May 13, 2026 Planning Advisory Board

[00:00:09]

MEETING. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD REGARDING AN ITEM LISTED ON THIS AGENDA, PLEASE COMPLETE A REGISTRATION FORM AT THE REAR OF THE ROOM AND PLACE IT IN THE SPEAKER REQUEST BOX LOCATED ON THE DAIS. PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM, WE ASK THAT SPEAKERS LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO SEVEN MINUTES AND THAT LARGE GROUPS NAME A SPOKESPERSON WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION IN CITY GOVERNMENT. SO I WILL CALL THE

[2) Swearing in of New Members]

FREDERICKSON HERE. ALTERNATE MEMBER PETERSON HERE. VICE CHAIR KAPPLER HERE AND CHAIR COUGHLAN HERE. OKAY. NEXT IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF YOU ALL PLEASE, STAND AND FACE 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. OKAY, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ELECTION OF. EXCUSE ME, OFFICERS, IS THE

[5) Election of Officers]

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, I OPPOSED SURPRISED. OKAY, GREAT. SECOND IS THE NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE GREG FOWLER. SECOND. RIGHT ON IT MYSELF. SURE. OKAY.

AND MAYBE WITH SOME COMMENTS. I THINK IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THE LAST TWO MEMBERS OF THE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE, IT'S GOT TO BE READ. TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON. IT'S ON. NO, THAT'S NOT IT SAYS READ THEIR STILL NOT ON. IT'S GOT IT ON. IT IS ON. CAN'T HEAR ME. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEP. THANK YOU. THING IS. OKAY. I'LL JUST TALK LOUD. I THINK IT IS INTERESTING THAT THAT THE MAKEUP OR THE, THE BIOS OF THE TWO LAST MEMBERS OF THE PAD THAT HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THE COUNCIL. I, IN MY INTERVIEWS, DESCRIBED THE NEED FOR BETTER COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION WITH THE COUNTY, WITH THE STATE. SO A NEW TONE THAT NEEDED TO TO BE ESTABLISHED. AND I ALSO DESCRIBED THE FACT THAT NAPLES IS A CITY OF COMMUNITIES AND

[00:05:02]

THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T PUT IN ME IS BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT I DID NOT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE THERE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE MEETING AND STUFF, WHICH IS KIND OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE DO. THE PERSON, I THINK, WHO HAS DONE THE MOST WORK AND EFFORT TO DO THIS IS ACTUALLY GREG. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WOULD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF STEP BACK AND LET GREG TAKE I SECOND HIM. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I DID THAT. JUST SO YOU KNOW, HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY ELSE HERE DO. SO. SO WOULD YOU WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. WE NEED A MOTION WHERE WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS. ONE TO NOMINATE GREG.

CALL THAT FIRST AND THEN FOR MR. BUNKER. SECOND, WELL, YES. OKAY. SO PROCEDURALLY SO YOU HAVE TWO TWO NOMINEES, RIGHT. SO I THINK YOU DO ONE AT A TIME. IS THAT NORMALLY HOW YOU DO IT? ALI. SO YOU TAKE GREG. GREG. GREG WAS NOMINATED FIRST. SO AND SEE WHO GETS THE MOST. OKAY.

ALL THOSE AND WE NEED A MOTION BECAUSE WE TOOK NOMINATIONS. SO WE NEED A MOTION AND THEN A SECOND AND THEN WE'LL DO A VOTE. RIGHT. I'VE LOST HER. I THOUGHT WE HAD A MOTION TO NOMINATE THESE TWO PARTIES. RIGHT. SO NOW YOU HAVE TWO NOMINATIONS. TWO. WE HAVE NO MOTIONS. SO MOTION TO TAKE A VOTE. NO. WE NEED A MOTION TO ELECT. SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO A MOTION TO ELECT FOWLER FOR VICE CHAIR AND THEN WE'LL DO A SECOND. I THOUGHT IT WAS MADE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THAT CORRECT. WHO IS THE SECONDER? OKAY. WHO'S THE SECONDER, MR. FOWLER. OKAY. DO YOU WANT A ROLL CALL? YEAH. MEMBER. BARONE. NO. OKAY.

MEMBER. FREDERICKSON. NO. MEMBER. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER. BLOEMKER. NO. MEMBER. CREESE.

YES. VICE CHAIR. KAPPLER. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. IT'S FOUR THREE. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO CALL THE OTHERS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION THEN TO NOMINATE JOE MONCUR? I MOTION TO NOMINATE JOE BLOEMKER.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. WOULD YOU CALL THAT ROLL? MEMBER BARONE. YES. MEMBER.

FREDERICKSON. YES. VICE CHAIR. KAPPLER. NO. MEMBER. FOWLER. NO. MEMBER. BLOEMKER. YES. MEMBER.

CREESE. NO. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. NO. OKAY, EXACTLY. SO WE HAVE A NEW VICE CHAIR. CONGRATULATIONS.

YOU WANT TO CHANGE SEATS SO THAT. NOT THAT I DON'T LOVE YOU, BUT. I'M GONNA MISS YOU, GREG.

YOU TOO. BUT I DID WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT JUST TO THANK JOE FOR HIS NOMINATION. WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE A TERRIFIC VICE CHAIR, AND IT JUST DIDN'T WORK OUT THIS TIME. BUT MAYBE NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU. THANKS. WHILE THEY'RE CHANGING SEATS, ARE

[6) Changes to the Agenda]

[00:10:02]

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA? I HAVE NO SLIPS. PARDON. I DON'T HAVE ANY HAVE ANY SIGNUPS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY

[8.A) Approval of the April 8, 2026, Planning Advisory Board Meeting Minutes.]

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM IS

[9.A) An Ordinance for the Purpose of Amending the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan to Implement the Adopted Vision; Providing for Transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and Other Required Review Agencies; Providing for Conflicts; Providing for Severability; and Providing for an Effective Date.   ]

SO THIS IS JUST A REMINDER FOR THE BOARD. THIS IS LEGISLATIVE. SO WE WILL NOT BE THE FULL QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. SO THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION. SO THIS IS WE'RE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH THE ACTUAL READING OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS TO ADOPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. I WOULD IMAGINE THIS IS AN THIS THESE ARE THE CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AS YOU KNOW, WE ADOPTED IN 2024, I BELIEVE THE EAR BASED AMENDMENTS. SO WE ARE STATUTORILY UP TO DATE WITH OUR COMP PLAN. BUT DURING THAT PROCESS, IT WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE PAB AND CITY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO OUR COMP PLAN. SO WE HAD HIRED A CONSULTANT, WHICH IS JOHNSON ENGINEERING, AND THEIR TEAM. AND WE'VE OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF, HAD A FULL PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS, NUMBER OF PUBLIC MEETINGS, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS. THIS PLAN HAS BEEN BEFORE THE PAB A NUMBER OF TIMES. SO ALL OF THOSE SUGGESTED REVISIONS, ALL THOSE SUGGESTED CHANGES HAVE CULMINATED INTO THE DRAFT. THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO THIS IS THE ACTUAL DRAFT OF THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO THE COMP PLAN. THIS WILL BE HEARD TODAY BY THE PAB, AND THEN IT WILL GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE. JUNE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE JUNE 3RD IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. IF CITY COUNCIL DOES PASS THAT ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING, IT WILL THEN BE TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE. SO WE'VE STILL A COUPLE OF STEPS AHEAD OF US TODAY, BUT THIS IS THE DRAFT OF THE COMP PLAN FOR YOU TODAY. AND OUR CONSULTANT TEAM HAS A PRESENTATION THAT THEY'LL BE WALKING YOU THROUGH ALL THE THE PROPOSED CHANGES. OKAY. PROCEED.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ALSO LATER. YEAH, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SURE. SO WE HAVE A STANDING ITEM ON EVERY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA WHERE WE JUST DO A COMP PLAN UPDATE. SO IF YOU SEE IN ALL, ALL I DID IN THAT WAS PROVIDE THE SCHEDULE. THE DISCUSSION WILL BE ON THIS IN THIS ITEM. YEAH. SO ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC, ANYONE WHO'S DON'T WAIT UNTIL ITEM 11. A THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMP PLAN WILL BE. NOW IN ITEM NINE A THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, LAURA DEJOHN. I'M A PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING AND APEX COMPANY. AND I'M HERE. I'M WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY ON YOUR NAPLES 2045 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. WITH ME ARE MEMBERS OF THIS PROJECT TEAM LEANNE KING WITH CLARION, AARON DEEDY, OUR RESILIENCY EXPERT, AND CHRISTY FISHER WITH MY FIRM SHOULD BE HERE SOON. JUST STUCK IN TRAFFIC. THE ERIKA SUMMARIZED WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY. THIS PROJECT DID START IN MARCH OF 2025. WE HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU SEVERAL TIMES TO KICK OFF THE PROJECT AND ENGAGE WITH YOU ON WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, THE PREPARATION OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER AND FEBRUARY WITH WORKSHOPS AND ONLINE ENGAGEMENT. WE WERE WITH YOU IN MARCH GIVING YOU A WORK IN PROGRESS DRAFT. HERE WE ARE. WE ALSO HAVE GONE THROUGH THOSE TYPES OF INTERACTIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL IN A WORKSHOP IN APRIL. HERE WE ARE TODAY IN MAY, SHOWING YOU THE TRANSMITTAL DRAFT FOR YOUR ACTION SO IT CAN BE ULTIMATELY TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THEN BACK TO COUNCIL. WE ASSUME AT THE END OF THIS YEAR WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? THESE ARE

