[1) Call to Order] [00:00:08] TO ORDER, AND BEFORE WE PROCEED, WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER TO TO RECOGNIZE. MR. BLOEMKER. AND I'D LIKE YOU TO STAND AND BE SWORN IN, SIR. SURE. GOOD MORNING, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JESSICA HERNANDEZ, DEPUTY CITY CLERK. FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE JOE WITH US TODAY. HE WAS APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL AS A REGULAR MEMBER FOR THE BALANCE OF A THREE YEAR TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30TH, 2028. NOW, AT THIS TIME, IF YOU CAN JUST RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND AFTER I SAY, I SAY YOUR NAME AND REPEAT AFTER ME, I SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM, SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION, THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION AND WILL UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, WILL UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA, THAT I WILL IN ALL RESPECTS. I WILL IN ALL RESPECTS OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER AND THE ORDINANCES AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES. THE CITY OF NAPLES, AND WILL FAITHFULLY PERFORM THE DUTIES. WILL FAITHFULLY PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER. THE OFFICE OF PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER. THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS. WOW. THAT'S LONGER THAN A MARRIAGE. THANK YOU, JOE, FOR JOINING US. WE APPRECIATE IT. ANYTHING YOU NEED TO SAY THIS MORNING OR YOU'RE GLAD TO BE HERE? OH, I GUESS THERE WERE TWO TWO COMMENTS I MADE IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS. I'LL JUST REPEAT THEM. ONE IS THAT IN MY BELIEF, NAPLES IS A CITY OF COMMUNITIES, AND IT'S MY OPINION AND THE OPINION OF MANY OTHERS THAT ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HOPE TO TO DO AS PART OF MY SERVICE HERE. AND THEN THE OTHER THING, I'VE BEEN A PART OF THE PORT ROYAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR MY FOUR FOR FOUR YEARS NOW. AND A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THAT WORK HAS INVOLVED COORDINATION, COLLABORATION WITH THE COUNTY AND WITH OUR STATE DELEGATION, AS WELL AS WITH OUR CITY TEAM. AND SO I KNOW THAT'S PART OF OUR CHARTER AS PART OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, AND I HOPE TO BRING SOME OF THOSE EXPERIENCES IN RELATIONSHIPS TO BEAR HERE. THANK YOU. WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US. LET'S STAND AND PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? NO, SIR. NO PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE MOMENT. OKAY. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY, MARCH 11TH, 2006. I NEED TO [6.A) Approval of the March 11, 2026, Planning Advisory Board Meeting Minutes.] MENTION THAT MY NAME IS MISSING FROM THE ATTENDEES FOR LAST MONTH. AND AS I RECALL, YOU WERE HERE BODILY. AND WITH THAT CORRECTION, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [7.A) A Resolution Determining Petition 26-V2, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Section 56-93 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow an Existing Dock and a New Boat Lift and Vessel to Exceed the Required Shore-Normal Dimension Limitations of Five (5) Feet Offshore from the Platted Seawall Line for Property Owned by ANR Capital, LLC, and Located at 2125 Snook Drive; More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; Providing for Scrivener’s Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.] NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING, A RESOLUTION 7AA RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 20 6V2 RELATING TO VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5693 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW AN EXISTING DOCK AND NEW BOAT LIFT AND VESSEL TO EXCEED THE REQUIRED SHORE DIMENSION. LIMITATIONS OF FIVE FEET OFFSHORE FROM THE PLATTED SEAWALL FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY A&R CAPITAL AND LOCATED AT 2125 SNOOK DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO TESTIFY, PLEASE STAND UP, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. WILL ALL THOSE IN TIME TO GIVE TESTIMONY PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU THE APPLICANT. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND MAKE A PRESENTATION. HOW YOU GUYS DOING? MY NAME IS MARK ARIAS, REPRESENTING THE. EXCUSE ME BEFORE WE GO. CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION. YEAH. ANY DISCLOSURE? I'M SORRY, I KEEP FORGETTING THAT. ANY DISCLOSURE STARTING ON MY LEFT? NO. NONE HERE. NO. NO CONFLICT, NO CONFLICT. AWARE OF THE PROPERTY. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE AND NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. THANK YOU. [00:05:01] PROCEED. NO PROBLEM. MY NAME IS MARK ORTIZ. I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I MEAN, REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER AT 2125 OAK DRIVE. SO CURRENTLY, WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A BOATLIFT OF EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DOCK ON A SINGLE FAMILY WATERFRONT PROPERTY. THE THIS IS A WATERFRONT PROPERTY WITH AN EXISTING DOCK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED BACK IN 2004. IT IS A NAVIGABLE CANAL AND BOATING, AND YOU COULD TELL BY THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND THE SURROUNDING HOMES. BOATING IS A CUSTOMARY USE IN THIS AREA. THE REQUEST IS TO INSTALL A BOATLIFT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE EXISTING DOCK. THIS IS INTENDED TO IMPROVE SAFETY, PROTECT THE VESSEL AND ALLOW FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE WATERFRONT WITHOUT INCREASING INTENSITY AND CHANGING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AS SHOWN HERE. THE LOT IS A PIE SHAPED AND THE DOCK LOCATION IS CONSTRAINED BY THE CANAL GEOMETRY. THESE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS LIMIT WHERE A LIFT OR A NEW DOCK CAN BE PLACED, WHILE STILL MAINTAINING NAVIGABLE AND SAFETY. THE DOCK. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IS A. IT IS ALREADY EXISTING. THE LIFT, AS YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE THE DOCK ALREADY IS HERE, AND IN FUTURE SLIDES YOU'LL SEE WHERE A BOAT IS ALREADY PRESENTLY SITTING AND MOORED IN THE WATER. SO THEY WOULD REALLY NOT BE ANY CHANGES. IT'S JUST GOING FROM IN THE WATER EXACTLY WHERE IT'S AT TO BEING RAISED OUT OF THE WATER. THE FOR THE JUSTIFICATIONS, A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CODE CREATES A HARDSHIP BY PREVENTING REASONABLE USE FOR THE EXISTING DOCK. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-CREATED, AS THIS DOCK WAS ALREADY PREEXISTING BEFORE THE NEW HOMEOWNER TOOK OVER THE PROPERTY. AND SO BASICALLY THE LOT WITH THE LOT CONFIGURATION AND EXISTING DOCK PLACEMENT, IT ESTABLISHES A KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM THAT HE INHERITED, AND HE'S JUST TRYING TO MAKE USE OF EXACTLY WHAT HE BOUGHT THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY FOR. FOR THE COMPATIBILITY. THE PROPOSED LIFT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, SIMILAR DOCKS AND LIFTS. