN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR.

OKAY. SO YOU WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS? WELL, YEAH.

SO OKAY. BUT IT PASSES SIX. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE CLERK WILL MAKE SURE I GET THAT.

I'LL EMAIL IT TO YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO 13 C.

[13.C) A Resolution Determining Petition PRMR2506496 to Approve Filling of a Lake on Private Property Located at 205 South Lake Drive, Owned by Matthew J. Allain, as Trustee of the 205 S. Lake Drive Land Trust Dated March 4, 2019; and Providing an Effective Date.]

YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION.

PREMIER 2506496 TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 SOUTH LAKE DRIVE, OWNED BY MATTHEW J. AL ELAINE AS TRUSTEE OF THE 205 SOUTH LAKE DRIVE LAND TRUST DATED MARCH 4TH,

[06:05:07]

2019, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AND STAFF AS WELL. 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.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. DISCLOSURES. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

NO CONTACT, NO DISCLOSURES. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

NOTE NO CONTACT. CRAMER. I TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? NO CONTACT. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

NO CONTACT. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. NO CONTACT.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. JEFF ROGERS WITH TERRELL HORNE ASSOCIATES HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS AND APPLICANTS FOR A LAKEVILLE PETITION ON ALLIGATOR LAKE WITHIN NAPLES, JUST SOUTH OF THE BEACH CLUB.

THE PROPERTY AGAIN IS LOCATED AT 205 SOUTH LAKE DRIVE.

AND IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY. I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT, BUT I DON'T NEED IT.

I CAN JUST GO THROUGH THIS. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IS A HOUSE ON THE TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE LAKE, WITH A SOD GRASS SHORELINE DOWN TO THE LAKE'S EDGE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF NON-NATIVE VEGETATION LOCATED ON THE WATER'S EDGE THERE. MOSTLY CATTAIL IS WHAT IT'S CONSIST OF, WHICH IS A INVASIVE SPECIES THAT WE WANT TO GET RID OF ULTIMATELY.

SO THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DOCK EXTENDING OUT FROM THE BANK INTO THE WATER, APPROXIMATELY, I THINK, 30FT OUT FROM THE EDGE OF WATER, WHICH WAS SURVEYED.

AND WE HAVE WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO GET CALCULATIONS OF IMPACTS TO THE WATERWAY.

THE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 20 BY 20 DOCK WITH A FIVE FOOT ACCESS WALKWAY OUT, AND IT DOES EXTEND OUT, EXCUSE ME, 20FT FROM THE EDGE OF WATER. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE CRITERIA AND EVERYTHING WITH THE APPLICATION I'D LIKE TO RUN THROUGH WITH YOU TO GET ON THE RECORD.

AS SECTION 9052 92 E3A OF THE CODE ORDINANCE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES OR PROJECT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE, ZONING LAW OR ORDINANCE.

AND IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE DOCKS ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE ORDINANCE AND ARE ALLOWED TO BE A USE ON THIS LAKE.

AND THERE ARE OTHER DOCKS ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT, LAKE THAT EXTEND OUT INTO THE WATERWAY, JUST LIKE THIS IS PROPOSED. NUMBER TWO, THAT NO HARMFUL OBSTRUCTION TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITHIN THE LAKE OR SUCH AREA WILL ARISE FROM THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND TO OUR THERE SHOULD BE NO IMPACTS TO THE EXISTING STORMWATER CAPACITY OF THIS LAKE.

IT IS A LARGE LAKE. IT IS GOING THROUGH A TRANSITION WITH SOME STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE PROJECTS HERE IN TOWN.

BUT THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AND WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE VEGETATION ALONG THE BANK AND THE NATURAL PROPOSED LATERAL PLANTINGS THERE, IT SHOULD HELP THE OVERALL WATER QUALITY OF THE LAKE AS WELL.

SO THAT TOUCHES ON THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS NO SIGN OF SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL OR ECOLOGICAL ADVERSE IMPACTS.

THE BIG THING HERE IS WE WORK WITH STAFF. NATALIE AND HER OFFICE TO COME UP WITH A LITERAL PLANTING LIST FOR VEGETATION THAT'S ACCEPTABLE BY CITY STAFF.

AND THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PETITION AND BEING REQUIRED TO INSTALL UPON COMPLETION OF THE DOCK TO ALSO HELP WITH STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS OF THE LAKE. THE FINAL ONE OF THIS IS BASICALLY FINAL TWO IS NO HARMFUL OR INCREASED EROSION, SHOALING OR CHANNELS OF STAGNANT AREAS OF WATER BE CREATED.

THERE SHOULD BE NO IMPACTS TO THIS. WE'RE JUST PUTTING IN SOME NINE DOCK PILES WITHIN THE WATER TO SUPPORT THE STRUCTURE, AND THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO THE WATER.

FISHING, KAYAKING. PADDLE BOARDING, THINGS OF THAT NATURE FOR THE FOR THE RESIDENTS.

THE FINAL CRITERIA THAT NO HARMFUL INJURY OR MONETARY DAMAGE TO ADJOINING LAND WILL OCCUR.

THE DOCK WILL BE SET BACK SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE SHARED PROPERTY.

LINES SHOULD NOT IMPACT EITHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND AGAIN, IT IS A COMMON USE OF OF THIS LAKE TO HAVE DOCKS ON IT.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO WRAP IT UP. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE OR STAFF.

[06:10:03]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. ACTUALLY, MY QUESTION IS MORE OF STAFF, SO I'LL WAIT UNTIL THAT OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON.

HELLO. NATALIE HARTMAN, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE JENNIFER PONTIAC, OUR LAKES WATER QUALITY PROJECT MANAGER, AND I'LL LET HER TAKE THE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT 205 SOUTH LAKE DRIVE WISH TO INSTALL A FIVE FOOT WIDE ACCESS WALK WALKWAY WITH A HAND RAILING EXTENDING OUT TO A 20 BY 20 PLATFORM FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.

THE LOT CONSISTS OF A HOME AND LANDSCAPED YARD.

EXOTIC NUISANCE VEGETATION WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NATIVE PLANTINGS.

THE PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION ALLOWS FOR OWNER ACCESS TO THE DOCK WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON LAKE ECOLOGY.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE LAKEVILLE PETITIONERS REQUEST.

BUILDING PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

ANY QUESTIONS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN. THE PILINGS HERETOFORE.

WHAT RATHER THAN PLASTIC WHAT WAS WHAT WAS USED HISTORICALLY BEFORE PLASTIC? DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THAT? I HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM, I THINK, WITH PLASTIC.

SO DO YOU REMEMBER, DO YOU HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OTHER PILINGS? NOT THE TYPICAL WOOD PILING CONSTRUCTION. MAYBE TIM KNOWS.

IF I MAY, IT WILL BE A TYPICAL CCA TREATED PILING WOODEN PILE THAT IS WRAPPED WITH A PVC WRAP.

IT'S CALLED, WHICH HELPS PREVENT THE LEACHING OF CHEMICALS INTO THE WATER.

COMMON PRACTICE IN THE MARINE WORLD AS WELL AS IN FRESHWATER.

BECAUSE THE PILINGS ARE TREATED FOR WATER INTRUSION AND THE CHEMICAL IS CONTAINED BY THE PVC WRAP, AND IT'S ONE FOOT BELOW THE SEDIMENT AND ONE FOOT ABOVE THE TOP OF WATER.

MEAN HIGH WATER SLASH HIGH WATER LINE IS THE COMMON WAY WE DO THAT.