[00:15:03]

THE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN LARGELY MAINTAINED. THE TEN ELEMENTS RETAINED ARE LISTED ON THE SCREEN, AND THE ADDITION OF A RESILIENCY ELEMENT HAS BEEN ADDED BASED ON COMMUNITY INTERESTS. TWO ELEMENTS ARE GETTING REMOVED THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT.

THOSE IDEAS ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOL CONCURRENCY HAVE BEEN WEAVED INTO OTHER ELEMENTS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT, AND THEN THE CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT USED TO BE SEPARATE. AND NOW THEY'RE JOINED BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY INTEGRATED IN CONTENT. YOU HAVE A DEFINITION SECTION IN THE DOCUMENT AND THEN THE REQUIRED MAPS, A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND COASTAL RESOURCES MAP. SO EACH ELEMENT IS NOW ORGANIZED WITH AN INTRODUCTION OUTLINING DATA AND ANALYSIS THAT WAS USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPDATES.

THERE'S A GOAL FOR EACH ELEMENT. OBJECTIVES. IDENTIFY AREAS OF FOCUS. POLICIES ARE DESCRIBING THE WAYS IN WHICH PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS, AND THEN ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. THIS IN THIS DRAFT OF THE PLAN WHERE IT HELPS CONVEY ACTIVITIES THAT THE CITY CITY STAFF WOULD BE TAKING AS FAR AS ACTIONS. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A SERIES OF CHANGES THAT ARE THROUGHOUT THE PLAN. WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU THAT A COMMITMENT TO RESIDENTS FIRST IS IMPORTANT, SO WE HAVE MADE SURE LANGUAGE CONVEYS IMPORTANCE OF RESIDENTS. FIRST, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLICIES AND ACTIONABLE ITEMS, LIKE I SAID, HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE CREATION OF ACTIONS IN THE DOCUMENT.

DEFINITIONS, LIKE WE SAID, HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AND UPDATED TO CLARIFY INTENT OF TERMS, AND WE'VE MADE SURE THEY CONFORM TO WHAT YOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES AND STATE STATUTES ALSO HAVE AS DEFINITIONS. THERE'S NOW CROSS-REFERENCES TO SHOW THAT THROUGHOUT THE

[00:20:05]

AND THEN VISION ICONS ARE ADDED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. THOSE THEMES FROM THE VISION THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ABOUT CHARACTER, ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY, EXPERIENCES OF RESIDENTS, RESIDENTS, ECONOMY AND GOVERNANCE. THOSE ICONS APPEAR IN THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT. WE DID ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF MAKING SURE THOSE THEMES ARE THROUGHOUT THE PLAN. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER NOW TO LEON KING, BECAUSE SHE'S GOING TO HELP DESCRIBE EACH ELEMENT.

JUST TO TELL YOU. WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. HI.

EXCUSE ME. LEON KING, DIRECTOR WITH CLEARING ASSOCIATES. I'M GOING TO BE, AS LAURA MENTIONED, WALKING YOU THROUGH CHANGES ELEMENT BY ELEMENT. SINCE THE LAST VERSION THAT YOU LOOKED AT BACK IN MARCH. SO IN THE INTRODUCTION SECTION, THERE'S A LOT DIFFERENT HERE FROM THE VERSION THAT YOU FIRST LOOKED AT. THERE'S NOW A PURPOSE AND INTENT STATEMENT MONITORING AND EVALUATING PLAN EFFECTIVENESS SECTION. THERE'S AN EXPLANATION ADDED FOR THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. BOTH THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT WITH AND WITHIN THIS SECTION. THERE'S ALSO A DATA ANALYSIS PIECE THAT SETS THE STAGE FOR EACH OF THE ELEMENTS IN TERMS OF THE IMPORTANT TRENDS AND CONDITIONS TO BE CONSIDERING. IT ALSO INCORPORATES A COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY AND THE VALIDATION OF THE VISION, WHICH IS THEN KIND OF CONNECTED TO THE NEXT ELEMENT IN THE PLAN DIVISION ELEMENT. WE ALSO ADDED A HOW TO READ THIS PLAN SECTION TO HELP THE READER BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE. SINCE THERE ARE SOME CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT, THE. THE NEXT ELEMENT IS THE VISION ELEMENT. AS LAURA MENTIONED, THIS IS REALLY. THE FOCUS OF THIS EFFORT IS INCORPORATING THE VISION THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. SO THERE WEREN'T MAJOR CHANGES TO THIS. WE ADDED THE ICONS. AS LAURA MENTIONED. WE ALSO ADDED REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS THAT OCCURRED DURING THIS PROCESS. SO WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL 20 I BELIEVE IT WAS 2023 ENGAGEMENT. AND THEN WE ADDED TO THAT THE ENGAGEMENT THAT OCCURRED DURING NAPLES 2045. AS PART OF THAT, THERE ARE, I WOULD JUST MENTION THREE KIND OF MINOR SCRIVENER ERRORS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING CHANGES TO AS PART OF THAT VISION, BUT THEY'RE NOT SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE. FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. THERE ARE A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ELEMENT HERE, MOST OF WHICH YOU SAW IN YOUR MARCH VERSION. I THINK SOME NEW ITEMS TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT INCORPORATES DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD WITH YOU ALL AND WITH CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR LAST MEETING TO INCORPORATE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING BACK INTO THE PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY. LOOKING AT FUTURE LAND USE AT A LOCALIZED LEVEL WITHIN THE CITY. WE ALSO INCLUDE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION BUILDING BLOCKS. THOSE REALLY HELP TO DEFINE THE CHARACTER FOR EACH OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT ARE INCORPORATED IN THE PLAN AND ALSO INCORPORATED IN THE KIND OF SUMMARY TABLES AT THE END OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. THIS ALSO RELATES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE APPENDIX. AN IMPORTANT NOTE IS THAT THE GEOGRAPHIC APPLICATION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES HAVE NOT CHANGED. IN THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE FOCUSED ON KIND OF SUMMARIZING THE CHARACTER FOR EACH OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS, BUT THE ACTUAL MAPPED LOCATIONS OF THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED. THE NEXT CHAPTER OR ELEMENT IS THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN OUR LAST MEETING ABOUT PHILANTHROPIC HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. SOME LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS ELEMENT TO SUPPORT THAT. THIS HOUSING ELEMENT ALSO NOW REFLECTS COLLIER COUNTY'S HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN 2013, PARTICULARLY FOR JOINT CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY POLICIES AND COUNTY ONLY POLICIES. THE CITY'S SPECIFIC POLICIES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FROM THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED VERSION. THERE'S ONE ADJUSTMENT ON THIS ONE THAT I WANTED TO MENTION TO YOU. WE HAD FURTHER DISCUSSION AFTER THIS WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. THERE WAS A POLICY THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE JOINT CITY AND COUNTY POLICIES, WHICH IS H ONE SIX, AND WE RECOMMEND REPLACING THAT BACK WITH H ONE ONE, THE ORIGINAL ADOPTED POLICY THAT BETTER REFLECTS KIND OF THE THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. NEXT ELEMENT IS RESILIENCY. THERE ARE MORE ACTION ORIENTED POLICIES THAT ARE NOW INDICATED AS ACTIONS. AND IT ALSO INCLUDES A NEW POLICY TO LOOK