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE AERIAL THAT I PROVIDED IN THE PRESENTATION, THE SIMILAR DOCKS AND LIFTS IN THAT SPECIFIC WATERFRONT PROPERTY HAVE ALL BEEN PERPENDICULAR TO THE SHORELINE IN THAT SPECIFIC SMALL BAY. THERE, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THIS IS THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE THREE THREE OUT OF THE FOUR HOUSES ON THE RIGHT ARE ALL PERPENDICULAR TO THE SHORELINE WITH THE SAME CONFIGURATION OF THE TWO ONE, TWO, FIVE SNOOK THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PRESENTING THE JUST ALLOWED BOAT LIFT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS FOR WHY WE ARE PROPOSING A BOAT LIFT ON THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION IS CURRENTLY, THE BOAT IS SITTING IN THE WATER. AS WE ALL KNOW, IF YOU HAVE BOATS OR NOT, IT'S BEST TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE WATER JUST FOR. THE SIMPLE FACT THAT BOTTOM PAINT TENDS TO SCRAPE OFF ANY TYPE OF OIL OR GAS THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY LEAK OFF WILL BE GOING INTO OUR WATERS. AND AS YOU KNOW, IN THE GULF SHORE AREA, THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY THAT WE ALWAYS KEEP IS MAKING SURE THAT OUR WATER AND MAIN AND EVERYTHING IS MAINTAINED TO THE UTMOST SATISFACTORY, SO WE CAN ALL ENJOY IT, WHETHER WE OWN A BOAT OR NOT. SO THIS BASICALLY TRYING TO PUT THIS BOAT ON THE LIFT PROTECTS THE BOTTOM OF THE ACTUAL WATER. ANYTHING IN THE WATER, WHETHER IT BE SNOOK, OYSTERS, SEAGRASS AND ALSO ALLOWS THE OWNER TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR BOAT STAYS SPECIFICALLY OUT OF THE WATER. SO IT'S A WIN WIN FOR BOTH HOMEOWNER AND ENVIRONMENT. SO IN CONCLUSION, WE'RE JUST BASICALLY THE REQUEST MEETS ALL THE VARIANCE CRITERIAS. IT ALLOWS MINIMAL RELIEF THAT THAT IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE HOMEOWNER TO GET THEIR BOAT OUT OF THE WATER, AND IT ALLOWS REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS RECOMMEND THIS FOR APPROVAL. THIS IS A RENDERING THAT YOU COULD SEE HERE THAT I'VE DONE THAT SHOWS THE BOAT ON THE LIFT EXACTLY AS IT IS, WHERE IT SHOULD BE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, COMPARED TO HOW MUCH NAVIGATION AND EVERYTHING AS WELL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WITHOUT A BOAT LIFT, IT'S JUST SITTING IN THE WATER. THOSE ARE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THERE. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. YOU MENTIONED IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER SLIDES THAT THAT MAKING THIS OR APPROVING THIS VARIANCE [00:10:02] WOULD IMPROVE SAFETY. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW IT WOULD IMPROVE SAFETY PLEASE. SO WHEN THE BOAT IS SITTING IN THE WATER MOORED BY JUST ROPES, WE ALL KNOW THROUGH PREVIOUS HURRICANES AND EVEN I BELIEVE 2 OR 3 MONTHS AGO, WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT CALLED US BECAUSE OF HIGH WINDS. THE ROPES CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. SO WHEN YOU HAVE LINED MOORED IN THE WATER LIKE THAT, YOUR BOAT IS STILL SUBJECT TO AS STRONG AS THOSE LINES ARE. SO WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PILES BREAK AND STUFF LIKE THAT WITH JUST A A BOAT SITTING, ESPECIALLY A VESSEL OF THIS SIZE, 30 PLUS FEET SITTING IN THE WATER, JUST TIED BY LINES ON PILES ON A BOAT, LIFTS. WHEN YOU PUT IN A SPECIFIC BOAT LIFT, TYPICALLY YOUR MOORING PILES ARE BIGGER, HEAVIER AND STRONGER. SO YOU'RE GOING TYPICALLY FROM A EIGHT FOOT PILING TO A TEN TO A POTENTIAL 12 FOOT PILING. AND ALSO HOW WE PUT IN THE BOAT LIFTS, YOU'RE GOING 20 30FT DOWN. SO IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER IN THE EVENT OF A HURRICANE, IN THE EVENT OF POTENTIALLY JUST A NIGHT, TYPICAL SUMMER FLORIDA NIGHT WHERE IT'S JUST EXTREMELY STRONG WINDS AND IT'S JUST SAFETY FOR ALL. I'D RATHER HAVE I TRUST OUR BOAT LIFT IN THE STRUCTURE THAT WE PUT IT IN FOR THE HOMEOWNER, RATHER THAN IT JUST SWAYING IN THE WIND ON PILES THAT BASICALLY YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN THAT SENSE. AND CURRENTLY SPEAKING, WHERE THE HOMEOWNER HAS HIS BOAT WITH THE EXISTING DOCKS, SINCE THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED ON THIS PROCESS, THERE IS NO MOORING PILES ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE DOCK ON THE. SO BASICALLY THAT BOAT IS TETHERED ON TO TWO PILES ONLY. SO I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE IN THE HURRICANE I'D RATHER NOT GO PICK IT ALL THE WAY DOWN IN THE CANAL, 200FT DOWN THERE. SO YEAH, IT'S A LOT SAFER ON A BOAT LIFT. WELL THANK YOU, THAT'S VERY CLEAR. I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER. AND JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. THERE WOULD BE NEW PILINGS PUT ON THE THE DOCK SIDE OF THE THE BOAT WITH THE BOAT LIFT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. WE WOULD INCLUDE FOUR NEW PILES TOTAL, TWO ON THE SIDE AND TWO ON THE PORT SIDE. GREAT. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWERS. NO PROBLEM. SIR, COULD YOU TELL ME THE NAME OF YOUR COMPANY, GREG MARINE CONSTRUCTION, GREG ORRICK. OKAY. MARINE CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. WILL ANY PART OF THE BOAT OR THE ENGINES PROTRUDE PAST THE DOCK? SO I WILL SHOW YOU THE EXHIBIT HERE IF YOU TAKE A LOOK HERE. THIS IS CURRENTLY THE CONFIGURATION WITH WHAT THE PROPOSED BOATLIFT WOULD BE IN THERE. AND THIS IS THE MOST RELEVANT. WE PULL IN OUR CAD FILES, THE EXACT TYPE OF BOAT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT WITH THE DIMENSIONS OF THE BEAM AND LENGTH OF MOTORS. SO YOU COULD SEE THAT THE BOAT MOTORS ARE STILL, I'D SAY ABOUT TWO THREE FEET FROM BEHIND PROTRUDING OUTSIDE. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF NAVIGATION. IT WILL SIT ALL COMPLETELY INTO THE STRUCTURE. I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DON'T GO FURTHER OUT, BUT THAT'S GOOD. YES. GOOD NEWS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. WHEN THE OWNER HAD BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, DID HE DO ANY INVESTIGATION ABOUT THIS DOCK THAT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT IMPROVING A DOCK OR ADDING A BOAT LIFT, OR BEEFING UP THE WEIGHT VALUE, BUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER NEIGHBORS DO NOW THAT HAVE THOSE? HOW HAVE THEY SURVIVED THIS CRISIS AND WHAT WOULD THEIR BOATS NOW WITH THE DOCKS THAT THEY HAVE IN TERMS OF YOURS IS BIGGER. YOURS WOULD BE BIGGER THAN THEIRS. IS THAT RIGHT? NO. IF YOU CURRENTLY LOOK AT THE CONFIGURATION ON THIS ONE, OUR PETITION PROPERTY HERE, THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH HAS THE SAME CONFIGURATION, IF NOT SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE BOAT THAT WE CURRENT. THE LIFT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO HIS RIGHT, WHICH IS EXTREMELY TIGHT IN THAT SITUATION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL CONFIGURATION AS WELL, JUST IN THAT SPECIFIC IN THAT COVE, THOSE 4 OR 5 SIX HOMES ARE ALL POINTED PERPENDICULAR LIKE THAT. SO THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME CONFIGURATION IN TERMS OF ANY TYPE OF. FURTHER, IF WE WERE FURTHER INTO WHERE THE SECOND NEIGHBOR ON THE NORTH HERE IS, I WOULD KIND OF UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO GO ANY FURTHER OUT, IT'D BE EXTREMELY LONG AND YOU WOULD BLOCK THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR IN THERE. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE OUR CONFIGURATION IS. AND WE'RE ALSO ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE, THE PROPERTY ITSELF, PUTTING THE BOAT CONFIGURATION THERE WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR BOTH NEIGHBORS, NORTH AND SOUTH WOULD REMAIN EXACTLY AS IS. AND. THE SPECS [00:15:01] THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS ALREADY IN PLACE. ROYAL HARBOR AS A COMMUNITY THAT ALL OF THE HOMES ARE ON THESE MOST. MOST OF ALL, THE HOMES ARE ON THIS TYPE OF SITUATION. HAVE A. A WATER ACCESS IS THIS IS THIS DOCK. WOULD THIS BE ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT DIMENSION THAN IS ALLOWED BY THE COMMUNITY NOW? YES. THE VARIANCES BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO ALLOW FOR A DOCK THAT EXCEEDS WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE ROYAL HARBOR. I THINK WHAT AUREUS IS TRYING TO DISPLAY HERE IS THAT THE ROYAL HARBOR, THE REGULATIONS FOR DOCKS ON CANALS IN HARBOR IS A LIMITATION OF FIVE FEET. HOWEVER, THERE'S THIS LITTLE KIND OF ZOOMED OUT AREA. I'M NOT ON THIS PRESENTATION YET. THIS IS AN INTERESTING LITTLE AREA OF THIS PARTICULAR CANAL THAT IS KIND OF A LITTLE COVE IN THE CANAL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT GIVES A WIDER VIEW. WE DON'T HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR IT, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THESE DOCKS ON THIS LITTLE COVE WERE PERMITTED TO EXCEED THAT FIVE FEET. AND YOU CAN SEE THIS GROUPING HERE, THESE THESE DOCKS IN JUST IN THIS AREA WERE ALLOWED TO EXCEED. INTERESTINGLY, THEY ALL ALSO HAVE BOAT LIFTS. THIS DOCK. THE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS DOCK DOES NOT HAVE A BOAT LIFT. AND SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A BOATLIFT, BUT THAT BOTH THE DOCK AND THE BOATLIFT WOULD EXCEED WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY CODE. WE DON'T HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THOSE DOCKS WERE PERMITTED IN THE PAST. SO ALL OF THESE OTHER ONES IN THIS COVE ALREADY THERE ALSO EXCEED THAT. THEY'RE IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THIS PETITIONER. YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STAFF REPORT. GOOD MORNING, BOARD MEMBERS. JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING BOAT DOCK AND A NEW BOAT LIFT TO EXCEED THE REQUIRED SHORE. NORMAL DIMENSION LIMITATION FOR PROPERTIES IN ROYAL HARBOR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON AN INTERIOR CANAL AND WATERWAY IN THE ROYAL HARBOR NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR BACKGROUND, PREVIOUS OWNERS CONSTRUCTED A BOAT LIFT IN THE BACKYARD IN 2004. FOR PERSONAL USE. THE CITY PERMITTED THAT PROJECT IN FEBRUARY OF 2004 AND ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION IN APRIL OF 2004. THE DOCKET IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET WIDE AND 44FT LONG OVER THE WATER. THE DOCK HAS REMAINED EVER SINCE. PURSUANT TO CODE, RESIDENCES IN ROYAL HARBOR HAVE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT DOCKS. REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ARE THOSE DESCRIBED FOR INTERIOR CANALS AND WATERWAYS, SPECIFICALLY THE SHORE. NORMAL DIMENSION FOR A PIER SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PLATTED PROPERTY LINE, SAID LINE BEING FIVE FEET OFFSHORE FROM THE PLATTED SEAWALL. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THIS MEANS IS THE DOCK AND THE PIER SHOULD EXTEND NO FARTHER THAN FIVE FEET OUT OVER THE WATER. INSTEAD, IT SHOULD RUN REALLY PARALLEL TO THE SHORELINE WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT ROYAL HARBOR FROM THE AIR, YOU SEE DREDGE AND FILL FINGER LIKE DEVELOPMENT WITH NARROW CANALS BETWEEN THE STREETS. THE PURPOSE OF THESE REGULATIONS IS TO KEEP THESE NARROW WATERWAYS OPEN FOR BOAT TRAFFIC, WITH DOCKS ON BOTH SIDES. TECHNICALLY, THIS PROPERTY, LOCATED ON AN INTERIOR WATERWAY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY CLEAR TO STAFF HOW THE DOCK AND THIS CONFIGURATION WAS APPROVED AND PERMITTED, BUT IN THE EARLY 2000, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID NOT REVIEW MARINE PERMITS. THIS WAS HANDLED BY THE BUILDING AND THE NATURAL RESOURCE DEPARTMENT'S. TODAY, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWS ALL MARINE PERMITS CITYWIDE FOR ZONING COMPLIANCE. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT WHEN THIS DOCK WAS CONSTRUCTED IN TWO, 2004, THREE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH ALREADY HAD DOCKS WITH THIS CONFIGURATION. WITH CONFIGURATION SIMILAR TO THIS ONE. AND EACH OF THOSE DOCKS ALSO HAD BOAT LIFTS. FAST FORWARD SEVERAL YEARS. THE PREVIOUS RESIDENCE WAS DEMOLISHED IN 2021. A NEW OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTED A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN 2022, THE SEAWALL HAS BEEN REPAIRED. THE DOCK WAS REDECKED AND ITS EXISTING FOOTPRINT. THAT PERMIT WAS APPROVED SINCE THERE WAS NO CHANGE OR ADDITIONS TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE. IT WAS ESSENTIALLY LIKE KIND REPAIRS. LAST YEAR, THE NEW OWNER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO INSTALL A BOATLIFT ON THE EXISTING DOCK. THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE AN EXPANSION OF A NON-COMPLIANT DOCK. THE PERMIT WAS REJECTED. THE OWNER FILED A VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HERE [00:20:06] WE ARE. THE PURPOSE OF THE PETITION IS ESSENTIALLY TO MEMORIALIZE THE EXISTING DOCK AND PIER IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, AND ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW BOATLIFT. PER THE PLANS, THE DOCK AND THE PIER EXTEND APPROXIMATELY 44FT OUT OVER THE WATER. PROPOSED BOATLIFT WILL BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PIER PROTRUSION, WITH A MAXIMUM PILING PROTRUSION OF APPROXIMATELY 33FT OVER THE WATER. THE BOW AND THE STERN MEASUREMENT ARE NOT EXPECTED TO EXCEED THE LENGTH OF THE PIER. AS YOU'VE HEARD, THERE ARE SOME MITIGATING FACTORS WHICH YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE PETITIONER. FIRST, THE OWNER HAS NO CULPABILITY FOR THE EXISTING NONCOMPLIANCE STRUCTURE. FURTHERMORE, THE CITY DID PERMIT AND ISSUE A CEO FOR THE PROJECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. AND AS I SAID, ADDITIONALLY, THREE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAVE DOCKS WITH SIMILAR CONFIGURATIONS, EACH WITH A BOATLIFT. AND FINALLY CONSIDERING SAFETY AND FEASIBILITY, THE CANAL IN THIS AREA OF ROYAL HARBOR IS ESPECIALLY WIDE. IT IS NOT THE NARROW PASSAGE THAT IS SEEN THROUGHOUT MUCH OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION WAS NOTICED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS. THEY'RE IN YOUR PACKETS UNDER CORRESPONDENCE. SHOULD THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WISH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE THE VARIANCE IS APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE DOCK AND BOATLIFT, AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO ADDITIONS OR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DOCK OR BOATLIFT OR ANY OTHER WATER WORD AND WATER WORD. IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND TWO SHOULD THE EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT DOCK BE DEMOLISHED EVEN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD, THIS APPROVAL DISSOLVES AND THE OWNER MUST OBTAIN A 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. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS? YEAH. I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER POINT HERE. SAYING THAT THE BOAT WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GO BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE THE END OF THE THE PIER ADDED AS A THIRD CONDITION. AS A THIRD CONDITION. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE THE THE LIFT WHERE IT IS, BUT THE BOAT COULD GO BEYOND THAT. OKAY. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I'M GOOD WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. GREAT. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE THRESHOLD CRITERIA, THIS IS AT PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT. IT SAYS ALL OF THESE THRESHOLD CRITERIA MUST BE MET OR NO VARIANCES, NO VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED. YOU KNOW, CLEARLY IN THAT PARAGRAPH DESCRIBING THAT THRESHOLD CRITERIA. NUMBER ONE, IT SAYS THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING CONTINUED USE OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED AS IT IS WITHOUT THE THE BOAT DOCK. IS THAT HOW I UNDERSTAND THAT FIRST SENTENCE THAT I READ? THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT HAS BEEN USED FOR 20 YEARS IN ITS CURRENT CURRENT FORM AS A BOAT LIFT. OKAY. AND SO THEN THAT MEANS THAT IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT CRITERION, WE HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF REASONABLE USE. NO, I'M SORRY, WOULD CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY OR UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO THAT'S THE BASIS ON WHICH WE WOULD EITHER GRANT OR DENY THE THE VARIANCE. YES. OKAY. AND TO ME, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS AN OPINION ABOUT THIS, I THINK THAT YOU DO. BUT BY DENYING THE THE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT OF THE THE BOAT LIFT TO DENY THAT WOULD WOULD DENY WOULD WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY OR UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP IN THE VIEW OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. AND I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS UNDERSTANDING THE, YOU KNOW, THE FULL RATIONALE BEHIND IT. SO THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I DIDN'T SEE ANY NOTICE THAT AS FAR AS THE PEARL HARBOR ASSOCIATION, DID THEY OPINE ON THIS IN ANY WAY? NO, SIR. JUST A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS THAT WERE IMMEDIATELY ONE ACROSS THE CANAL AND ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, THE PETITIONER, ALSO NOTICED BOTH OF HIS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. AND THOSE LETTERS ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENDA AS WELL, BUT NOT FROM AN HOA, SIR. NO. DOES THE HOA NORMALLY OPINE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS? I DON'T THINK SO. I PORT ROYAL IS ON A NORMAL REVIEW OF PROJECTS, BUT [00:25:04] ROYAL HARBOR SIR. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? LET ME ASK ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION AND THIS IS A BROADER QUESTION FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION. IS THERE A STANDARD OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REFER TO THAT THAT WOULD DEFINE WHAT REASONABLE USE OF LAND OR PROPERTY IS? IS THERE ANY STANDARD, OR IS THAT BASICALLY JUST A MATTER OF JUDGMENT? IT'S A MATTER OF JUDGMENT. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS PER THE STAFF REPORT PLUS PLUS PLUS THE THIRD CONDITION PLUS THE THIRD CONDITION THAT THE BOAT SHALL NOT EXTEND FURTHER THAN THE EDGE OF THE DOCK. OKAY. SECOND. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MEMBER BROWN. YES. ALTERNATE MEMBER. COOPER. YES. MEMBER FOWLER. YES. MEMBER BLONKER. YES. MEMBER. KEYS. YES. VICE CHAIR. KEPLER. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLAN. YES. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. WE APPRECIATE IT, SIR. AND THIS WILL BE TAKEN TO THE CITY [7.B) An Ordinance for the Purpose of Amending Regulations Relating to the 6-Month Review of Live Entertainment Permits; Amending Subsection (e)(7) of Section 56-125, Live Entertainment Permit, of Article IV, Standards Applicable to Commercial Districts, of Chapter 56, Supplemental Standards, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener's Error; Construction; Publication; and Providing an Effective Date.] COUNCIL THERE. THE FINAL APPROVING AUTHORITY. NEXT ITEM IS SEVEN B, THE LEGISLATIVE ITEM, AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMITS. AMENDING SECTION E OF SECTION 56 125. LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT OF ARTICLE FOUR STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS OF CHAPTER 56. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES PROVIDING FOR CERTIFICATION, CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY. CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR, CONSTRUCTION PUBLICATION AND PROVIDING A SECTION EFFECTIVE DATE. ERICA. YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING. ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A TEXT AMENDMENT. THIS TEXT AMENDMENT AROSE FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL. THEY ACTUALLY BROUGHT THIS UP AND ASKED THAT STAFF PURSUE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT'S BEFORE YOU. SO WE LAST AMENDED OUR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SECTION OF THE CODE IN 2022. ONE OF THE CHANGES WAS THERE IS A STANDARD CONDITION IN THAT SECTION, SO IT'S IN SECTION 50 6-1 25 OF YOUR CODE. THERE IS A LIST OF SEVEN STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMITS. ONE OF THOSE STANDARD CONDITIONS IT'S THE LAST ONE. NUMBER SEVEN SAYS THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW ALL NEW PERMITS APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF APPROVAL, AND MAY REVOKE OR ALTER THE APPROVED PERMIT OR IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME. SO WE HAVE BEEN SINCE 2022, WE BRING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL SIX MONTHS AFTER A LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT IS ISSUED. WE BRING THAT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT REVIEW. FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK ALL BUT A COUPLE, THERE ARE NO ISSUES. AND SO WE BRING THAT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY THAT THAT IS WORDED IN THE CODE THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW ALL BUILDING PERMITS, THAT REQUIRES THAT THAT IS A FULL BLOWN AGENDA ITEM. SO IT IS A FULL NOTICE TO EVERYONE WITHIN 1000FT■!S. IT'S A FULL AGENDA ITEM PREPARATION FROM STAFF. THE FULL EFFECT, ESSENTIALLY FOR US TO SIT DOWN, SAY EVERYTHING'S GOOD, AND THAT'S THAT. SO CITY COUNCIL ASKS IN THE INTEREST OF, YOU KNOW, SHORTENING OUR AGENDAS AND SAVING TIME. ALSO, IT'S ABOUT $1,500 PLUS FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THAT BRIEF 32ND UPDATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY. IT'S A IT'S A COUNCIL ITEM. SO ANY ITEMS, ANY FULL AGENDA ITEMS ARE PAID FOR BY THE PETITIONER. THEY ALSO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE NOTICING. SO THE REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL WAS TO STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS. HOW COULD WE DO THAT? AND SO WE HAVE PROVIDED LANGUAGE FOR YOU. THAT WOULD BE AN EASY CHANGE. THIS IS FAMILIAR LANGUAGE. WE ARE BORROWING THAT LANGUAGE FROM A FOR A SECTION THAT'S ALREADY EXISTS IN THE CODE, WHICH IS THE REVOCATION OF PERMITS SECTION. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT IF THERE ARE NO ISSUES, IF THE REPORT IN SIX MONTHS IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS AND WE'VE HAD NO ISSUES WITH THIS, IT COULD PURELY JUST BE AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. HOWEVER, IF THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES AND THE ISSUES ARE OUTLINED HERE IN THAT SECTION, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY LONG CHANGE TO ACCOMPLISH A VERY SHORT ITEM. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S HOW THAT WORKS. ESSENTIALLY, IF THERE ARE IF THEY VIOLATE THE PARAMETERS, ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR PERMIT, IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, MEANING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SHOWS UP AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, BLOCKING EGRESS INGRESS, IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT OR IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEN IT WOULD BE A FULL AGENDA ITEM AND IT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL FOR [00:30:04] DISCUSSION, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, THEY COULD CONSIDER REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION. SO A LOT OF WORDS TO ACCOMPLISH STREAMLINING A PROCESS ESSENTIALLY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO JUST WANT TO KIND OF CONDENSE THAT DOWN SO I UNDERSTAND IT. SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY ALLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF ALL LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMITS. NO. SO THE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT WOULD STILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL. BUT IF AT THAT SIX MONTH POINT, IF WE IF WE HAVE HAD NO ISSUES, IF THERE HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS OF THE PERMIT AND NO ISSUES WITH POLICE OR CODE ENFORCEMENT, RATHER THAN PREPARING A FULL AGENDA ITEM TO TELL COUNCIL THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO ISSUES, IT WOULD BE AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL IF THEY VIOLATE IT AND THEY CHOOSE TO, OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO CHANGE IT, RIGHT? OR BUT IF THEY VIOLATE IT AND THEY'RE LIKE, OKAY, THEN IT'S GONE UP, THEN THAT'S IT. OKAY, I DOUBT THAT'LL HAPPEN. BUT YES, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT COMPLAIN THAT GO TO REVIEW, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. THERE'S VERY CLEARLY IN THE CODE, WE DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A VIOLATION OR A COMPLAINT AND A VERIFIED VIOLATION. SO A COMPLAINT HAS TO BE VERIFIED BY A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, A POLICE OFFICER OR A FIRE DEPARTMENT, SOMEONE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO IF SOMEBODY HAS WIRE THAT HAS NOISE AT MIDNIGHT, SOMEBODY FROM THE CODE GROUP HAS TO GO OUT THERE AND VERIFY THIS AT MIDNIGHT. CORRECT? DOES THAT HAPPEN? YES. OKAY. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION TO ANOTHER QUESTION I THINK IS A IS THE VERY LAST PHRASE HERE. IT SAYS CITY COUNCIL MIGHT SHOULD BE MADE SURE. IT SHOULD BE MAY. YES. I WANT TO MAKE A BUT I JUST I THINK THAT SAID, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ONE. CORRECT. AND JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE THE PROCESS A LITTLE BETTER. SO THERE ARE FIVE REASONS THAT THAT THIS COULD BE ESCALATED TO THE THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THE THE NEW REVISED PROPOSAL. SO IF CONDITIONS ARE VIOLATED, IF THE PERMIT IS NOT OPERATED CONSISTENT WITH. I MEAN, IT'S NOT OPERATING CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMIT. THIRD OPERATED CAUSING A NUISANCE. NUISANCE. FOURTH IMPEDES PEDESTRIANS. FIFTH OPERATIONAL DETRIMENT TO RESIDENTS HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. SO IN ORDER FOR ANY OF THOSE TO BE SATISFIED DOES THAT HAS TO HAVE TO IN SOME WAY BE ESCALATED TO A COMPLAINT, TO A CITY THAT'S TO THAT'S VERIFIED? NO. SO IF THE IF, THOUGH, IF ANY OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE OBSERVED BY POLICE, FIRE OR CODE ENFORCEMENT, THAT THAT IS A VERIFICATION. AND WE HAVE FIRE INSPECTORS THAT DO REGULAR INSPECTIONS OF, OF THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ALL THE TIME. SO IF IT'S OBSERVED, THAT'S ON ITS OWN. BUT IF A COMPLAINT WOULD BE IF A NEIGHBOR CALLED, WE WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY THAT COMPLAINT. AND THEN HOW DOES THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF IS AND WHO IS THE STAFF THAT'S REFERRED TO IN THE INTO THE REVISED. SO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE ARE THE STAFF THAT PREPARES THAT UPDATE FOR CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN HOW DOES THE STAFF THEN INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE'S BEEN ANY SUCH COMPLAINT AND SO FORTH? AT THE SIX MONTH POINT, WE ASK WE INQUIRE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE WHETHER THEY HAVE HAD ANY VIOLATIONS. ALTERNATIVELY, THEY MAY REPORT THOSE TO US. IF THERE IS AN EGREGIOUS VIOLATION, THEY WILL REPORT THAT TO US IMMEDIATELY. SO, AND I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THE REASON I INCLUDED BOTH OF THE SECTIONS HERE IN YOUR CODE IS THERE IS A REVOCATION SECTION IN YOUR CODE THAT AT ANY TIME, IF YOU LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR SIX YEARS AND AT ANY POINT IN THAT TIME, YOU HAVE TWO VERIFIED VIOLATIONS IN A CALENDAR YEAR, WE CAN BRING YOU BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR POSSIBLE REVOCATION. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIX MONTH PERIOD IS THIS ONE TIME. SO IF YOU IF YOU VIOLATE YOUR PERMIT EVEN ONE TIME WITHIN THAT SIX MONTHS, WE BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY DIDN'T PLAY BY THE RULES. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIX MONTH AND THE, THE LONG STANDING REVOCATION PROCESS THAT'S ALWAYS APPLICABLE. TERRIFIC. AND JUST ONE LAST QUESTION. WOULD IT BE USEFUL OR UNDULY BURDENSOME FOR THE STAFF TO SEND A LETTER OUT AT ABOUT TO TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS TO INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS OR VIOLATIONS HAVE A ISSUE WITH THAT IS IT HAS TO BE VERIFIED AT THE TIME, BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IS A NEIGHBOR THAT DOESN'T LIKE THE OWNER AND SAYS, YEP, EVERY SINGLE NIGHT WE HAVE ISSUES, BUT THAT'S NOT VERIFIED. SO THAT'S WHY WE SPECIFY A VERIFIED COMPLAINT, MEANING THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IN VIOLATION OF THIS PERMIT. AND SOMEONE GOES OUT, VERIFIES THAT THAT IS THE CASE, AND THEN THAT [00:35:01] THAT'S WHAT'S RECORDED. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT TO DO. SO UNTIL I ACTUALLY HAD HERE, I WOULD I WOULD COMPLAIN, BUT I WOULDN'T PROBABLY CALL INTO THE POLICE OR WHATEVER IT IS. SO MAYBE IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT AN EMAIL, IF PEOPLE WERE JUST NOTIFIED THAT, HEY, IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, HERE'S THE PROCESS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. YOU GOT TO NOTIFY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR US IS A, IS A MAILER AND IT GOES OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE A LIST OF EMAIL, YOU KNOW, AN EMAIL DATABASE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. SECOND, SECOND CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COULD YOU VERIFY THE MOTION MAKER AND SECONDER. SORRY A SECOND. COULD YOU VERIFY THE MOTION MAKER AND SECONDER. JOHN L KAPPLER OKAY THAT HELPS. THANKS. NO PROBLEM. OKAY. MEMBER BARONE YES. VICE CHAIR KAPPLER. YES. MEMBER FOWLER. YES. WITH AN EXPLANATION. I'M SATISFIED THAT THIS ALL WORKS TOGETHER, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE REVOCATION OF PERMITS. I THINK THAT'S A IS IS A SATISFACTORY BACKSTOP BACKSTOP TO ALL THIS. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE THE STAFF'S EXPLANATION OF ALL THESE THINGS AND ANSWERS TO MY MANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALTERNATE MEMBER COOPER. YES. MEMBER BLOEMKER. YES. MEMBER KREIS. YES. CHAIR COUGHLAN. YES. OKAY. NEXT IS MY MY MY JUST ADD THAT I'VE SEEN THIS PROCESS WORK VERY WELL WHERE I LIVE, AND I CERTAINLY HAVE NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE THE PROACTIVENESS OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC [9.A) Update on Naples 2045, the Elective Changes to the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan. ] COMMENTS? I HAVE ONE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NO. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS. WELL, YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS. WE HAVE. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DO WE TAKE THE. CAN WE TAKE THE COMMENT NOW? UPDATES ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DO YOU WANT TO JUST OPEN THAT QUESTION REALLY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WHO IS THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? HER NAME IS CORNER. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK AFTER THE STAFF REPORT OR BEFORE? OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU COME UP AND SPEAK THEN AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE. DAVID. YOU CAN USE THE CENTER. I'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE TIMES LATELY, SO? SO I'M CARRIE SCHUMANN, DOCTOR CARRIE SCHUMANN FROM THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA. I WAS HERE THE LAST MEETING JUST TO INDICATE THAT WE WERE GOING TO TURN IN SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE PLAN. AND I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DID TURN SOME IN. I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE HOPING TO GET THEM TO YOU ALL EARLIER, BUT BUT WE DID TURN THEM INTO YOU THIS WEEK. AND I WAS HOPING TO REITERATE, REITERATE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JUST WHAT WAS IN THERE, KIND OF SUMMARIZE. FIRST OF ALL, I DO WANT TO THANK THE PAB IN GENERAL FOR BEING REALLY RECEPTIVE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS GIVEN, JUST IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, DURING LAST MEETING, I THINK THE PAB WAS VERY ATTENTIVE TO EVERYBODY WHO SPOKE, AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. AND I THINK JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT'S IN THOSE COMMENTS, AND I KNOW THAT ERICA HAS PULLED EVERYTHING TOGETHER FOR THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT CAME IN. THAT'S GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR WORKSHOP. SO IT'S INCLUDED AND THEY WILL SEE THAT TOO. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE DID IS WE FIRST LAID OUT JUST A LITTLE REMINDER ABOUT SOME OF THE LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. I KNOW EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF SB 180 NOT HAVING BEEN APPROPRIATELY FIXED THIS SESSION. SO WE SORT OF REMINDED EVERYONE OF THE CONTEXT AND HAVING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF SUBMITTAL AND CHECKING IN WITH YOUR TEAM. WE DID BRING TO ATTENTION ANOTHER BILL THAT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR YET, BUT HAS PASSED THE CHAMBERS, WHICH IS HB 1217, WHICH BASICALLY TAKES AIM AT LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEING ABLE TO HAVE ANY KIND OF NET ZERO GOALS, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CONSERVANCY THINKS IS IS A GREAT MOVE. IT DOES, I THINK, REPRESENT ANOTHER EROSION OF HOME RULE. THERE'S A LOT OF CO-BENEFITS THAT YOU GET FROM LOOKING AT THESE OPTIONS. SO WE JUST MENTIONED IT TO GIVE THAT CONTEXT OF SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT TEAM WORKING ON THIS, BUT JUST THAT YOU MAY WANT TO JUST THINK ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT [00:40:04] IF IT IS SIGNED INTO LAW. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAYBE A LOT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WEREN'T AWARE WAS GOING ON. SO JUST SO THERE'S THAT CONTEXT FOR THAT, I THINK WE MADE A FEW A FEW ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND SORT OF WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT, I THINK, SOME CONSISTENT IDEAS THAT YOU'RE HEARING THROUGHOUT OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, CONTINUING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE BALANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEANS, YOU KNOW, MEETING THOSE MULTIPLE NEEDS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WATER QUALITY. YES, IT'S MOVING WATER FROM THE LANDSCAPE, BUT IT'S ALSO WATER QUALITY. IT'S ALSO MAKING SURE YOU'RE RECHARGING THE AQUIFER, THINKING ABOUT SMART DEVELOPMENT, ETC. SO I THINK WE HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND THAT. WE DID A LOT OF REITERATION OF BASICALLY THE FACT THAT WE THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD CONTENT THAT WAS INTRODUCED THROUGH THIS UPDATE BY YOUR TEAM AND REITERATING THE POINTS, WHY SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS SHOULD BE IN THERE. THAT RESILIENCE ELEMENT WAS A REALLY EXCELLENT ADDITION, AND I THINK WE WE GAVE A FEW ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS AROUND WHERE PARTNERSHIPS COULD BE ENRICHMENT AND FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF OUR NOT JUST THE CONSERVANCY, BUT OTHER NONPROFITS MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE AND OTHER GROUPS. I THINK JUST FINALLY, WE WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU EVEN ASKED MR. FOWLER IF WE SAW ANY MAJOR GAPS. WE DO NOT. YOU KNOW, WE REALLY SEE THIS AS AN EXCELLENT UPDATE. WE DO WANT TO JUST REITERATE THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION, AND I THINK YOU HEARD FROM OTHER GROUPS, IT'S REALLY THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOWING UP AND MAKING SURE THAT THE HEART OF THE CONTENT IN THE PLAN IS REALLY FOLLOWED AND THAT AND THAT THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC HAS SOME UNDERSTANDING OF HOW, HOW THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE IS MEETING THESE REALLY GREAT GOALS THAT ARE BEING SET UP IN THE COMP PLAN. SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TO LOOK TOWARDS CITY LEADERSHIP FOR THAT. AND WE WILL PLAN ON FOLLOWING SOME OF THE ORDINANCE UPDATES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE DO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE SOME REAL OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK FOR. I THINK SOME OF YOU FOLKS ARE AWARE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON SOME OF LIKE THE NATURAL DEFENSE PIECE, AND WE'LL LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO SUGGEST IF THERE'S PLACES TO IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE. SO JUST REITERATING THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS AND SORT OF SUMMARIZING WHAT WAS IN THOSE COMMENTS. YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER BEFORE WE GO FURTHER, I JUST WANTED TO ECHO YOUR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR. I RAN INTO YOUR LETTER LAST NIGHT AROUND 10:00, AND I FOUND IT VERY, VERY WORTHWHILE READING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR KIND COMMENTS ABOUT THE WORK OF THE PAB. REALLY APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. AGAIN, WE'RE REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF HOW PROACTIVE THE CITY AND THE STAFF ARE BEING ON THIS FRONT. SO YEAH, AND ESPECIALLY WHAT'S IT. HB 1217 EYE OPENING. SO THANK YOU. I HADN'T HEARD ABOUT THAT BEFORE, BUT THAT WAS, I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANTED TO MENTION, BECAUSE IT REALLY HAS BEEN A BIT UNDER THE RADAR FOR A LOT OF FOLKS. SO AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, BUT WE FULLY EXPECT IT WILL BE. SO JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ERICA, YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? SURE. WE JUST HAVE AN INFORMATIONAL MEMO FOR YOU TODAY. AS YOU KNOW, THE PLAN WAS BEFORE YOU LAST MONTH. THE CONSULTANT HAS TAKEN THE INPUT THAT THEY GOT FROM THE PAB LAST MONTH, MADE FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT. THAT DRAFT IS IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. IT'S GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 13TH. SO YOU CAN SEE IT. IT'S OUT THERE. IT'S PUBLISHED ON OUR WEBSITE. YOU CAN SEE THE THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THAT TIME. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE, THE UPDATE THAT WE HAVE FOR FOR WHERE WE ARE NOW. COUNCIL WILL HEAR THEY, THEY GOT THE, THE PRESENTATION, THEY GOT THE THE RED LINE DRAFT. AND THEN ALSO THE SAME PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT THAT THAT YOU HAD SEEN LAST MONTH. I TRIED TO PICK UP THAT DRAFT PUBLICATION AND I HAD TROUBLE FINDING IT. SO SOMEBODY WOULD SEND ME THE LINK TO IT. I REALLY I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PUBLIC FINDS IT IF I COULDN'T FIND IT, BUT I CAN SEND YOU A LINK. YEP. OH. DID YOU YOU HAD TROUBLE FINDING IT TOO. AND I HAD, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER REQUEST. YOU KINDLY PROVIDED HARD COPIES OF THE LAST DRAFT. IS THERE ANY CHANCE WE GET A HARD COPY OF OF THE CURRENT DRAFT, OR IS THAT JUST TOO MUCH TO ASK? YOU CAN SAY, YES, I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T PROMISE THAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY, BUT WE CAN, I CAN PROVIDE YOU HARD COPIES OF ITEMS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY, BUT THAT ITEM IS GOING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 13TH. PLEASE WATCH THE MEETING, PLEASE. YOU CAN WATCH IT HERE LIVE. YOU CAN WATCH IT, YOU CAN STREAM IT. YOU CAN WATCH IT BACK ON THE WEBSITE. WHAT DID YOU SAY THE DATE WAS? APRIL 13TH AND IT'S EARLY IN THE MEETING. SO THAT MEETING WILL START AT 830. OKAY. THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST ITEMS ON THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE ANY NO MOTIONS [00:45:04] NECESSARY TODAY. IT'S JUST A REPORT OF WHERE WE'RE AT. IT IS, AND I WILL SAY THAT WHILE THE CORRESPONDENCE WAS FROM THE CONSERVANCY WAS DIRECTED TO YOU, THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. I DID INCLUDE THOSE IN THE CORRESPONDENCE. I GOT THEM RIGHT IN TIME AS WE WERE HITTING PUBLISH ON THAT AGENDA. SO I DID INCLUDE THOSE TWO ITEMS WITH THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WAS PUBLISHED FOR CITY COUNCIL. SO THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEE. CITY COUNCIL, YES. HAS SEEN SOME OF THE COMMENTS, HAS SEEN BOTH OF THOSE LETTERS. SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS ON MONDAY. OKAY. INCLUDING ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WAS PUBLISHED FOR YOUR ITEM AS WELL. SO SO WE HAD THAT LINK. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE PUBLISHING. I CAN READ IT ON THE LINK. I'M LEARNING IT LATER IN LIFE THAT IF I PRINT EVERYTHING, MY PAPERWORK AT HOME GETS OVERWHELMED. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT IF YOU PRINTED OUT THAT AGENDA ITEM THE COUNCIL HAS, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE A VOLUME. A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. IS THERE A RED LINE VERSION SO WE CAN JUST SEE WHAT THE CHANGES ARE? YES, IT IS RED. THERE'S A RED LINE VERSION THAT'S GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THE NICE THING TOO IS THEY THE THE REAL THING TO LOOK FOR IS THE FOOTNOTES. SO EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A CHANGE, THEY FOOTNOTE WHERE THAT CHANGE CAME FROM. SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS AT A P, A B RECOMMENDATION. WAS IT FROM THE PUBLIC? WAS IT? SO THAT'S, I THINK, VERY HELPFUL THE WAY THEY LAID THAT OUT. FABULOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ERIC. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT DRAFT IS, WHAT IT WHAT IT'S CONSTITUTED OF. SO WE MADE COMMENTS, OBVIOUSLY TO THE TO THE CONSULTANTS AT OUR LAST MEETING. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS AND TELL ME IF I'M RIGHT, THE CONSULTANTS AND THE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED MANY OF OUR COMMENTS THAT WOULD BE FOOTNOTED. AND SO WHAT WE WOULD SEE WOULD BE A RED LINE OF WHAT WE HAD LOOKED AT THE LAST TIME. DID I SAY THAT IT'S A RED IT'S A IT'S AN OVERALL RED LINE, BUT THE FOOTNOTES WILL TELL YOU WHERE THOSE THOSE CHANGES CAME FROM. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY [10.A) Traffic Study Update from the Public Works Department. ] OTHER QUESTION? OKAY. NEXT IS TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE. YEP. AND SIMILARLY, I IT IS JUST A, A MEMO FROM THE TRAFFIC FROM STREETS AND STORMWATER, SORRY, STREETS AND TRAFFIC DIVISION. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF AN UPDATE FOR YOU, BUT THEY DID, THEY JUST PROVIDED THAT THERE'S A REVISED DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND FEEDBACK. AND THEY I CAN'T I CAN'T GET IT. I KEEP SAYING UPDATE. YEAH, I'M HAVING THAT SAME ISSUE. OKAY, OKAY, LET'S KEEP GOING. I'M TRYING TO READ OFF OF SOMETHING ELSE, DOING A LITTLE BIT BY MEMORY, DOING A LITTLE BIT FROM WHAT I CAN. SO THE GIST OF THIS MEMO IS THAT THE NEXT UPDATE TO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE MAY 6TH. SO TUNE IN TO CITY COUNCIL MAY 6TH FOR A. TRAFFIC IS ABOUT TO SPEAK. WE. HI DAVID FREILICH, WE ARE TRYING TO UPDATE SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH GRANICUS, SO YOU MAY GET THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING IT. AND BY YOUR NEXT MEETING OR WHATEVER, WE'LL GO THROUGH A LITTLE TRAINING THING ON HOW TO DO THAT. SO YOU DON'T RUN INTO THE SAME ISSUE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD IT WITH MANY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ISSUES. THANK YOU FOR TELLING US. OKAY, SO GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY, THE LAST TIME, THE LAST TIME I ASKED A WHOLE BUNCH OF QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE GROWTH OF THE THINGS. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAD THESE MONITORS AND STUFF ACROSS THE, THE CITY AND STUFF, BUT I ACTUALLY WAS ABLE TO ACTUALLY DOWNLOAD THE DATA FOR LIKE THE LAST, I THINK IT WAS LIKE THE LAST TEN YEARS. AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME NEW LOCATIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GROWTH, I WAS ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT IN THE ONES THAT WERE THE SAME MONITORS THAT WERE IN THE SAME LOCATIONS, IT REALLY WAS NOT THAT SIGNIFICANT. I WAS EXPECTING IT TO BE THROUGH THE ROOF, BUT IT WASN'T, WHICH I'M, YOU KNOW, I CAN SHOW YOU THE DETAILS, BUT THAT WAS MY REACTION TO LOOKING AT THE THE ANALYSIS AND STUFF THAT I DID. OKAY. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO MAY 6TH, JUST TO REITERATE, MAY 6TH, CITY COUNCIL TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE. TUNE IN. OKAY, NEXT IS [11) Correspondence and Communication] CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS. I HAVE AN ITEM ON THERE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT THE BOARD HAD ASKED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE PROVIDE. AT EACH MEETING, WE PROVIDE THE ACTION REPORTS FROM BOTH THE PAB AND CITY COUNCIL. SO WE WILL THIS IS WHERE YOU'LL SEE THAT ON YOUR AGENDA. WE'RE GOING TO ADD THEM UNDER CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION. THE THE TIMING OF AGENDA PUBLICATION IS INTERESTING BECAUSE I PUBLISH P A B ON A COUNCIL DAY. SO YOU WILL ALWAYS BE ONE MEETING BEHIND BECAUSE THE APRIL 1ST MEETING WAS HAPPENING AS I WAS PUBLISHING THIS AGENDA. SO I [00:50:04] DON'T HAVE THE APRIL 1ST ACTION REPORT, BUT SO YOU'LL JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE, THE CADENCE OF HOW THESE WILL BE, WE'RE GAINING ON THE PROBLEM. YEAH. SO, SO WHAT YOU HAVE ARE I PROVIDED FOR YOU BOTH THE PAB ACTION REPORT THROUGH THE MARCH 11TH MEETING AND THEN ALSO THE CITY COUNCIL VOTING RECORD THROUGH THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH. WHAT WAS THAT THE 18TH. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO REPORTS. SO I'LL BE PROVIDING THOSE. THAT'LL JUST BE A LONG STANDING ITEM. UNDER CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION. WE'LL BE PROVIDING. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT WAS REALLY USEFUL. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU PROVIDING THAT. AND I HAVE A REQUEST. ARE WE FINISHED WITH CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION? GO AHEAD. I'VE GOT SOMETHING. YOU EXPECTED THAT. ACTUALLY, I WAS WONDERING WHY YOU WERE SO QUIET. YOU TO THE END. OKAY. YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY GETTING INFORMATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND AND SO AND THAT AROSE OUT OF, OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAD PERSONALLY ABOUT THE PETTIT SQUARE APPROVAL. AND, YOU KNOW, TO BACK UP A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IN THE CITY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT DOESN'T COME BEFORE THE PAB AND THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROPRIATELY, BECAUSE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. BUT IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW A LOT ABOUT HOW THE CITY WAS BEING DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS. AND I'D ASKED TWO MEETINGS AGO WHETHER WE COULD GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. AND SO WHAT I DID IS I JUST DRAFTED A PLAN THAT A PROPOSED PLAN FOR OUR GETTING THAT INFORMATION. I TALKED TO ERICA ABOUT IT. I PROVIDED IT TO ANDREW. AND WHAT I'VE INVITED IS COMMENTS ON ON THIS, THIS SUGGESTION. AND, AND SO ANYWAY, CAN I PASS THIS DOWN? THERE'S A COPY FOR EVERYBODY. AND MY RECOLLECTION WAS AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ONE OF THE CONCERNS STAFF EXPRESSED AT THE TIME THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN WOULD BE OVERWHELMING. EXACTLY. SO THAT'S WHERE I MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. RIGHT. CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? YES, I CAN, AND AND I HAVE TO COMMENT WITH WITH HUMILITY AND, AND A RECOGNITION OF MY LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE WAY THE PROCESSES WORK. BUT WHAT I TRIED TO DO IS I TRIED TO DRAFT THIS IN A WAY THAT WAS AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE. BUT I EARLIER TODAY ADMITTED TO ERICA THAT I COULD BE WAY OFF BASE. THIS IS THE BEST I CAN DO. BUT BUT ERICA WILL WILL SPEAK WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND ALSO ANDREW WILL TAKE A LOOK AND HOPEFULLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS, IS THEY'LL COME BACK AND SAY EITHER THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS UNWORKABLE, I HOPE NOT, OR YOUR SUGGESTIONS ARE A USEFUL FIRST STEP, BUT WE HAVE MANY STEPS TO TAKE. SO ANYWAY, LONG STORY SHORT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO HAVE THIS ADDED TO. AS A REQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A LOOK TO DETERMINE THEMSELVES WHETHER ANY OF THIS IS USEFUL. IF SO, IN WHAT CONFIGURATION AND AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. I KNOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, BUT I THINK IT'S A WORTHWHILE SUGGESTION TO CONSIDER. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE FOR ME TO ASK FOR A CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY, TO PROVIDE IT TO CITY COUNCIL AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS IS A USEFUL THING FOR THE PAB TO REQUEST. AND ORGANIZATIONALLY, LET ME JUST THINK OUT LOUD, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ASKING THE PLANNING STAFF TO COMMENT ON THIS AND COMMENT AND SUGGEST. I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR THOSE BEFORE WE PASS IT ON TO CITY COUNCIL. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. IS THAT WORKABLE FOR YOU GUYS? WE'RE NOT TRYING TO KILL YOU AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A TIGHT TIME FRAME. YES, SIR. I ALSO OBVIOUSLY JUST LOOKING AT THIS AS BRIEFLY, I WOULD BE CONCERNED AS WELL THAT WE'RE IMPOSING UPON WHAT IS REALLY A MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR CITY MANAGER TO ASSESS HOW WELL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DOING. AND TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY ISSUES WITH THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU'RE OUTLINING HERE. RIGHT. AND THAT'S A TERRIFIC COMMENT. AND WHAT I TRY TO MAKE CLEAR IN THE DRAFT IS THIS IS NOT A MISSION TO SECOND GUESS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS SIMPLY TO GET INFORMATION. SO AS I, I AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE BREADTH OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE [00:55:05] CITY WHERE IT COMES FROM SO THAT WHEN I MAKE DECISIONS OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHOLE BREADTH OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN TOWN, NOT TO TRY TO SECOND GUESS, YOU KNOW, PETTIT SQUARE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY HOW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IN THE TOWN SO I CAN DO MY JOB AS A MEMBER OF THE PAB. SO YOUR REQUEST, YOUR INTENT IS YOU WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE ADDED AS AN AGENDA ITEM ON A FUTURE MEETING, AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, I, I BELIEVE SO WITH THE CHAIR'S SUGGESTION, BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GET YOUR COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, THROUGH ANDREW, TO JUST SEE IF THIS IS EVEN IF IT'S A SEPTEMBER MEETING, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE SUMMER TO LOOK AT IT. I THINK THE, THE FOCUS OF EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THAT'S TAKING A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT. RIGHT. AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO THAT WILL BE OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE COMP PLAN HEAVY. SO YEAH, SO, SO MY SUGGESTION IS IN A RATIONAL PERIOD OF TIME, YOU DECIDE WHAT THAT IS WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. YOUR COMMENT CITY MANAGER'S COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND MR. FOWLER'S INTENT IS TO TRY TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THE CITY IS BEING DEVELOPED. THERE MAY BE A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? ABSOLUTELY. OR THIS COULD BE THE VERY BEST WAY POSSIBLE TO DO IT. WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET. SURE. SO I WILL DISCUSS HOW ABOUT I WILL THE PLAN OF ACTION. I WILL DISCUSS THE REQUEST WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE THREE OF US WILL GROUP THIS GET TOGETHER, AND WE'LL BRING THIS BACK TO YOU AS A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR A FUTURE AGENDA. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO, IN THE INTERIM TO, YOU KNOW, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR HELP BECAUSE I WANT THIS TO BE USEFUL. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A BURDEN ON ON YOU OR THE STAFF OR ANYTHING. I JUST WANT TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND. SURE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT. I THINK WE HAVE A PLAN OF ACTION, SO THAT'S GOOD. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE WE ADJOURN. JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE A JUNE 9TH MEETING DATE. YOU DO? HOW'S THAT AGENDA LOOKING? COMP PLAN? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO BE ARE WE? BEFORE YOU, LET ME LET ME VERIFY. I BELIEVE THAT IS WHEN WE WILL BRING TO YOU THE DRAFT OF THE THE ACTUAL COMP PLAN DOCUMENT IN ORDINANCE FORM TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE LATE IN THE AFTERNOON. OKAY. BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO BE IN DALLAS THE NEXT DAY. BUT ERIKA, ON THAT TIMELINE SCHEDULE, IT SAYS P A S MAY MAY. YEAH. IS THAT UNLESS MAY AND THEN COUNCIL IN JUNE. YOU'RE CORRECT. SO MAY WOULD BE P A B COUNCIL JUNE COUNCIL. SO YES MAY ITEM MAY P B WILL BE VERY HEAVY. SO MAY WILL BE HEAVY JUNE 9TH JUNE. I DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THE SUBMITTAL DEADLINE AND WE DO NOT HAVE A MEETING IN JULY. YOU DO NOT HAVE A MEETING IN JULY AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A MEETING IN AUGUST. RIGHT. I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO BE AWARE, RECESSED TO TWO MEETINGS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. RIGHT. BE BACK IN SEPTEMBER. WELL, I THINK MAY IS FINE TO TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU LIKE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AT THIS POINT IN TIME? YES, SIR. I JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE WHAT THIS DOCUMENT HERE, MR. FOWLER, I THINK STILL THE INTENT AND ALWAYS THE INTENT OF EVERYTHING IS ABOUT THE RESIDENTS. SO THERE'S ALREADY INSTANCES ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD TO DATE WITH NEW BIG PROJECTS THAT ARE BEEN APPROVED BY SOME BOARD, BUT NOT HAS NEVER COME BEFORE US. AND THEY BECOME ISSUES OF HOW DID THIS HAPPEN AGAIN? HOW DID THIS GET LIKE THIS? AND RESIDENTS ARE NOW GETTING INVOLVED BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG ASSOCIATION AND THEY'RE COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK NOW TO REALIZE THAT THEY ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND THAT WHY BOTHER NOT GETTING AGAINST THAT? SO THAT'S, TO ME, THE HOPE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT PEOPLE WILL PARTICIPATE IN IT AND THEY WON'T SAY, I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OR HOW DID THIS HAPPEN ONCE THEY LOOK AT SO SOME OF THE THINGS CAN BE REMEDIED AND SOME OF THEM ARE TOO FAR GONE. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT GOING FORWARD, IF CONSTANTLY THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT REALLY INVOLVED IN IT, AT LEAST IN THEIR COMMUNITY WITH WITH NOT JUST A COMPLAINT ABOUT A NOISE, BUT IN A, IN A LARGE MANNER THAT THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT [01:00:02] WE'RE WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO NO MATTER HOW THEY DO IT. THIS IS A GOOD COMMENT IN MY MIND, BUT THERE THERE IS A WAY, I THINK, AND THERE'S INSTANCES WHERE I BELIEVE THIS P A B COULD BE INVOLVED TO TAKE A LOOK SEE AT THINGS BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE THINGS AREN'T EVEN GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THIS WAY IT'S ON THE RECORD. IF THERE'S OPPOSITION OR COMMENTS OR AGAIN, TO ME ABOUT HOW THINGS WHEN THEY'RE NEW, THEY SHOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS, NOT JUST MASSIVE PROJECTS, BUT IMPROVED PROJECTS. AND I THINK THAT THAT THAT'S A WAY YOU COULD NEVER SATISFY EVERYBODY. BUT THAT'S A WAY AT LEAST THAT IN GENERAL, THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DONE IN A PROPER FASHION. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST RESPOND. THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. THE THIS WHOLE IDEA THAT I HAVE ABOUT LOOKING AT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS AND SO FORTH, ONE OF MY FAVORITE CLIENTS OF ALL TIMES LOOKED ME IN THE EYE AND HE SAID, GREG, THERE'S NO SUBSTITUTE FOR KNOWING EVERYTHING. AND IT'S RIGHT. I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING I CAN ABOUT THE WAY THE CITY WORKS AND THE WAY THINGS GET APPROVED SO I CAN MAKE BETTER DECISIONS AND BETTER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THAT'S ALL I'M AFTER. WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO COVER? IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THIS MAY NEED BE A NEW REC * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.