THANK YOU. YES, YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MISS HARTMAN WHEN WE OR WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THIS.

SO THIS FENCE WILL GO DOWN AND THIS VEGETATION THAT'S IN FRONT WILL BE REMOVED.

YES. AS PROPOSED. AND WHAT WILL BE RE INSTATED OR REPLANTED? SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A SELECTION OF LATERAL PLANTS WHICH INCLUDE SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA CANNA LILIES.

PONTEDERIA. SO FRESH WATER TYPICAL LITTORAL PLANTINGS.

SO HOW THE MEASUREMENTS OF THIS DOCK, I MEAN, IT'S IT'S BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S GOING TO BE A THE PLATFORM IS 20 BY 20. YEAH.

AND HOW FAR IS IT GOING OUT INTO THE LAKE? IT IS GOING OUT INTO THE LAKE FROM MEAN HIGH WATER.

APPROXIMATELY 17FT. 17FT FROM THE TOP OF BANK, WHICH THERE'S STILL A LITTLE BIT OF THE SLOPE OF BANK TO ACCOMMODATE. AND SO WE'VE DISCUSSED NO LAKE FILL.

WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON THAT WE WOULDN'T FILL IN LAKES? WE DON'T FILL IN LAKES? A BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF STORMWATER CAPACITY.

YOU'RE AFFECTING STORMWATER CAPACITY AND YOU'RE AFFECTING THE LITERAL SHELF.

WATER QUALITY ASPECTS. NOT TO FILL IN LAKE. CORRECT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING FILL AT THIS FOR THIS PROJECT.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILL IN ANY OF THAT PORTION TO PUT THOSE PILINGS IN.

NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE HEARD IT, BUT I WAS FOCUSING IN ON MY OWN, MY OWN THOUGHTS. I THOUGHT I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM SOME OF THE LAKE VOLUME I READ IN YOUR REPORT.

NO, I MEAN, IT SAID A MINIMAL A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT.

I MEAN, JUST THE WIDTH OF THE PILINGS. I MEAN, NOT ANYTHING THAT WOULD AFFECT THE VOLUMES TO ANY DEGREE.

YEAH. WASN'T IT WASN'T IT DIDN'T I READ THAT IN THE REPORT? I THINK I DID. POSSIBLY. YEAH. IT SAID MINIMAL.

POSSIBLY. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON, TIM HALL WITH TARA HALL AND ASSOCIATES.

I JUST WANTED TO. THAT WAS THE REASON I WAS HERE, WAS IN CASE YOUR QUESTION CAME UP.

[06:15:06]

THE PILINGS THEMSELVES, AS YOU SAID, THERE'S NINE PILINGS.

THEY'RE THEY'RE ROUND TEN INCH PILINGS. SO THEM GOING INTO THE WATER DISPLACES, ABOUT 2 OR 3 CUBIC FEET OF WATER. THE PLANTING OF THE LATERALS WILL ACTUALLY SCRAPE BACK THE BANK TO PUT THOSE LATERALS IN.

SO BY THE RECONTOURING OF THE BANK, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO END UP WITH MORE STORAGE IN THE LAKE AFTERWARDS THAN THERE IS NOW.

THANK YOU. AND THEN DO WE HAVE A POLICY ON WRAPPING OUR THE PIPES OR THE PILINGS? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. SO IT SAYS THAT THE PILINGS WILL BE WRAPPED WITH PVC TO PREVENT LEACHING OF CHEMICALS INTO THE WATER. THAT'S WHAT WAS PROPOSED. YES. AND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

PROTECTION MECHANISMS THAT WOULD SAY THEY HAVE TO DO IT, REPLACE IT, OR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER AGING OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? HOW LONG DOES IT LEACH INTO THE WATER? WE DON'T HAVE ANY GUIDELINES FOR THAT.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO COMMENT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO FURTHER COMMENT. CLOSING REMARKS BY THE PETITIONER.

NO CLOSING REMARKS. JUST APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND BEING HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. OR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 SOUTH LAKE DRIVE. IS IT NOT? WAIT. IS IT A FILLING OF THE LAKE OR NOT? A FILLING OF THE LAKE. THERE'S NO FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING A DOCK, BUT OUR CODE REQUIRES A LAKE FILL PETITION FOR BUILDING OF STRUCTURES OVER A LAKE. SECOND, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT IT.

YEAH. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. CRISPIN. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CRISPIN.

AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCILMEMBER CRAMER. YES. HEY, JEFF. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CRISMAN. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN.

NO. THANK YOU. IT PASSES 6 TO 1. SO WITH THAT.

WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM. 13 DE 13 E D AS IN DAVID B, THANK YOU. 13 D A RESOLUTION OF THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL.

[13.D) A Resolution of the Naples City Council, Establishing an Auditor Selection Committee, In Accordance with Section 218.391, Florida Statutes; Providing for Committee Purpose, Membership, and Duties; And Providing an Effective Date. ]

D AS IN DOG. A RESOLUTION. A RESOLUTION OF THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING AN AUDITOR SELECTION COMMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 218.391 FLORIDA STATUTES PROVIDING FOR COMMITTEE PURPOSE, MEMBERSHIP DUTIES AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I'M GOING TO START THIS ONE. THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. SO STEFAN'S HERE AND HE'LL GO THROUGH THIS, THE FLORIDA STATUTES THAT REQUIRES THIS BODY TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE AUDIT SELECTION COMMITTEE.

AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM IN JUST A MOMENT.

BUT BUT I DID ALSO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THIS AUDIT SELECTION COMMITTEE, I AM WORKING WITH PURCHASING ON A SEPARATE RFP RELATED TO AN INTERNAL AUDIT THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE DONE, IN ADDITION OF INTERNAL PROCEDURES, BOTH PURCHASING AND OTHER DECISIONS, MECHANISMS THAT WE'VE MADE ALONG THE WAY SINCE I'VE, SINCE I'VE BEEN CITY MANAGER AND HAVE AN INTERNAL AUDIT AND A FORENSIC AUDIT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, SO I'M GOING TO BE WORKING ON THAT.

THAT'S A SEPARATE MECHANISM, BUT I DID WANT TO AT LEAST LET YOU KNOW THAT AT THIS TIME, AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO STEFAN TO GO OVER WHAT THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITTEE IS AND WHY IT'S PART OF THE ANNUAL AUDIT AND REQUIREMENT BY STATE STATUTE.

SO, OKAY. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STEFAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. STEFAN MR, FINANCE DIRECTOR.

JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND HERE.

SO THE LAST TIME THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORMED WAS ACTUALLY BACK IN 2021.

AND IT'S IT WAS A NEW PROCESS THAT YEAR. IT WAS A PRODUCT OF SOME CHANGES IN FLORIDA STATUTE ABOUT HOW AN AUDITOR IS SELECTED. AND AS YOU KNOW, EACH YEAR OUR FINANCIAL REPORT IS THE PRODUCT OF WORK WITH AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR THAT TAKES PLACE EACH YEAR.

AND ACTUALLY, WE'RE KIND OF COMING INTO THAT SEASON RIGHT NOW WITH AUDIT OF THE LAST FISCAL YEAR.

[06:20:06]

SO WE'RE STARTING THIS PROJECT NOW BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL MEETINGS OF THIS AUDIT COMMITTEE AFTER IT'S FORMED IN ORDER TO FIRST AND FOREMOST, DEVELOP A SOLICITATION DOCUMENT. WE ALREADY HAVE ONE FROM LAST YEAR OR LAST TIME THIS WAS DONE IN 2021 THAT YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE MOSTLY SUITABLE. THANKFULLY, SINCE WE DID JUST GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS LAST FIVE YEARS.