[00:25:05]

[00:30:01]

I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I NEVER SAW THE REQUEST. IT WAS SENT TO YOU AS A PAB MEMBER.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I DON'T HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF IT. WELL, SO AND YOU PROBABLY GOT SOMEBODY THAT SAME DAY. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION EITHER. NEITHER DO I. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE EARLY ON SPENT CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE DONE, LIKE IN NOVEMBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND WE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE DO THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN SEASON. AND THAT WAS SHUT DOWN AFTER WE HAD A UNANIMOUS VOTE HERE, THAT THE THAT WE SHOULD CHANGE THE TIMELINE SO THAT AT LEAST WE'D HAVE MORE INPUT. THE RESPONSE WAS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SECOND THING OF QUESTIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WHICH AFTER I WENT TO WHICH A VERY, VERY MINIMAL INPUT, I THINK BECAUSE THEY HAD VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT THERE WERE ONLY, YOU KNOW, 15 OR 20 QUESTIONS AS OPPOSED TO GETTING BROAD INPUT.

SO THAT'S SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE'RE SHUT DOWN AND WE NOW HAVE WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDED TO DO. OKAY, WAIT A MINUTE. OKAY. NO, I JUST WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO EVERYONE AT THE TABLE, I DID SEE THE LETTER AND I THOUGHT IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA IN MARCH BECAUSE THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THAT ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS A LETTER FROM THE ONA AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN GO BACK AND PULL UP THE FEBRUARY OR MARCH AGENDA, BUT I. THE LETTER WAS SUBMITTED MARCH 10TH, 2026, AND IT WAS IN THE AGENDA. IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS. OKAY, SO IT WAS THERE. OKAY. SO SORRY. I JUST WANT TO INTERJECT THAT I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS, BUT MAYBE NO, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY LIKE FIVE MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO PEOPLE. BUT HIT YOUR HIGH POINTS. CAN I JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING THEN? SO TO THE EXTENT IT APPEARS THAT PERHAPS IT WASN'T READ AT SOME POINT HERE, AND I'LL JUST THROW IT OUT NOW, I DON'T SEE THE URGENCY. AND ESPECIALLY NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO US REPRESENTING OVER 70% OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY OF NAPLES, 70% OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY OF NAPLES WERE SAYING WERE RESIDENT FIRST. THEY ASKED FOR SOMETHING AND THEY DIDN'T GET IT, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED THIS NEXT MEETING.

THERE'S MORE MEETINGS COMING UP. SO THAT'S MY LAST COMMENT. YOUR COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ME.

YES, YES. IT'S I'M JUST GOING TO PIVOT A LITTLE BIT. SO. I HEARD YOU MENTION THERE ARE SCRIVENER'S ERRORS TO THE VISION. AND I HAD SUBMITTED SOME ON APRIL 8TH, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE SCRIVENER'S ERRORS I IDENTIFIED WERE THE SAME ONES THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO. AND IT'S ON PAGE V ONE. THE INTRODUCTION, THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH IS REMOVED, CORRECT. AND IT SETS THE TIME FRAME FOR THE WORKSHOPS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE CURRENT WORKSHOPS. IT WAS THE WORKSHOPS FROM 2019 THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THERE, RIGHT? SO THAT WAS AN ACCIDENTAL DELETION THAT WE WERE GOING TO INCORPORATE THAT LANGUAGE BACK IN. OKAY. AND THEN APPENDIX A ACTUALLY REFERS TO THE FLUME AND NOT THE ACTUAL. SO. CORRECT. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEW APPENDIX A. SO THE APPENDIX THEY WOULD STILL BE THE FLUME, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE APPENDIX A REFERENCE THAT'S ON PAGE. IT'S THE THIRD PARAGRAPH ON PAGE V ONE. WE RECOMMEND MAINTAINING THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY FOR BOTH THE VISION EFFORT THAT TOOK BACK, I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY 2019 WAS WHEN IT ORIGINALLY TOOK PLACE, WHEN THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED, AND THEN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS AS PART OF THIS EFFORT ALSO BE MAINTAINED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, BUT NOT FORMALLY BE PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THOSE ARE VERY DENSE, THICK DOCUMENTS. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A

[00:35:03]

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS CALLED A LIKERT SCALE. YOU HAVE FIVE CHOICES ON ATTITUDES. IT'S ACTUALLY A RATING. IT'S NOT A RANKING. AND AND IT'S THE SAME SORT OF ERROR THROUGHOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE. AND THE ISSUE WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IF YOU SAY IT'S IT'S RANKED. THAT IMPLIES A FORCED CHOICE. SO THINGS THAT HAVE LOWER QUANTITY OR LOWER VALUES AND ATTITUDES. FOR EXAMPLE, IT SAYS BUSINESS AND ECONOMY IS ONLY 44%. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT IMPORTANT. THAT'S RATED VERY IMPORTANT OR IMPORTANT BY 44% OF THE PEOPLE. IT'S IF SOMEONE READS IT AS A RANKING, THEY'RE GOING TO THINK IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHEN IT ACTUALLY IS.

SO IT'S KIND OF A SEMANTIC CHANGE. BUT FROM A. A STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE. SO I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND CHANGING THE WORD RANKING TO RATING. SO I COMPLETELY HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT IS ACTUAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINALLY THAT'S IN THE ORIGINALLY ADOPTED VISION PLAN THAT REFLECTS THE 2019 SURVEY EFFORT.

AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT SURVEY. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A RANKING OR A RATING. THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIC TO THE ENGAGEMENT THAT OCCURRED DURING THIS PROCESS. YEAH, I KNOW, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WORD. YEAH, IT'S NOT THE INTERPRETATION. THAT'S THE INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT. BUT IT'S THE WORD THAT I THINK IS MISLEADING AND CAN LEAD PEOPLE TO THINK THAT SOMETHING'S NOT IMPORTANT WHEN IT IS. I SEE YOU NODDING. SO THANK YOU. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO CLOSE BY REALLY SAYING HOW AS A RESIDENT AND NOW AS A ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE PPB, HOW PLEASED I AM TO SEE THAT THE ELEMENTS OF RESIDENTS FIRST CHARACTER AND RESILIENCY ARE INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT. AND THOSE ARE KEY POINTS OF THE VISION. I WOULD JUST CLOSE BY SAYING, YOU SAID IT, THE VISION, THE FACT THAT THE VISION WAS VALIDATED, I THINK IS SORT OF A BFD. AND YOU SAID IT'S IN THE INTRODUCTION, I IT'S I STILL DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE INTRODUCTION. WHEN I READ IT CAREFULLY, THE FACT THAT THE VISION WAS VALIDATED THROUGH THIS PROCESS ONCE AGAIN, I FEEL SHOULD BE MORE FRONT AND CENTER IN THE INTRODUCTION. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. SO I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO ECHO MEMBER COMMENTS BECAUSE I, I KIND OF SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS AS I'VE REVIEWED ALL THIS INFORMATION AND I KNOW I'M NEW, NEW TO THIS. SO I HAD A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO DO, BUT I'VE DONE THAT. SO MY FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS URGENCY. THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE, AND MAYBE I'M NOT CLEAR ON IT, BUT THIS ISN'T REALLY REQUIRED UNTIL 2032. SO WHY ARE WE TRYING TO RUSH SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT? THROUGH MY FIRST QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE SURVEYS? SO. WE'RE BEING TOLD, RIGHT. SO WE HAD LET'S SAY 2000.

DO WE KNOW IF THERE'S DUPLICATES. DO WE KNOW THAT EACH YEAR THAT WAS 2000 PEOPLE OR WAS THERE 2000 RESPONSES. OKAY. SURE. OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EXPERT IS NOT HERE TODAY, BUT I WILL TRY AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THAT. WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WERE JUST ABOUT A THOUSAND PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS. WE DO HAVE THE LIST OF WHO PARTICIPATED. IF YOU WANT, WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE HOW MANY DUPLICATES THERE WERE.

I DON'T THINK THERE WERE THAT MANY, BUT THERE WERE EACH OF THE SESSIONS. OH, SURE. SO IT'S 2000 IS NOT THE NUMBER THEN. SO IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1000 AND 2000. SO A BIG DELTA IT'S 5% TO 10% OF THE POPULATION. SO WHICH IS A GOOD NUMBER. I DISAGREE. WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS 90% OF

[00:40:01]

I'M NOT DONE. I'M SORRY, LUKE, I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S OKAY. AND WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS PLAN, I, I TAKE ISSUE WITH A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS PLAN. AND PRIMARILY MY ISSUE IS PROPERTY RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS AND I READ BETWEEN THE LINES ON IT, IT'S ALMOST A TROJAN HORSE TO GET MORE STRINGENT ON PEOPLE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND I DON'T AGREE. THAT'S A NO GO FOR ME. IT'S IT'S OVERREACHING WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CODE WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND WHAT WE ABIDE BY WORKS VERY WELL. CITY OF NAPLES IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKS VERY WELL. AND WHAT I'M SEEING IS KIND OF A ROUNDABOUT WAY TO GET MORE RESTRICTIVE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THAT KIND OF IN THE FUTURE LAND USE AREA. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF MY ISSUES WITH THIS.

AGAIN, I TAKE A LARGE ISSUE WITH WHY THIS IS BEING RUSHED. IT SHOULDN'T BE. IT'S NOT. I AGAIN, IN MY RESEARCH, IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE UNTIL 2032. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS BEING PUSHED THROUGH. AND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO, TO, TO MAKE QUICK DECISIONS HERE.

AND I COULD JUST FALL BACK ON MY EXPERIENCE IN THE 8 OR 9 YEARS ON THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. WE WE REWROTE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HANDBOOK, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S EVEN PUBLISHED YET WORKING ON IT, BUT IT TOOK US ABOUT A YEAR TO A YEAR AND A HALF, AND WE BROKE IT UP INTO EACH SECTION AND WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON IT AND REALLY FOCUSED ON EACH ITEM TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T OVERLOOKING ANYTHING, OR TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T BEING TOO PRESCRIPTIVE.

WE WANTED TO WE WANTED THINGS TO BE MORE OPEN ENDED FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS TO INTERPRET. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS ON THERE. LIKE I SAID, I, I, I TAKE MANY, MANY ISSUES WITH THIS COMP PLAN AND I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. THANK YOU. WELL, NOTHING. DAN. YEAH, JUST A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS. SO I WANTED TO KIND OF SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ENGAGEMENT ASPECT OF IT. I DON'T THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO WOULD GET MORE PEOPLE ENGAGED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. I THINK IT'S LOW PRIORITY ON A LOT OF CITIZENS. YOU KNOW, ITEM DAY TO DAY LIVES. AND SO IN THAT RESPECT, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE THE 1000, 2000 NUMBER, WHATEVER IT IS, I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET UP TO LIKE FIVE, 10,000. I MEAN, THAT'S PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE. AND SO IF YOU KIND OF TAKE THE VIEWPOINT OF, OKAY, WHAT KIND OF ENGAGEMENT ARE WE GETTING ON THIS PLAN? WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED SINCE THEN. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK SINCE THE MARCH MEETING, WHEN WE FIRST GOT THE

[00:45:06]

BEING THAT THIS IS AN ELECTIVE UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I THINK WE CAN KIND OF SET OUR OWN TIMETABLE WITH THAT. SO WE COULD MAYBE TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO NOW INTEGRATE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT IN TO KIND OF LOOK AT HOW WE COULD TWEAK THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMP PLAN AS IT'S BEING REVISED TO MORE REFLECT INPUT FROM OUR COMMUNITY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN IF WE CAN GET INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP. BUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE SEEN AND SOME OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HAVE ME CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT. LIKE ONE OF THEM IS ABOUT THE IS IT THE SB 180, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS OF HOW MUCH WE CAN DO EVEN OR WOULD THE STATE KICK BACK SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE OF THAT? SO THAT'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS HOW CAN WE TAKE THE RECENT FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT AND INTEGRATE THAT INTO WHAT THE COMP PLAN IS TRYING TO DO? THANK YOU, JOHN. THANK YOU. SO, YES, JUST TO REITERATE THAT THIS ADVISORY BOARD SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF OUR PUBLIC CARE OUTREACH AND, AND OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AND I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE A HORSE TO WATER, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK. AND I THERE'S CERTAINLY BEEN A LOT OF DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION, MEETINGS, ETC. AND WILL UNFORTUNATELY NEVER GET 100%, NEVER GET 50%. IN FACT, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED OF THE CONSULTANTS IS WHAT QUALIFIES AS SUCCESS FOR THE PUBLIC MEETINGS? IT IS WHAT IT IS. THE SECOND THING IS ON THE DEADLINE. WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE DEADLINE? BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN PUSH, PUSH, PUSH, PUSH, PUSH. AND YES, WE AS A BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DID NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING PUBLIC OUTREACH IN. I CAN'T REMEMBER OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND WE WERE TOLD, NO, WE HAVE TO. THERE'S A DEADLINE TO BE PURSUED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET IT TO THE STATE BY A CERTAIN DATE. SO I'M CURIOUS, IS IT 2034 OR IS IT 2026? SEPTEMBER? YEP. THOSE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES.

SO WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE MANDATED CYCLE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES, WE ARE NOT UNDER I MEAN, OUR DEADLINE IS 2032, 2034. SO WE'RE NOT ON THAT'S NOT THE THE PRESSING TIMELINE.

WE UPDATED WITHIN THAT CYCLE IN 2024. SO WE HAVE TIME ON THAT. THIS THE DEADLINE FOR THIS IS SOMEWHAT SELF-CREATED. THIS WAS A WE SET THIS OUT WHEN WE DID THE RFP TO ENGAGE THE CONSULTANT. IT WAS A TWO YEAR. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE BY THE END OF 2026. SO YOU CAN SEE THE WAY THE SCHEDULE WAS WORKED OUT WAS REALLY MORE BASED ON SEASON. WHEN WE'RE IN SEASON AND WHEN WE'RE OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD HIT THIS FIRST, FIRST READING NOW, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A 60 DAY TRANSMITTAL PERIOD TO THE STATE. SO THE IDEA WAS, IF WE COULD GET THE FIRST READING NOW, WE WOULD TAKE THE SUMMER WHILE EVERYONE'S OUT OF TOWN FOR THAT TRANSMITTAL PERIOD WHEN WE CAN'T HAVE ANY ACTIVITY, AND THEN WHEN EVERYONE COMES BACK IN THE FALL, HAVE THE SECOND READING WHEN EVERYONE IS IN TOWN. SO THIS FOR THIS ELECTIVE COMP PLAN UPDATE, IT'S NOT A STATE MANDATED DEADLINE. THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINE. OKAY, WELL, I HAVE TO BET THAT'S NEWS TO ME. WHEN I SEE COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ IN THE BACKGROUND THERE. AND HE WAS VERY IN THE FOREGROUND. HE WAS VERY VOCAL, AS SEVERAL OF US WERE, THAT WE WERE BEING PUSHED INTO THIS VERY QUICKLY. IT WAS RUSH, RUSH, RUSH BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEADLINE. SO THE THE DEADLINE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. WE WANTED TO HAVE