AND ONCE THAT COMMITTEE MEETS REVIEWS AND DETERMINES IF THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENT IS WILL FUNCTION AS IT IS OR REQUIRES ANY EDITS, THEN FROM THAT POINT IT WOULD GO OUT TO A BIDDING PROCESS.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY FOR A 30 DAY PROCESS.

THEN FOLLOWING THAT PROCESS, THE COMMITTEE WOULD THEN REVIEW THOSE SUBMITTALS, RANK THE SUBMISSIONS.

EACH FIRM. ONE THING THAT IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED IN STATUTE IS THAT COMPENSATION IS NOT THE PREDOMINANT FACTOR.

IT CAN BE A FACTOR, BUT IT CAN'T BE, YOU KNOW, JUST GO TO THE LOWEST COST SUBMISSION.

SO ONCE THOSE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AND RANKED THEN FROM THAT POINT, THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING TO THIS BODY WHO THAT FIRM THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND TO HAVE THAT CONTRACT WOULD BE AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, COUNCIL WOULD THEN HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

SO BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF SUMMER RECESS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HOPING TO GET THIS PROCESS DONE BY JUNE.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE'RE STARTING NOW TO MAKE THOSE DEADLINES WORK THROUGH.

JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PACKET.

WE HAVE THE AGENDA MEMORANDUM, THE DRAFTED RESOLUTION THE STATE OF FLORIDA, GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA, AUDITOR GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR AUDITOR SELECTION COMMITTEES AND THE FLORIDA STATUTE ITSELF.

218 .39 THAT ESTABLISHES REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, INCLUDED IN THAT FLORIDA AUDITOR GENERAL GUIDANCE.

THERE IS BOTH A, AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT FLORIDA STATUTE REQUIRES FOR EACH, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THIS PROCESS AS WELL AS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA RECOMMENDS.

AND SO GFOA, YOU KNOW, EACH YEAR FOR MANY YEARS, WE'VE SUBMITTED AND SUCCESSFULLY BEEN AWARDED AWARDS FOR BOTH OUR BUDGET AND OUR OUR ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT. SO WE WOULD WANT TO, YOU KNOW, DO OUR BEST TO ALIGN WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I WILL SAY THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH PREVIOUSLY IN DESIGNING THE COMMITTEE IS WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING AGAIN TODAY TO MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT THOSE AT A MINIMUM. OF COURSE, LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE, BUT ALSO WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE BEST PRACTICES. AND THAT IS WHY I'M RECOMMENDING WE HAVE A COMMITTEE FORMED OF THREE INDIVIDUALS. THERE WOULD BE A CHAIR WHO WOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

IN ADDITION, THERE WOULD BE TWO OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT WHO WOULD BE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CITY OF NAPLES WHO HAVE A BACKGROUND IN FAMILIARITY WITH GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORTING.

AND I WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS. I INCLUDED A A SPOT FOR AN ALTERNATE MEMBER JUST BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING ISSUES THAT COULD ARISE AND THE NARROW TIMELINES THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS ALWAYS THAT QUORUM PRESENT FOR ANY OF THE MEETINGS THAT WOULD BE OCCURRING WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. SO I GUESS WITH THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS IS.

YES. OKAY. SO THE FORENSIC AUDIT WAS MENTIONED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

AND RIGHT AT THIS POINT, YOU ARE SELECTING THE COMMITTEE.

WILL THE TASKS RELATIVE TO THE AUDIT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT, THAT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE WILL OPINE ON? IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT PART THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WILL THAT COME AFTER THE SELECTION OF THIS COMMITTEE, OR WILL THIS BE WILL THEY ALSO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THAT AS WELL? IS THAT PART OF THEIR TASK? STEPH I'LL HANDLE THAT.

SURE, SURE. SO THE TIMING OF IT IS IS THE REASON TO NOT MAKE IT.

PART OF THAT COMMITTEE IS THIS THAT COMMITTEE IS APPOINTING THE AUDIT THAT WILL THE FIRST TIME THEY'LL TOUCH THE AUDIT WILL BE IN 2027 FOR THE 2026 FINANCIALS. THAT'S WHAT THAT AUDIT COMMITTEE IS DOING. SO THE REASON I'M DOING A SEPARATE ONE IS TO BE ABLE TO BEGIN IT SOONER.

[06:25:07]

AND SO FROM A NEXT STEP PERSPECTIVE HERE YOU'RE YOU'RE THIS IS MERELY ESTABLISHING THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.

WHEN YOU MEET IN FEBRUARY. THAT GROUP YOU'RE THAT THAT THIS COUNCIL WILL APPOINT WHO THOSE AD HOC MEMBERS ARE AND THEY WILL DO A SOLICITATION FOR THE AUDIT THAT BEGINS IN 2020 OR OCTOBER 1ST OF 2027 OF THE 26 AUDIT.

I DON'T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG TO START INTERNAL REVIEW IN THE PROCESS.

I WANT TO GET STARTED. SO I INTEND TO COME TO YOU BY APRIL TO AWARD THAT CONTRACT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S THAT WAS WHAT I WAS SEEKING.

THANK YOU. YES. CRISPIN AND GARY, HOW WILL THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE BE IDENTIFIED? I WOULD JUST IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THAT YOU GUYS ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION ON HOW YOU'RE GOING TO APPOINT OTHER BOARDS AND COMMITTEES. I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS UP TO YOUR DIRECTION, OTHER THAN THE RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, HOW YOU SOLICIT THOSE OTHER MEMBERS AS WAS DONE, BECAUSE THAT WAS AS YOU KNOW, I WAS FINANCE DIRECTOR AT THE TIME.

WE DID THE LAST ONE. THERE WAS A COUNCIL APPOINTED WHO THE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WAS.

THEY TOOK NOMINATIONS FROM OTHERS, AND THEN YOU SELECTED THEM JUST LIKE YOU DID EVERY OTHER TYPE OF BOARD.

THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WOULD DO A SOLICITATION SAYING, YEAH, I THINK WHAT WE DID WAS WE HAD ASKED FOR NAMES THAT WERE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED, AND THEN YOU DID THE NORMAL PROCESS OF WHO YOU APPOINTED BASED ON THOSE NOMINATIONS.

YOU KNOW, WHO EACH MEMBER OF COUNCIL WOULD PUT FORWARD, BUT THE CITY CLERK WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS BEING CREATED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE AND WOULD BE AS AS THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOES WITH OUR REGULAR COMMITTEES, OUR REGULAR ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

THEN THROUGH THAT NOTIFICATION PROCESS, PRESUMABLY PEOPLE.

WELL, I DON'T YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO BE PRESUMPTIVE OF TO WHAT YOUR PROCESS IS GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT ITEM AND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO WORK OUT TO BE.

BUT JUST TO FAMILIARIZE YOU WITH WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME WAS, IS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A IT'S AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, JUST LIKE YOU DID WITH OTHER MEMBERS WHEN YOU DO THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL IS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PUT UP CERTAIN PEOPLE AND THEN THERE'S A, THERE'S A VOTE TO IT. AND SO IT WAS THAT PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH LAST TIME.

IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR, WE WOULD NOMINATE INDIVIDUALS.

AND THEN AND THEN FROM THAT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS SELECT THE MEMBERS.