[00:50:07]

PLEASE DON'T GET ME WRONG, I AM NOT CRITICIZING ANYTHING. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE WHOLE CONVERSATION. I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB. YOU ALWAYS DO A GREAT JOB AND IT'S THE USUAL THING. IN FACT, I KNOW WHEN ANDREW MEYER WAS ON THE BOARD, WE HAD A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT, HOW DO WE BENCHMARK HOW WELL WE'RE DOING? AND WE RAISED THE TOPIC OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTE IN OFF CYCLE ELECTIONS. IT'S VERY LOW. YEAH. SO BUT THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE THE CONSULTANCY TEAM. AND, YOU KNOW, THE EFFORTS BY MANY THAT HAVE CREATED A PLAN TO ME THAT IS LIGHT YEARS BEYOND THE, THE PLAN THAT WE THAT WE HAVE UPDATED. SO I JUST WANTED TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON A ON A FEW THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS, AS SALLY PETERSON MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WAS. AND IT WAS INTENDED TO TEST AND VALIDATE THE VISION STATEMENT THAT WE ARE WORKING OFF OF. THAT'S IN THE CURRENT IN THE CURRENT PLAN. AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS. ALTHOUGH I AGREE, WE TRIED OUR BEST TO LEAD THE HORSE TO WATER, BUT WE COULDN'T MAKE THEM DRINK. AND BUT WE DID VALIDATE THE VISION. AND I THINK THE VISION STATEMENT, AS EXPRESSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS ROBUST AND VALID. AND I WANTED TO COMPLIMENT SOME OF THE SUCCESSES ON THE PLAN. WE ASKED YOU TO, TO FOCUS ON RESIDENTS RESIDENT FOCUSED.

THAT WAS A SUCCESS. RESILIENCY, A FANTASTIC, PROBABLY BEST IN THE STATE RESILIENCY ELEMENT.

AND AARON, CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT. I KNOW YOU TOOK THE LEAD ON THAT. IT'LL BE THE ENVY OF THE REST OF THE STATE, AND IT'LL BE A MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE STATE. THE PRECISION IN THE LANGUAGE IMPROVED. THE PARKS, TREES, OPEN SPACES ELEMENT IMPROVED WONDERFULLY.

THE PURPOSE AND INTENT STATEMENT OR SECTION WE ASKED FOR THAT YOU DELIVERED THE ACTIONS, THE ACTIONS, ADDITION TO THE ELEMENTS. WONDERFUL. VERY USEFUL. THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION WE ASKED YOU TO TO BEEF THAT UP. YOU DID SUCCESS. THE DEFINITIONS SECTION. WE ASKED YOU TO EXPAND THAT AND BEEF IT UP. ANOTHER SUCCESS. SO I WANT TO I MEAN, I AGREE WITH A NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, BECAUSE THIS PLAN, ALTHOUGH VERY, VERY GOOD, IS NOT PERFECT AND IT NEVER WILL BE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME WE TAKE, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST NOT A MATTER OF, OF, OF SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO. AND WE'LL NEVER AT THIS BOARD AGREE ON EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE'LL BE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, FOCUSES AND EMPHASIS AND SO FORTH. AND SO WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO DO IS, IS FOCUS ON THE SUCCESSES.

AND I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE SHORTFALL. WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HAD MORE RESIDENTS COME IN AND, AND TALK TO US. WE COULDN'T MAKE IT HAPPEN. AND I DON'T THINK WE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AS, AS

[00:55:07]

THAT'S SOMETHING. THE QUESTION IS, I HEARD I HAD I HAD IT WRITTEN DOWN. SO I, I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WORK. SO THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS VERY DEFINED TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC. THERE WERE NO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS OR FOCUS GROUPS OR SPECIAL COMMITTEES THAT WERE CHOSEN. YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT AT THE TIME OF SCOPING A PROJECT. THERE WERE NO DIRECTIONS OR THERE WAS NOT IN OUR SCOPE TO DO SPECIAL INTEREST OUTREACH. WE DID PUBLIC, FULL, WIDE OPEN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. SO MEMBERS OF THE GROUPS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT AND SAME AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SAME AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. IF THEY OWN PROPERTY IN THE CITY, THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LETTER TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS, WHETHER THEY WERE ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS, AND AND AS FAR AS THE COUNTY GOES, SAME THING. LIKE THERE WAS NOT A CARVED OUT SCOPE OF WORK TO SIT DOWN AND DO A BUNCH OF INTERLOCAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COUNTY. I KNOW IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT AT THE ADMINISTRATION LEVEL AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, BECOME MORE, I THINK, AN ENGAGEMENT WHERE THE CITY ADMINISTRATION IS LOOKING AT AND TALKING TO COUNTY OFFICIALS, BUT NOT AS PART OF THE CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK. WAS THAT PART OF OUR WORK? OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IF IT'S HELPFUL, THIS ALL STARTED WITH A SOLICITATION THAT WAS PUT OUT. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY BID ON. AND THIS WAS DONE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO. SO THEY'RE REACTING SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WAS PUT OUT ON THE STREET. AND AS LAURA SAID, THAT WAS JUST SIMPLY NOT PART OF PART OF THAT SOLICITATION. SO THEY BID STRICTLY WHAT WAS SOLICITED BY THE CITY. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THEN WE COULD GO BACK AROUND AND LET EVERYBODY COMMENT. OKAY, I AND SO I

[01:00:02]

OKAY, SO THEY ARE THEY'RE MENTIONED, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO COORDINATION THROUGH THIS PROCESS. NO, WE HAVE NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M GOING TO ALLOW WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SENT IN REQUESTS FOR SPEAKING. SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM. WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, YOU GO TO THE CENTER PODIUM AND YOU MAY YOU HAVE A SEVEN MINUTE LIMIT. THE LIGHT WILL TURN YELLOW WHEN YOU GET CLOSE, AND IT'LL TURN RED WHEN YOU NEED TO WIND UP. SO THINK ABOUT YOUR YOUR COMMENTS. WE ALWAYS APPRECIATE PEOPLE TAKING THE TIME AND ENERGY TO COME HERE. THE FIRST IS JENNER HEIDEMANN. IF YOU'RE HERE. GOOD MORNING. JENNA HEIDEMANN. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PORT ROYAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF OUR HOA COALITION. I'M HERE TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME CONCERNS THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. I WAS ACTUALLY HERE ON THE MARCH 10TH MEETING, AND I READ THE LETTER THAT WE SUBMITTED TO YOU GUYS AT THAT MEETING. SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT COMMUNICATION BASICALLY IDENTIFIED SOME ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH THE PROCESS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND JUST SOME ISSUES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT WE WANTED TO SHARE. IN APRIL, WE FOLLOWED UP WITH CITY COUNCIL WITH A LETTER THAT I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU TODAY, BECAUSE WE, AT THIS POINT HAVE NOT HAD A RESPONSE FROM EITHER BOARD, EITHER BODY.

SO I'D LIKE TO READ THAT LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL TO YOU TODAY, AND JUST KIND OF REITERATE OUR CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. AND THIS WAS SUBMITTED FOR TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 13TH. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THAT YET. DEAR MAYOR HEIDEMANN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE HOA COALITION REPRESENTING AQUALINE SHORES, COQUINA SANDS, GC, SAC, THE MOORINGS PARK SHORE, PORT ROYAL AND ROYAL HARBOR. AND ACTUALLY, WE'VE SINCE ADDED ANOTHER GROUP. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY EIGHT OF US TOTAL, APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE CITY OF NAPLES POPULATION. WE WRITE TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN REGARDING THE PACE AT WHICH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE IS BEING ADVANCED. AS WE STATED IN OUR. IN OUR PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD LAST MONTH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL SERVE AS A BLUEPRINT FOR GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY DECISIONS IN NAPLES FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. WHILE WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE AND WORK THAT STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT HAVE HAVE DEDICATED TO THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT, GIVEN ITS LONG TERM IMPACT, WE BELIEVE THE CURRENT TIMELINE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE LEVEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD COLLABORATION AND THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS THAT SUCH A CONSEQUENTIAL PLAN REQUIRES.