YEAH. AND THAT'S WHY THE TIMING OF IT IF YOU CREATE THE BOARD NOW WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING COME FEBRUARY AT, THIS WILL BE A BOARD OF WHICH YOU CAN DISCUSS WHO DO YOU WANT THE MEMBER OF COUNCIL TO BE SHOULD THAT BE.

OR YOU CAN DO IT AT ANOTHER MEETING, BUT IT KIND OF FLOWS NATURALLY TO DO.

WHO ARE WE GOING TO PUT ON FROM COUNCIL TO THAT? AND THEN. OH, BY THE WAY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO TAKE NOMINATIONS FOR THE OTHER TWO POSITIONS? GOTCHA. THANK YOU. OKAY. KRAMER. AND THEN PETRANOFF.

OH. THANK YOU. FOR THIS AUDIT THAT IS BEING DONE.

IS IT ONE AUDIT OR TWO AUDITS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? I'M SPEAKING OF IS SEPARATE IN MORE DETAILED AND INTEGRAL THAN THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WARRANTS IT. BECAUSE YOU COULD YOU COULD WAIT AND EXPAND THEIR SCOPE IN THE IN THAT ONE.

BUT I ACTUALLY WANT TO GET THAT INTERNAL ONE STARTED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

AND SO AND I DIDN'T WANT TO GO AND AMEND IT TO THE EXISTING AUDITOR WHO WAS SELECTED FROM THE LAST PANEL.

I'D RATHER DO AN INDEPENDENT RFP AND GET NAMES BACK SPECIALIZING IN THOSE AREAS AND THEN GO ABOUT IT THAT WAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR, IF I MAY, AND MAYBE THIS GOES TO COUNCIL.

I DON'T KNOW WHO GARY WHO WOULD ANSWER THIS, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE A PRETTY SPECIFIC BANDWIDTH WE WANT RIGHT THERE.

THAT'S WHAT HE WAS ASKING FOR. SOMEONE THAT'S THAT HAS HAS WORKED.

CAN YOU GIVE ME THE QUOTE THAT YOU GAVE? YEAH.

LET ME ACTUALLY JUST READ IT VERBATIM FROM THE SO THREE MEMBERS WILL BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF NAPLES WHO POSSESS A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF GOVERNMENTAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AND AUDITING.

THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION WOULD CALL FOR. AND, WELL, THE LAST TIME IT WAS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS AN ACCOUNTANT THAT WAS WHO HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO WAS APPOINTED AS THE ONE MEMBER.

AND THEN THERE WAS TWO OTHER MEMBERS WHO HAD A FINANCIAL BACKGROUND THAT WERE SELECTED.

SO I THINK YOUR APPOINTMENT SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND.

WHAT'S THAT? IT WAS ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THAT TIME.

NO NO, NO. OKAY. THE ONE WE HAD, ONE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WAS APPOINTED TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE OTHER ONES WERE HAD A FINANCIAL BACKGROUND AS THEY WERE APPOINTED.

SO I THINK THAT'S THE DISCRETION YOU USE WHEN YOU'RE RECOMMENDING SOMEBODY IS TO UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND SOMEBODY THAT HAS A THE FINANCIAL BANDWIDTH TO BE ABLE TO

[06:30:09]

EXECUTE ON YOUR BEHALF. SPECIFIC TO ME, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW HOW HARD THAT WOULD BE FOR US TO FIND THOSE FOLKS. PROBABLY NOT IN NAPLES, HIGHLY SMART AND SOPHISTICATED, BUT JUST SOMETHING THAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT HOW TOUGH THAT WOULD BE.

THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, DOES IT NEED TO BE A GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE, OR COULD IT JUST BE FINANCIAL, YOU KNOW? YEAH, I IF I THINK FINANCIALS FINANCIAL I STEFAN YOU WANT TO READ WHAT IT SAYS.

WELL AND AND IT WAS, IT WAS JUST A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF GOVERNMENTAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AND AUDITING.

SO IT COULD BE SOMEONE WHO'S WORKED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROBABLY FOLKS WHO HAVE WORKED FOR COMPANIES THAT DO BOND.

YOU KNOW, PURCHASING AND WILL HAVE EVALUATED GOVERNMENTS IN THE PAST.

SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THEY'VE THEY'VE WORKED DIRECTLY IN GOVERNMENT FINANCE.

YEAH. IT'S JUST THAT THEY THAT THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH GOVERNMENTAL FINANCIAL REPORTING.

THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S TOO NARROW. VICE MAYOR.

YEAH. SO THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

IF WE WANT TO TAKE ACTION, THIS WOULD BE VOTING ON THIS RESOLUTION.

TO GET THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN TO IS TO ESTABLISH.

YEAH. MADAM MAYOR, WHENEVER IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

OKAY. NO COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT, NO SLIPS. OKAY.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. VICE MAYOR. MADAM MAYOR I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION IN 13 DE 13 DE ESTABLISHING AN AUDITOR SELECTION COMMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 218 .391 FLORIDA STATUTES. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

MADAM. CLERK. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

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

KRAMER. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR..

THE. NEXT ITEM IS. 13.

[13.E) A Resolution Establishing a Procedure by which the City Council Votes on Applicants for Appointment/Reappointment to Various Boards and Committees, Including the Naples Airport Authority; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE.

BY WHICH CITY COUNCIL VOTES ON APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENTS.

REAPPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES, INCLUDING THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. OBVIOUSLY MADAM BOSS IS HERE AS WELL, BUT VICE MAYOR WAS VERY CLEAR AT THE LAST MEETING THAT FOR THE JANUARY 21ST MEETING, HE WANTED OUR OFFICE IN THE CITY CLERK TO WORK TOGETHER TO PUT TOGETHER WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A PROCESS AND A PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THESE POSITIONS.

SO THAT IS WHAT WE'VE DONE, AND IT IS IN FRONT OF YOU, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT? SURE. I THINK. MISS RAMOS CAN JUMP IN.

SURE. SO. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PATRICIA RAMOS, CITY CLERK.

SO, AS YOU RECALL, AT THE APPOINTMENTS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THE COUNCIL WANTED TO CITED CONCERNS WITH ITS PRESENT PROCESS AND WANTED SOME KIND OF PROCESS THAT WOULD BE MORE DIRECT METHOD FOR APPOINTING THESE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YOU'LL RECALL THAT THE PAST PROCESS WAS RESCINDED.

IT WAS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 2021 4478. AND WHAT THAT DID WAS PROVIDE A VOTE BY RANKED ORDER BALLOT, WITH THE NUMBER ONE BEING THE LOWEST RANKED AND THEREFORE YOUR PREFERRED APPLICANT.

SO THAT PROCESS WAS RESCINDED. AND WE STARTED OVER AND WE STARTED WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF THEIR PORT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS ON THE FLOOR AND THEN THE CITY. I AND MATTHEW DRAFTED A RESOLUTION TRYING TO MIRROR EXACTLY WHAT THE COUNCIL DID THAT DAY.

SO JUST TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THIS, WE'RE NO LONGER DOING A RANKED ORDER BALLOT, AND THAT RANKED ORDER DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER.

SO THE FIRST STEP IF WE HAVE ONE APPLICANT FOR ONE VACANCY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT SHALL BE MADE BY VOTE.

MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE.

EASY ONE. THE SECOND ONE. IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE APPLICANT FOR ONE VACANCY, A BALLOT VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN WHICH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER VOTES FOR ONE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT RECEIVING VOTES FROM A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AS THE SELECTED APPLICANT.

[06:35:08]

IF THERE'S A TIE VOTE, A SECOND BALLOT SHALL BE CONDUCTED.

THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT SHALL BE MADE BY MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

SURE. YES. IT SAYS IF A TIE VOTE RESULTS, A SECOND BALLOT VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED, BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE TWO THAT TIED, NOT ANOTHER BALLOT WITH EVERYBODY.

THAT WOULD BE. THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THAT MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO SAY IF A TIE VOTE RESULTS, THE SECOND BALLOT VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TWO TOP OR WITH THE TIED CANDIDATES, ETC..

CORRECT? RIGHT. CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE. NEXT, WHEN MORE THAN ONE VACANCY EXISTS AND THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF VACANCIES, A BALLOT VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED WHICH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER VOTES FOR THEIR TOP APPLICANTS.

TO NARROW THE FIELD IN NO RANKING ORDER, THE TOP APPLICANTS SHALL BE THE SAME NUMBER OF VACANCIES CURRENTLY PRESENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE TWO VACANCIES, THEN THE FIELD SHALL BE NARROWED TO TWO APPLICANTS.

IF THERE ARE THREE VACANCIES, THEN THE FIELD SHALL BE NARROWED TO THREE APPLICANTS AND THEN THE SAME THING OF A BALLOT VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED FOR EACH VACANCY IN WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER VOTES FOR ONE APPLICANT, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SELECTED APPLICANT SHALL BE MADE BY SEPARATE MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. DOES THAT WAIT? SAY THAT AGAIN? YES.

SO WE MAY HAVE TO REMOVE THAT LAST SENTENCE. THE SECOND TO LAST.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO SAY IS LET'S SAY YOU HAVE SIX PEOPLE FOR TWO SPOTS.

THE FIRST BALLOT WILL BE LIMITED TO YOU ALL IDENTIFYING A TOP TWO BECAUSE THERE'S TWO VACANCIES.

AND THEN IF TWO OF THEM GET A MAJORITY, THEN WE MOVE ON.

BUT IF WE RUN INTO A THREE PERSON TIE, THEN WE WILL ESSENTIALLY LOWER THE FIELD TO THOSE THREE.

AND THEN AGAIN YOU WILL RANK YOUR TOP TWO BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY TWO VACANCIES.

AND AT THAT POINT WE SHOULD RESULT IN THE TWO PEOPLE GETTING SELECTED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO MIMIC WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE RECENT APPOINTMENTS, BUT FOR THE RESCINDING OF MOTIONS AND THAT EXERCISE WE WENT THROUGH. CORRECT. SO GENERALLY, THE BALLOT WE'RE GOING TO BE SUBMITTING WILL BE LIKE A WORKSHEET THAT YOU'LL BE USING IF IT HAS TO GO BACK AGAIN.

WE'LL CROSS OUT THE NAMES OF THOSE THAT DIDN'T RISE TO THE TOP.

AND THEN WE'LL JUST WORK UNTIL WE GET THE TOP.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT SAYS. IT'S NOT AS EASY TO WORD THAT, BUT I DO THINK THREE SATISFIES THAT. IF WE REMOVE THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF A BALLOT, VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED FOR EACH VACANCY IN WHICH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER VOTES FOR ONE APPLICANT.

I THINK THAT WAS THE LEFTOVER LANGUAGE THAT KIND OF CONFUSES THE SECTION.

MADAM. I'M SORRY. YES. VICE MAYOR. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, MATTHEW.

I JUST. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT TO WHERE WE CAN NOW MAKE A MOTION ON THIS.

YOU JUST A REVISION TO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS REMOVE THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF OF OF OF NUMBER THREE. OKAY. AND WE ADDED. SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF NUMBER TWO.

WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IF A A TIE VOTE RESULTS A SECOND BALLOT VOTE SHALL BE CONDUCTED AMONGST THE CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVED THE TIE.

SO YOU'RE NOT JUST VOTING ON EVERYONE AGAIN. OKAY.

SO REMOVE THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF NUMBER THREE.

CORRECT. ADD IN THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF NUMBER TWO.

AFTER CONDUCTED AMONGST THE CANDIDATES RECEIVING THE TIE.

OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES AMONGST THE CANDIDATES.

AND THE CANDIDATES IN A TIE. CORRECT. RECEIVING THE TIE VOTE.

RECEIVING THE TIE VOTE OR RECEIVING A TIE VOTE.

OR IS THAT NUMBER TWO? AND THEN I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STATE

[06:40:05]

THAT WE ADDED SECTION TWO OF THIS RESOLUTION, WHICH IS ON THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SAYS NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A LIMITATION ON CITY COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO MODIFY THIS PROCESS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

SO THE REASON WE HAD TO DO WHAT WE DID LAST TIME IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS YOU ALL ON ANY GIVEN DAY TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS OUR WRITTEN POLICY, BUT WE BELIEVE THIS IS PROBABLY A BETTER THING FOR TODAY SO THAT MODIFYING LANGUAGE CURES SOME THINGS.

IT CURES SOME THINGS IN THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION AND THEN ADOPT THE PROCESS.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE FLEXIBILITY. AND YOU SHOULD, AS COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS BEST.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, HOWEVER, THIS IS SOME PARAMETERS TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY.

SO. SO THE IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, PLEASE. TRYING TO WRAP THIS, TIE THIS UP.

SO IF A MOTION WERE TO BE MADE, IT WOULD SOUND SOMETHING LIKE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS OR THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS.

AND THAT WOULD BE REMOVE THE SECOND TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF ITEM NUMBER THREE.

AND THE SECOND IN THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF NUMBER TWO, THE FOLLOWING AFTER.

AND I CAN'T READ AFTER. CONDUCTED AMONGST. NO.

AFTER. WHAT'S. WHAT'S THE WORD THAT YOU HAD SAID AFTER AMONGST THE CANDIDATES RECEIVING A TIE VOTE? YEAH. IF I COULD SAY ONE THING, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED IT, BECAUSE NUMBER FOUR ON THE BACK GIVES YOU THE CHANCE TO.

IF A TIE OCCURS AT ANY STAGE OF BALLOTING, ADDITIONAL BALLOT VOTES SHALL BE CONDUCTED AMONG THE TIED APPLICANTS UNTIL THE FIELD IS NARROWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH.

SO. STRIKE. STRIKE. SO WE COULD JUST STRIKE THAT THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE FOR NUMBER TWO.

BUT REMOVING THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF NUMBER THREE IS STILL APPROPRIATE.

IS STILL APPROPRIATE. AND THAT'S REALLY IT. CORRECT.

UNLESS YOU UNLESS COUNCIL HAS ANY OTHER. NOT A GOOD NAME.

AND JUST SO I CAN CLARIFY, ALSO, WE USED TO GET INTO POSITIONS WHERE WE WERE FILLING VACANCIES FOR REGULAR MEMBERS, AND THEN WE HAD AN ALTERNATE THAT WE ALMOST ROLLED INTO AND SAID, OKAY ONE AND TWO DIDN'T GET APPROVED.

AND THEN WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE. SO WE'LL PUT THE ALTERNATE ON THIS.

VOTING METHOD PUTS ALTERNATES IN A WHOLE SEPARATE VOTING I GUESS FIELD, BECAUSE WE WOULD DO THEM SEPARATELY AND NOT TOGETHER WITH THE REGULAR APPLICANTS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT'S WHAT NUMBER FIVE SAYS.