RESILIENCY MUST BE THE PRIMARY PRIORITY. THE OVERWHELMING CONCERN OF THE RESIDENTS WE REPRESENT IS RESILIENCY AND PREPAREDNESS. IN THE WAKE OF RECENT STORM EVENTS AND INCREASING FLOOD RISK, THE CITY MUST PRIORITIZE THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE, WELL FUNDED RESILIENCY STRATEGY. WHILE THE FRAMEWORK HAS RECENTLY BEEN DRAFTED AND APPROVED, SECURING FUNDING AND DEFINING IMPLEMENTATION IS CRITICAL AND WILL TAKE TIME. SINCE THE LAST REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NAPLES EXPERIENCED AT LEAST THREE SUBSTANTIAL HURRICANES AND WEATHER EVENTS. THE CITY MUST ENSURE THAT ANY PLAN APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFIES OPPORTUNITIES TO FORTIFY OUR SHORELINES, PROTECT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFEGUARD PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LONG TERM INVESTMENTS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

THIS SHOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY BEFORE ADVANCING BROADER POLICY CHANGES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TRAFFIC AND COUNTY COORDINATION REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. EQUALLY PRESSING ARE THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE CONTINUED GROWTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. WE BELIEVE THE CITY SHOULD TAKE A MORE PROACTIVE ROLE IN COORDINATING WITH COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIALS TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL TRAFFIC STUDY OR STRATEGY THAT WILL ALLEVIATE THE STRESSES FELT BY CITY RESIDENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE FORTHCOMING FDOT PROJECT INVOLVING THE CLOSURE OF US 41 FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS,

[01:05:05]

NOW, WE FEEL THIS ISSUE ALONE WARRANTS MORE DELIBERATE PLANNING AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CLARITY OF VISION AND TERMS LIKE CHARACTER AND SMALL TOWN CHARM. AS NOTED IN OUR PREVIOUS LETTER, TERMS SUCH AS CHARACTER AND SMALL TOWN CHARM ARE INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE AND MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS. NAPLES TODAY IS A DYNAMIC AND VIBRANT COMMUNITY. WHILE ITS HISTORY IS CERTAINLY VALUED, THE REALITY IS THAT THE SMALL TOWN NAPLES OF THE PAST HAS EVOLVED. POLICY LANGUAGE WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MUST BE CLEAR AND NOT RELY ON AMBIGUOUS TERMINOLOGY THAT COULD LEAD TO INCONSISTENT APPLICATION, GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE AND AND PROCESS CONCERNS. WE ARE ALSO MINDFUL THAT THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE IS THE FIRST SUCH PROCESS FOR SEVERAL. SEVERAL NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THREE NEW CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THREE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS. RESPECTFULLY, THIS IS A HIGHLY COMPLEX AND CONSEQUENTIAL UNDERTAKING THAT REQUIRES CAREFUL DELIBERATION AND SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED. THIS HOA COALITION IS WILLING AND READY TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ON THIS IMPORTANT PLAN. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SLOW DOWN THE CURRENT PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT WITH CITY STAFF, RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS. ADEQUATE TIME FOR REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF PLAN COMPONENTS. GREATER COORDINATION WITH OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE COUNTY. A CLEAR AND ACTIONABLE FOCUS ON RESILIENCY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES.

THIS ADDITIONAL TIME WILL ENSURE THAT THE FINAL PLAN REFLECTS THOUGHTFUL, INFORMED DECISION MAKING AND TRULY SERVES THE LONG TERM INTERESTS OF THE NAPLES COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATION ON THE SHAPING OF THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, I APPRECIATE IT. THE NEXT PERSON IS NEIL MONTGOMERY. GOOD MORNING, NEIL MONTGOMERY FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE RECORD, I'M HERE REPRESENTING MHK, RONTO AND NEAPOLITAN ENTERPRISES, AND I THINK THE FIRST COMMENT I WANT TO ECHO IS THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S THIS FREIGHT TRAIN HAS TO LEAVE THE STATION. AND THE ANSWER IS NO. IT'S AN ELECTIVE PROCESS. YOU HAVE TIME, AND THIS BODY IS THE ONE CHARGED BY STATUTE AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY TO TAKE THAT INPUT. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SURVEY, BECAUSE I'M SURE ALL OF YOU GET THOSE SURVEYS. WHICH ONE OF THESE FIVE THINGS DO YOU THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT? AND I ALWAYS HAVE THIS FEELING, BUT WHAT ABOUT NUMBER SEVEN? I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION OR COMMENT.

AND THE SURVEYS WEREN'T SET UP TO LET YOU HAVE AN OPINION. IT WAS JUST TO LET YOU PICK WHICH ONE OF THE OPTIONS YOU LIKE BEST. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE RESIDENT THAT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. I DO THIS FOR A LIVING. THAT'S A BIG BOOK WITH A LOT OF CHANGES, AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND. AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T CARE ABOUT REGULATIONS WHEN IT HAPPENS TO THE BIG BAD DEVELOPER OR THE GUY OVER THERE. BUT WE DO CARE WHEN IT AFFECTS US. AND I SENT YOU A LETTER. AND IN THAT LETTER I TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE POLICIES AND THE ACTIONS UNDER IT. AND THOSE ACTIONS DON'T JUST AFFECT MULTIFAMILY, DON'T JUST AFFECT COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE. THEY AFFECT SINGLE FAMILY. AND WHAT IT SAYS IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE, GREEN SPACE. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT HEIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SETBACKS. WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. WHAT IS THAT MINIMUM PERCENTAGE? WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. SO FOR ALL THE FOLKS OUT THERE WHO THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO WHEN THEY REDEVELOP THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEY DON'T KNOW. AND THOSE RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MENTIONED THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO THEM RATHER THAN WAIT FOR THE STORM TO HAPPEN. I COME IN TO REDEVELOP MY HOUSE AND IT'S LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, I CAN'T DO WHAT I THOUGHT I COULD DO BECAUSE NOW I HAVE TO HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE, MORE GREEN SPACE, MORE LANDSCAPING, LESS PERVIOUS.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS PARTICULARLY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BECAUSE FOR A LOT OF FOLKS, THAT'S A MAJOR INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL BACKGROUND IN THEIR LIFE. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO TAKE TIME, TAKE TIME TO TELL THE FOLKS WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT THAT COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS IMPORTANT, BUT THE PROBLEM IS WHAT IS THAT? HOW CAN YOU TELL EVERYBODY WHAT THAT IS AND WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN IT'S IMPLEMENTED? AND I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU CAN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS. AND IN FACT, IN MY LETTER, I POINT OUT THAT THERE'S SOME DEFINITIONS THAT I'M THAT DON'T KIND OF MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOU DEFINE WETLANDS AND FRESHWATER

[01:10:02]

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONCRETE AND FOCUSED ON REAL THINGS AND REAL, REAL SUBJECTS. SOME OF THOSE ARE MANDATORY FROM THE STATE LAW, AND SOME OF THEM ARE CITY SPECIFIC, BUT THE MINIMUM

[01:15:08]

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED MORE TIME, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN SAY IS WE NEED MORE TIME. BUT I THINK I THINK WE'VE EITHER GOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DISAPPROVAL. AND WHY. YEAH. I THINK THAT'S TECHNICALLY WHAT OUR ROLE IS HERE TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN THERE. SO AGAIN, IF IF YOU WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO THE GOVERNING BODY, WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL AND PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, LET'S JUST SAY HYPOTHETICALLY APPROVAL WITH X, Y, Z CHANGES. PLUS, WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND GIVING US MORE TIME. THAT CAN BE ALSO PART OF THE VOTE. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD DO THAT. OKAY. BUT IF THE MAJORITY FEELS WE NEED MORE TIME, WHY CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT? YOU YOU HAVE TO ACT ON THIS ORDINANCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OKAY? YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. SO WE HAVE TO DISAPPROVE. YOU CAN'T CONTINUE IT. YOU CAN'T. YOU KNOW, I THAT'S THE ONLY THING. THAT'S THE POINT I WAS GETTING TO THANK YOU SO YOU COULD REJECT IT AND SAY, WE WANT TO COME BACK IN MAY OR JUNE TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION. AND AT THAT POINT WE COULD DO THAT. YOU ARE THE BODY. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT DEPENDS ON THE VOTE. OKAY. BUT WE COULD. SO WE DO A NEW ROUND. SO YOU'RE NOT POTTED PLANTS HERE. YOU'RE NOT. OKAY. OKAY. GREG HAD A COMMENT. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO JUST GO AROUND AND ONE MORE TIME. AND I JUST DID A LITTLE RESEARCH BECAUSE I WAS I HAD THE SAME QUESTION. AND, AND THE LIMITED RESEARCH THAT I DID INDICATED WE HAD THREE OPTIONS. AND ANDREW, THIS IS A SUBJECT TO YOUR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. ONE, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

SECONDLY, TO DISAPPROVE THE ORDINANCE OR TO, TO APPROVE WITH, WITH SUBJECTS, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH CONDITIONS. AND IT MIGHT BE THAT WE COULD APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE HAVE MORE TIME TO, TO WORK ON IT. I THINK, I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT I FOUND THAT WE COULD DO. BUT THE ORDINANCE IS A TRANSMITTAL ORDINANCE, CORRECT? RIGHT. IT'S NOT AN APPROVAL OF THE PLAN. RIGHT. SO IF WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE AND WE NEED MORE TIME WITH THE PLAN, WE SHOULDN'T APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE LOGIC. YEAH. I THINK I THINK THE I GREG, I MEAN, ANDREW, YOUR COMMENT, I THINK GREG GOT IT EXACTLY RIGHT. IT'S THE POSTURE THAT IT IS BEFORE YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON IT. AND THAT THIRD OPTION THAT GREG MENTIONED, THE VICE CHAIR IS EXACTLY RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE, TAKE ACTION AND THEN SAY, HERE ARE SOME CHANGES. PLUS, WE IN CAPITAL LETTERS WOULD REALLY LIKE THIS

[01:20:03]

PLANNING STAFF IS HERE. WE'RE ALL GOING TO TAKE NOTES. AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOTION. BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS JUST SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION. NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT DISAPPROVING GIVES US THE TIME TO TAKE MORE ACTION.

IT'S HOWEVER, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S IT'S SIMPLY A RECOMMENDATION. SORRY, IT'S NOT OFFICIAL ACTION. OKAY. WELL, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO COMMENT, AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN SORT OUT IF THERE'S A THERE MAY BE A CONSENSUS HERE THAT MAY NOT BE. OTHERWISE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TWO VOTES. AND SURE, YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT TURNS OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE ALTERNATE THAT YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE TODAY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A FULL BOARD. THAT'S WHAT YOUR PARTICIPATION AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. OKAY, SO BACK TO MY LEFT. SO I, I FIND A, THERE'S THIS DICHOTOMY. IT SEEMS IT'S LIKE WE TALK ABOUT OURSELVES AS BEING A SMALL TOWN AND CHARACTER AND ALL THAT. BUT THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAY OUR CITIZENS DON'T CARE. AND I, I THINK THERE'S A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY HERE. I THINK THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ARE THE FRONT LINE. THIS IS A CITY OF COMMUNITIES. AND THOSE HOMEOWNERS, FIRST AND FOREMOST, LOOK TO THEIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. AS YOU KNOW, THE FIRST PLACE THAT, YOU KNOW, TAKING CARE OF THEIR COMMUNITY.

AND THEN THEY ARE INCREASINGLY RELYING ON THOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS TO, TO BE A VOICE.

AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS OVER THE COURSE OF THESE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THIS HOMEOWNERS COALITION HAS FORMED BECAUSE IT'S A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT THESE HOMEOWNERS WANT A MORE SIGNIFICANT VOICE, THEY WANT TO BE MORE ENGAGED. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ENGAGE WITH THEM, YOU KNOW, I MY OPINION IS WE'RE GOING TO GET WE HAVE MORE INFORMED HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE. THEY'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO BE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM. WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT WE RESPECT THEIR PERSPECTIVE. AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO SHARE THEIR PERSPECTIVE. SO I THINK THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. IT'S BEEN SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED. WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD COULDN'T DIRECT STAFF, BUT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CAN TELL THE COUNTY, TELL THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO ENGAGE WITH THESE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS WHO HAVE OFFERED AND DESIRE TO TO PLAY A MORE SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN UNDERSTANDING AND FURTHER AND QUESTIONING AND FURTHER CLARIFYING THE PRIORITIES THAT THEY HAVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? JUST. YES, SIR. CLARIFICATION PURPOSES. THIS IS MAY. YES. THE MAJOR CRITICISM THAT I HEAR OF ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN FLORIDA IS THEY HOLD THINGS OFF TO THE SUMMER AND WHEN NOBODY'S HERE AND PASS IT RIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE BY DELAYING THIS. I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A YEAR'S DELAY PROBABLY. YEAH. WELL, AND I WOULD AND AS IT RELATES TO DELAY, I WOULD SUGGEST WE BE ON THE SAFE SIDE. WE SET AN OBJECTIVE WHAT WE SUGGEST AN OBJECTIVE OF HAVING THIS READY BY SEPTEMBER OF 27, WHEN IT CAN IN FACT, BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT ANY ISSUES FURTHER ALIENATING OUR STATE LEGISLATURE AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT WE'VE HAD CHALLENGES WITH OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION.

LINDA. THANK YOU SO. THERE'S A BLUE LIGHT HERE NOW. IT'S GONE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ASK OUR CONSULTANTS AGAIN WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. I REMEMBER HEARING FROM A PRIOR MEETING THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IS ON PAR WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES IN NAPLES, THAT WE WERE NOT AN ANOMALY IN HAVING THE SEEMINGLY LOW TURNOUT THAT WE HAD. LAURA

[01:25:03]

[01:30:02]