WELL, HOW DO YOU GO TO THE NEXT ALTERNATES? WE WOULD DO THE ALTERNATES EXACTLY.

IF WE HAD THREE APPLICANTS FOR ONE ALTERNATE POSITION, WE WOULD DO IT EXACTLY FOLLOW THE SAME RULES FOR A REGULAR POSITION.

BUT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S APPOINTED TO THE BOARD AND YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE POSITION OPEN.

THEY DIDN'T APPLY FOR AN ALTERNATE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

AND YOU'LL HAVE A YOU'LL HAVE THREE POSITIONS OPEN.

AND IF THE FIRST ONE GETS IT, THE SECOND ONE GETS IT, AND THEN THE THIRD GETS THE ALTERNATE.

RIGHT. AND AND IF THAT OCCURS AND TWO POSITIONS GET FILLED AND YOU HAVE ONE LEFT, THEN YOU GO RIGHT.

ONE APPLICANT FOR ONE VACANCY. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A REGULAR OR AN ALTERNATE.

YOU HAVE ONE APPLICANT FOR ONE VACANCY. SO THEN YOU JUST DO A VOICE MOTION, IF I MAY I THINK I THINK THE POINT OF IT IS THAT IF THERE WERE FOUR LEFTOVER, THEN WE'D START THE PROCESS WITH THE FOUR TO FILL THE ONE.

THE ONE ALTERNATE VACANCY. IS THAT THE CASE? YES.

CORRECT. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE ROOM THAT HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? CAN I CAN I ASK A QUESTION THOUGH? I MAY BE COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER HERE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT I KNOW LATE IN THE DAY.

BUT WE HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO. CAN SOMEBODY GO WRITE IT UP? JUST. JUST MAKE THOSE EDITS REAL QUICK AND AND THEN SEE IT BEFORE WE BEFORE WE LEAVE.

IT'S UNLESS I'M MISSING IT. IT'S JUST A DELETION OF THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE IN NUMBER THREE.

THAT'S ALL THAT IT IS. THE ONLY CHANGE. CORRECT. WELL, AREN'T WE ADDING THE TIE THING ABOUT IF WE DON'T HAVE TO.

OKAY, OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S ON FOR IN THAT CASE THEN I'M FINE. IN THAT CASE THEN I'M FINE.

SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO SQUINT AND LOOK THIS. OH NO.

NO, I GOT IT. I'LL PUT A LINE RIGHT THROUGH IT. THAT'S NO PROBLEM. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, I GOT IT. OKAY, WE'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT. VICE MAYOR. VICE MAYOR? YEP. MADAM MAYOR, AND SO WE'RE DISCUSSING ITEM 13 E AND I'D MOVE THAT THIS

[06:45:07]

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE BY WHICH CITY COUNCIL VOTES ON APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES, INCLUDING THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, BE APPROVED WITH A REVISION REMOVING THE SECOND TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF ITEM NUMBER THREE WITHIN THIS RESOLUTION.

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

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRISPIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

PETRANOFF. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. DID SOMEONE SAY NO? I SAID YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. PASSES. UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SHOUT OUT.

THANK YOU, MISS RAMOS, FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THAT.

GREAT. GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR. RAMBO. OKAY.

SO SHALL I READ BOTH 13 F AND 13 G MAYOR? THAT WOULD BE FABULOUS.

[13.F) Announcement of an Executive Session regarding Riccardo, Theresa v. City of Naples, Case No. 24-CA-002400, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida.]

[13.G) Announcement of an Executive Session regarding Oyola, Carmen v. City of Naples, Case No. 24-CA-002335, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. ]

THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. OKAY, SO PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 286 .011, SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT, CONSIDER THIS MY ANNOUNCEMENT. CITY ATTORNEYS ANNOUNCING HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE CONCERNING ONE OF TWO THINGS EITHER SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION, STYLED RICARDO TERESA VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR CA 002400 AND IN FOUR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026 AT APPROXIMATELY 1230, IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL.

THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR.

CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT TAKE ACTION DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT MAY TAKE ACTION CONCERNING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING. FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS. BILL KRAMER LINDA BYRNE BARTON ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER, ONE ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER, TWO ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER, THREE CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY JEFFREY HURCOMB, AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF DINES COURT REPORTING. NOW 13 G.

AGAIN PURSUANT TO 286 .011 SUB PARAGRAPH EIGHT, CITY ATTORNEY IS ANNOUNCING HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION.

STYLED OYOLA CARMEN VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES CASE NUMBER 24CA002335, AND IN FOUR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026, AT APPROXIMATELY 130 OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT I JUST ANNOUNCED, WHICH IS SCHEDULED AT 1230 IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR.

CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT TAKE ACTION DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT MAY TAKE ACTION AT A FUTURE ONCE WE RECONVENE AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING.

AS WE KNOW, THE ENTIRE SESSION IS TRANSCRIBED BY A COURT REPORTER.

FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENMAN, BERNARD BARTON ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER ONE ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER, TWO ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER, THREE CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY JEFFREY HURCOMBE, AND A REPRESENTATIVE DINES COURT REPORTING. JUST SO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE AN ELECTION ON FEBRUARY 3RD.

ONCE THOSE RESULTS ARE CERTIFIED, THE PUBLIC NOTICE WILL INCLUDE COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED ONE, TWO AND THREE. PRIOR TO THE HEARING ON 218. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COULD WE JUST TAKE TWO MINUTES AND COME BACK AND WE WILL WRAP UP WITH OUR FINAL ITEM AND CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATION, PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE ARE COMPLETE.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK. SHORT BREAK AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON ITEM 13 H.

[13.H) Discussion Seeking City Council Confirmation and Approval of Baker Park, Specifically the 34-Foot-High Elevated Knoll Overlook with Space for Art Display, as the Preferred Location for the Developer Public Art Requirement Associated with the 1st Avenue South Parking Garage and Gulfshore Playhouse Partnership. In Addition, Provided City Council Approves the Selection Of The Baker Park Elevated Knoll, Given Its Location And City Significance, Request Council Consider a Contribution to the Art Project on the Knoll of an Additional $150,000-$200,000 from the Public Art Fund for the Project.]

MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU MAYOR. I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF BUT THOROUGH.

AS FAR AS THE ITEM BEFORE YOU, AS THE AGM INDICATED, THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC ART COMPONENT OF THE PARKING GARAGE WHERE WE HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE YEAH, THE PLA, THE GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE.

AND COMBINED, WE HAVE AROUND 163,000 SET ASIDE FOR PUBLIC ART.

AND IN THAT AGREEMENT, WE IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR GARAGE PROBABLY ISN'T THE BEST PLACE TO WASTE MONEY ON PUTTING AN ART

[06:50:01]

FIXTURE IN FRONT OF. AND GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE REALLY HAD NO LOCATION FOR THERE.

SO WE ENTERED INTO THIS PARTNERSHIP. SO AT THAT TIME, THEN WE FORMED WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, WHERE I WAS GOING TO APPOINT THREE MEMBERS, AND THEN THE PLAYHOUSE WOULD APPOINT TWO, AND WE WOULD DO AN RFP TO COME BACK WITH ART INCLUSIVE IN THAT DOE SPECIFIED THAT WE WOULD THAT WE WOULD INDICATE ITS LOCATION WOULD ALSO COME BACK TO COUNCIL. SO WE DID SOME OF THE EXPLORATORY WORK AND WHERE DO WE WANT TO PUT IT.

AND THERE THIS ISN'T NEW CONCEPT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN EXPRESSED FROM THE DAIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, IS MAYBE WE OUGHT TO BASED ON PROXIMITY, LOOK AT BAKER PARK.

SO I DID FOCUS A LOT OF ATTENTION THERE, LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF OTHER LOCATIONS, BUT IT REALLY DID GRAVITATE TOWARDS BAKER PARK.

AND THEN IT BECAME A QUESTION OF WHERE. AND I THINK WHAT I WANTED TO TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW, AND I THOUGHT I OWED IT TO THIS COUNCIL BEFORE.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR A VOTE TODAY. I'M JUST ASKING FOR CONSENSUS DIRECTION BEFORE I PUT AN RFP OUT TO SAY, AM I GOING DOWN THE RIGHT TRACK? AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT.

SO HAVING WALKED THE BAKER PARK AND AND EXPLORED THE AREAS I'VE REALLY GRAVITATED TOWARD PUTTING IT ON THE KNOLL AND THE KNOLL AS I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH A QUICK, QUICK SLIDE PRESENTATION IS REALLY DESIGNED IN THEORY FOR THAT AS A POTENTIAL PIECE.

AND THEN I'LL ALSO CONCLUDE WITH A COMPONENT OF DO WE WANT TO EXPLORE USE OF OTHER FUNDS? GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THE BAKER PARK, ITS PUBLIC USAGE TO USE SOME OF THE PUBLIC ART FUNDS? AND AS I GO THROUGH THIS, I'LL EXPLAIN AS TO WHY.

OKAY, SO THE KNOLL IS THE BEST PLACE. IT'S 30 FOOT.

FOUR FOOT HIGH, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION. WITH BAKER PARK.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO HAVE ELECTRICITY IN CASE IT WANTED TO BE LIT FROM BELOW.

AND ONE OF THE SLIDES, YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE WHERE THEY INDICATED THAT ON THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CONCEPT OF IT, AS THAT'S WHAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATED FOR. SO THAT INNER CIRCLE IS WHERE YOU HAVE THE ELECTRICITY THAT'S RUN TO.

AND SO IF WE DID DO SOMETHING THAT WAS ELEVATED OFF OF THE GROUND AND THEN WITH LIGHT UNDERNEATH, IT WOULD BE A PRIME LOCATION FOR THAT AND IT'S SET UP FOR THAT.

THE OTHER PART OF IT IS IT HAS THREE ACCESS POINTS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE SET THAT AS THEIR DESTINATION TO MAKE IT TO THE TOP, WALK AROUND AND JUST GET BACK DOWN. IT'S A NATURAL THING COMING FROM A TOWN WHERE WE HAD THE MCKINLEY MONUMENT GOING UP AND DOWN THE STEPS TO GET TO THE TOP, THAT WAS YOUR EXERCISE ROUTINE, AND HAVING BEEN THERE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DO HERE.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD DESTINATION FOR A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF ART.

AND SO I GRAVITATE TOWARD THAT FOR THAT REASON AS WELL.

THIS IS JUST A MAP AERIAL OF IT AND HOW YOU WOULD COME UP THE STAIRS TO IT.

THIS IS DIRECT ELECTRICAL OPTIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED TO HAVE LIGHTING UP ON THAT KNOLL.

AND SO IT IS A POSSIBILITY. THOSE ARE THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT IT.

THE OTHER THING IS, IS THE PARK ITSELF CONTEMPLATES A NUMBER OF PLACES TO HAVE ART.

AND REALLY, IT WAS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO THAT WHEN I KIND OF CONCLUDED, I DON'T THINK $163,000 IS ENOUGH IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO ON THE KNOLL.

AND SO LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN BY THAT. THESE OTHER LOCATIONS HAVE SOME CEMENT, WHICH WE CALL BASES FOR WHICH ART COULD BE DISPLAYED.

AND WHAT REALLY SOLD IT FOR ME, I'M NOT AN ART CONNOISSEUR.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO UP THERE YET.

AND I'M I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONALS THAT'S GOING TO ADVISE IN THAT RFP.

BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU REMEMBER THE NAPLES BEACH CLUB PRESENTATION ON THEIR OWN ART, WE HAD ONE PIECE THAT WAS $225,000, AND IT WAS SHIMMERING LIGHT THAT SHOWED IT HAD A DEGREE OF HEIGHT TO IT, AND THE REFLECTION WAS ACTUALLY NATURE BASED SUN OR WHATEVER.

BUT THE POINT IS, THAT ENTIRE COLLECTION WAS $775,000, OF WHICH THERE WAS TWO TWO PIECES OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE.

ONE WAS 75. ANOTHER ONE WAS 225. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE KNOLL, I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE I'M AN ACCOUNTANT BY NATURE.

IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT KNOLL AND IT IS THE FOCAL POINT OF THAT PARK, THAT $163,000 IN COMPARISON TO A PIECE OF ART MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE IF THAT'S YOUR PRIMARY PIECE IN THAT PARK.

SO WHAT I EXPRESSED TO YOU IN THE AGM IS I WANTED TO KNOW IF COUNCIL, GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT NATURE WHERE WE'RE PUTTING IT IN OUR PUBLIC PARK, IT HAS A PUBLIC COMPONENT TO IT BEYOND OUR PROJECT.

AND SO WHAT I ASKED YOU TO CONTEMPLATE IS, DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER 150 OR 200,000 OUT OF THE PUBLIC ART FUND, IN ADDITION TO THE FUNDS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO PUT THERE, SO THAT WHEN WE DO AN RFP, INSTEAD OF SAYING THE RFP SUBMISSION SHOULD BE WITHIN 163,000, YOU HAVE A LARGER POT OF MONEY FOR THAT POTENTIAL PIECE.

[06:55:04]

SO I ONLY WANT TO KNOW IF I'M GOING DOWN THE RIGHT ROAD.

YOU THINK? NO. LET'S START WITH THE FIRST PIECE THAT'S ON A SMALL SQUARE THAT WE CAN GET FOR THAT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO TO NECESSARILY CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW YOUR, YOUR DESIRES WITH THAT AREA, AND I, AND I WOULD REMIND YOU IN THE AGM, NOT INCLUDING DEPOSITS HELD IN TRUST, WHICH IS WHAT THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM SAYS, THE FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WHERE I'M TALKING OF THE 150 TO 200, IS ROUGHLY 796,000 THAT'S THERE. SO I'M NOT CONTEMPLATING ALL OF ITS USAGE OR EVEN THE MAJORITY OF IT.

I JUST THINK A CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE IT A MORE SUBSTANTIAL PIECE ON THAT KNOLL WOULD BE WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION.

SO SO I. SAID 700,000 WAS IN THE PUBLIC ART FUND.

THAT'S EXCLUDING HELD DEPOSITS. SO I SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO USE IT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PIECE MIGHT BE.

BUT WE ALSO NEED TO KIND OF DETERMINE IF, IF IT IS GOING TO BE AT THAT KNOLL AREA AT THE TOP, THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT ALSO, AND I KNOW YOU'RE EVERYTHING LEADS TO A DIFFERENT PROCESS, BUT THAT 700,000 REALLY, WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE POLICIES WERE FOR MAINTENANCE OF OUR OWN, OUR ALREADY OWNED ARTWORK. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS WHERE THAT IS.

THAT IS WHY I WAS ONLY CONTEMPLATING YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MAYBE UP TO 20% OF THE EXISTING BALANCE, BUT BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT YOU KNOW, MY SCHEDULE ON THIS IS TO BE BACK TO YOU TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN RFP WITHIN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, 30 DAYS IT'S OUT FOR 45 THEN COMING BACK.

BECAUSE REMEMBER, THIS IS JUST THIS IS DISCUSSION DIRECTION.

I STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR FORMAL ADOPTION, STILL HAS TO GO TO PAB.

ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS STILL WOULD NEED TO BE DONE LIKE ANY OTHER PIECE OF ART.

BUT I DO AGREE MAYOR AND AND I WILL I DO INTEND TO COME BACK WITH YOU WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

AND THEN BASED ON HOW THIS TEST PILOT PROGRAM OR THIS PROGRAM WENT TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANT TO LEAVE THE OVERALL IN IN DRB, I THINK I SAID PAB, BUT IN DRB OR OR REVISIT SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE LATER.

RIGHT NOW, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF AGAIN, IF YOU LIKE THE NOISE IDEA AND IF YOU BELIEVE AS I AS I STATED, THAT POTENTIALLY HAVING A LITTLE MORE CAPACITY MIGHT MAKE IT A MORE WORTHWHILE PIECE.

CRISPIN I LIKE. I LIKE THE NO AS AN IDEA. AND I THINK WE SHOULD PLAN TO, TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE PUBLIC ART FUND TO AUGMENT WHAT WE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AMOUNT IS OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW HOW HOW WE WOULD EXPRESS THAT IN AN RFP.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE IN THAT HAVING A TOTAL AMOUNT SOMEWHERE IN THE 350 TO $400,000 RANGE WOULD PROBABLY HELP US SECURE A HIGHER QUALITY OF OF OF OF SUBMISSION. THANKS. LITTLE HISTORY. I WAS AMONG A GROUP THAT FOUGHT LIKE CRAZY FOR FOR BAKER PARK.

AND THIS PARTICULAR AREA WAS ACTUALLY A DUMP FOR YARD WASTE.

AND WE WERE CONCERNED AT THAT TIME ABOUT SUBSIDENCE.

BUT ENOUGH YEARS HAVE PASSED NOW THAT IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE SUBSIDENCE, IT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BY NOW.

AND YES, THE PLANNING OF THIS PARK WAS MEANT TO HAVE AN ART PIECE OF ARTWORK THERE.

SO OBVIOUSLY I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU.

JUST SO IT HAS HAPPENED IN THE BATHROOM AND THE SUGDEN AREA, WE ARE FINDING SINKING, SUBSIDENCE.

JUST I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. NO. DOESN'T LOOK ANY LOWER THAN IT WAS.

RIGHT. AND WE PURPOSELY PUT CEMENT SIDEWALKS ON THERE TO CREATE THIS.

YEAH. WELL, NO MORE. SO IF IT'S GOING TO SUBSIDE, THEN LET'S GET IT DONE, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF WEIGHT.

SO WE THOUGHT MAYBE WE COULD ESCALATE THE SUBSIDENCE BY PUTTING A LOT OF WEIGHT ON THERE.

YOU GET THE POINT. VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. YEAH.

THANK YOU. I ALSO SUPPORT, SIMILAR TO COUNCILMAN CHRISTMAN, THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN NOW.

PROBABLY AN APPROPRIATE TIME. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT I ENJOY GOING UP TO THE TOP OF THAT,

[07:00:03]

NOEL, AND I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES.

WHEN THEY'RE UP THERE ON THAT KNOLL, THEY TRY TO GET A SENSE OF DIRECTION, AND WE'VE ALL SEEN THE INLAYS ON A PIECE OF GROUND ON THE GROUND, RATHER WITH SOME TYPE OF DEVICE, A METAL, JUST SOMETHING KIND OF BUILT IN.

BUT PEOPLE ACTUALLY GO UP THERE TO SEE LAUNCHINGS FROM CAPE CANAVERAL IF WE COULD POINT THEM WHERE MAYBE WHATEVER KEY DIRECTION, THIS IS PROBABLY PART OF WHAT SOME COMMITTEE SHOULD DO, BUT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF PULL IT ALL TOGETHER FOR THEM.

SO JUST A HEADS UP. YEP. THANK YOU. PETRANOFF.

I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS HERE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING LOTS OF LITTLE TCHOTCHKE ART PIECES THAT WE HAVE SEEN THROUGHOUT THE CITY, I THINK ONE BOLD ONE IN A, IN A PLACE THAT IS, HAS THIS KIND OF STATURE THAT THIS WAS BUILT FOR.

I WOULD BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF. SO I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND I WAS THINKING MORE OF A, YOU KNOW, A HALF A MILL GOING IN THERE WITH THE WITH THEIR CONTRIBUTION OF 200, SOME THOUSAND.

WE KICK IN THE OTHER. I THINK THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF MONEY LEFT TO REHABILITATE WHAT WE HAVE.

SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT. IT KIND OF KIND OF LOOKS LIKE THE OHIO SERPENT MOUNDS, RIGHT? OH, YEAH. YOU KNOW. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I THINK YOU HAVE A CONSENSUS, MR. YOUNG. YES. VERY NICE. AND MAY I DO ONE LAST SHOUT OUT? YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO THANK LOIS SELFAND CITIZEN AT LARGE FOR FOR BEING YOU KNOW, SO TENACIOUS ON THIS PROJECT, I THINK I THINK SHE CAN BE UNSTOPPABLE WHEN SHE WANTS, WHEN, YOU KNOW, SHE SEES SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE.

SHE HAS A LOT OF HISTORY, AND I THINK SHE'S GOT HER FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THIS, AND I LOVE IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES 13 H. MOVING TO 14 A.

[14.A) First Reading of an Ordinance An Ordinance Amending Section 44-8 – Definitions, Chapter 44 – General Provisions, Adding Section 46-46 – Airport Planning and Site-Specific Development, Chapter 46 – Administration, Procedures and Enforcement, Amending Section 58-681 – District Purpose, Section 58-682 – Uses Permitted, Section 58-683 – Conditional Uses and Section 58-691 – Maximum Declared Distance of Runway, Division 23 C4 Airport Commercial District, Chapter 58 – Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Updating the Code of Ordinances; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication and an Effective Date.]

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 40 4-8 DEFINITIONS.

CHAPTER 44 GENERAL PROVISIONS. ADDING SECTION 4646 AIRPORT PLANNING AND SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT.

CHAPTER 46 ADMINISTRATION, PROCEDURES AND ENFORCEMENT.

AMENDING SECTION 58 SIX. 81 DISTRICT PURPOSE.

SECTION 58 SIX. 82 USE IS PERMITTED. SECTION 50 8-6 83 CONDITIONAL USES AND SECTION 58 SIX.

91 MAXIMUM DECLARED DISTANCE OF RUNWAY DIVISION 23 C-4 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

CHAPTER 58 ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE SEEN MISS MARTIN AND MR. DICKMAN WALK IN.

THIS WAS A GROUP EFFORT, BUT I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND START OFF WITH KIND OF AN INITIAL STATEMENT AND A TIMELINE AS TO WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY ON JANUARY 21ST.

WITH THIS ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. SO IF YOU'LL RECALL BACK IN MAY, RIGHT BEFORE SUMMER BREAK OUR OFFICE WAS ASKED TO PUT TOGETHER AN OPINION LETTER BASED ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN PROCESS.

THERE WAS ALSO A PRESENTATION THAT THE CITY MANAGER, OUR OFFICE AND PLANNING WORKED ON AND PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

KIND OF A HISTORY OF THE UTILIZATION PLANS DATING BACK TO 1998.