I THINK HONESTLY, THE FACT THAT THIS IS ELECTED IS GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE TIME AND, YOU KNOW, JUST GET THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGHT. I THINK THE COMMENT ABOUT THERE'S A NEW CITY COUNCIL, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE NEW CITY COUNCIL, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE NEW GROUP HERE. SO ALWAYS HAVE A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING. SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY PERSONALLY I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. I DO THINK THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, JOE, ON THE FACT THAT THE HOA, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TALK TO. I THINK WE WANTED TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE DO THIS? THERE WAS A DISCUSSION. WE HAVE SOME SORT OF PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF TALKING TO THEM. ONCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THIS GREAT INPUT. WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. BUT IF WE'VE GOT HOAS THAT ARE ASKING FOR A KIND OF INPUT, WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT HOW TO COVER AS MANY OF THEM, NOT JUST THE THE 70% WE HAVE HERE. THERE'S A LOT MORE ON THAT LIST OF, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5 PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE TOP OF THAT LETTER AND STUFF THAT WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO, BUT IT WILL BE THAT TYPE OF STUFF. NOW, THE PROCESS OF HOW DO WE DO THAT, I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS. SO IT'S EFFICIENT. BUT THAT'S MY COMMENT. SO SORRY. WE DID ATTEND PRESIDENTS COUNCIL. THE CONSULTANT TEAM AND I ATTENDED PRESIDENTS COUNCIL IN JANUARY. PRIOR TO THE SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. WE GAVE A PRESENTATION. WE GAVE A PITCH. A NUMBER OF THE HOAS DID. THEN I HAVE EMAILS THAT SOME OF THE HOS AFTER THAT PRESENTATION THAT WE GAVE TO PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, DID PUT TOGETHER THEIR OWN EMAIL BLASTS AND, YOU KNOW, OUTREACH TO THEIR OWN MEMBERS. BUT AGAIN, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION WE GOT IN THE FEBRUARY MEETINGS BEYOND WHAT WE GOT IN NOVEMBER. SO WE WILL I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN WORK WITH PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN GO TO THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, BUT THEN IT'S UP TO THE PRESIDENTS TO GO TO THEIR PEOPLE AND THEIR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE. SO YEAH, TO BE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL IS NOT THE HOA COALITION. NO. OKAY. BUT THE YEAH, THE OTHER THE OTHER THING TOO, IS I LOOK AT THE REPORT HERE FROM THE 2019 VISION THING, OF WHICH WE HAD 2000 SURVEYS THAT WERE SET UP, OF WHICH THERE WERE RESPONSES TO 1994. SO AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS, IT SEEMS AT LEAST FROM THAT TIME WE DID IT. IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS DONE HERE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE WAY OUT OF WHACK AND STUFF LIKE THAT. JUST AS FAR AS THE DATA GOES, IF I JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT, SORRY. SO AND I DO THINK IT'S VERY HARD FOR ALL OF THE CITIZENS, HOA GROUPS, BUSINESSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO ACTUALLY COMMENT ON THE PLAN UNTIL THEY ACT, UNTIL IT ACTUALLY BECOMES SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN REVIEW. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT THAT SURPRISED THAT WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE FEEDBACK NOW THAT WE HAVE ACTUAL DRAFT COMP PLANS TO LOOK AT. AND SO TO ME, THAT ALMOST IS WHERE THAT EXTRA INPUT IS NEEDED IS NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, IT'S A MASSIVE THING. IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT OVER TIME HERE WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE FEEDBACK BECAUSE PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE TIME TO

[01:35:01]

JUST A FEW SCATTERED THOUGHTS ON DELAY. ONE THING THAT THAT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS THAT AS A PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, WE RECOMMENDED ON A SEVEN ZERO VOTE THAT WE MOVE THE NOVEMBER PLANNING SESSION INTO JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH TIME FRAME, BECAUSE WE FELT THAT IT WOULD GET MORE MORE PARTICIPATION. GREAT IDEA. SEVEN NOTHING. WE ALL. AND THEN I THINK THAT BY A MERE VOTE OF SEVEN, NOTHING. THE CITY COUNCIL REJECTED THAT. THAT SUGGESTION ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD DELAY THIS PROCESS. AND SO IF WE DO THIS, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE DON'T, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE DELAYED THE PROCESS TO, TO MOVE THE THE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION, WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE IN RETROSPECT BECAUSE WE WE TRIED OUR BEST AND WE COULDN'T GET PEOPLE TO SHOW UP. SO IT WAS A GREAT IDEA FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS. IT WOULDN'T HAVE DONE PROBABLY AS MUCH AS WE'D HOPED. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, SAY THAT NUMBER TWO, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED THAT WE SHOULD DELAY BECAUSE OF SENATE BILL 180, AND WE IN IN 2027 WILL BE FREE TO TO PASS OR TO SUBMIT A COMP PLAN THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BE APPROVED BY THE STATE, BECAUSE WE'D GET PAST THE 20 I MEAN, THE SB 180 RESTRICTIONS. WELL, WE HAD THE SB 250 RESTRICTIONS. WE ALL REMEMBER THAT. AND IF IF SB 180 IS THE LAST OF THE THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S ATTEMPTS TO KEEP US FROM DOING OUR PLANNING IN OTHER CITIES TO DO THEIR PLANNING, WHICH IS HOW I VIEW IT, THEN I WILL ON THIS DAIS EAT MY HAT ON. IF IF SB 180 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ISN'T EXTENDED. SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REASON TO EXTEND IT.

ANOTHER REASON NOT TO, TO USE THAT AS A BASIS TO EXTEND THE TIMING IS SECTION SIX OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER TODAY, WHICH SAYS THAT ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN THAT WE MIGHT SUBMIT ARE SEVERABLE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE CITY I MEAN, IF THE STATE DOESN'T LIKE THIS OR THAT, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, THE OPTION TO SAY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS FINE, BUT NOT THIS, NOT THIS, NOT THIS. DON'T KNOW HOW EXTENSIVE THAT MIGHT BE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER REASON SB 180 IS NOT A REASON TO DELAY IT. BUT THERE IS A GOOD REASON TO DELAY IT. AND I THINK DAN BARONE PUT HIS FINGER RIGHT ON TOP OF IT. AND THAT IS THAT THAT UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHOLE PLAN IN ONE PIECE AND READ IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH WHICH, WHICH I DID, I'M SURE WE ALL DID THE. THEN YOU REALIZE THAT THE. ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE PLAN, ONE OF THE GENIUSES OF THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER IS THAT IT'S INTERACTIVE. AND SO THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES WILL, WILL INTERACT WITH RESILIENCY, AND RESILIENCY, WILL ACT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND IT'S A REALLY ELEGANT PLAN. AND IT'S

[01:40:02]

AND THIS MEANS NO DISRESPECT, BUT BUT YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES. YOU'D NEVER VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD INFRINGE ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. WELL, WHAT ABOUT A SEVEN STORY BUILDING IN OLD, OLD NAPLES? WHAT ABOUT A BUILDINGS THAT GO LOT LINE TO LOT LINE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS? YOU WOULD VOTE AGAINST THAT. AND SO I THINK WE NEED, I THINK, BUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT OUR OUR LANGUAGE BECAUSE ABSOLUTES SOMETIMES FALL APART.

AND I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL IS THAT THAT'S OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS, THE HOA'S. RIGHT. VERY, VERY. SO IT WAS PORT ROYAL PART OF THAT PRESIDENTS COUNCIL. OKAY. WERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE THE COALITION THAT THAT'S THAT'S I'M GOING TO SAY LED BY I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S QUITE RIGHT, BY PORT ROYAL. WERE THEY INVITED AND ATTENDED THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL? I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW THE ENTIRE MAKEUP OF THE COALITION. BUT YES, THERE ARE THE THE PRESIDENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OF EACH OF THOSE. OKAY. SO EVEN THOUGH BACK TO DAN'S POINT, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT THE WHOLE PLAN FROM START TO FINISH, THEY DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR INPUT CORRECT. NOT AT PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, BUT AT PRESIDENTS COUNCIL IS WHEN WE WE WENT THERE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ENCOURAGING THOSE PRESIDENTS OF THE HOA TO GO BACK TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP, TO ENCOURAGE THEIR MEMBERSHIP, HAVING THAT DIRECT CONTACT. WE DON'T HAVE EMAIL LISTS OR CONTACT LISTS FOR ALL THE MEMBERS, BUT ASSUMING THAT THE PRESIDENTS OF THOSE ASSOCIATIONS DID HAVE THAT DIRECT CONTACT WITH THEIR MEMBERS. SO I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR THE FOLLOW UP. SO THE CLARIFICATION IS THAT THAT WASN'T AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT. THAT WAS YOUR APPEAL TO HAVE THEM REACH OUT TO THE HOMEOWNERS. SO IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE FEBRUARY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS. SO IT WAS HAVE ENCOURAGED THEM TO

[01:45:02]

THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M. I WANT TO ADOPT WHAT GREG HAS SAID. AND I, I HAVE TWO CONCERNS. I AM HEARING CLEARLY THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE INPUT. I THINK THE FACT OF LIFE IS THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. BUT I LIKED MR. BARONE'S COMMENT AS WELL. UNTIL YOU SEE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT, YOU NEVER QUITE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. BUT ONE OF THE BIG CRITICISMS A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT GOVERNMENT IS I FIND THAT NO DECISION IS A DECISION, AND IT'S JUST GIVING BUREAUCRACY THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN YOUR COMMUNITY RATHER THAN YOURSELVES. SO I'M SYMPATHETIC TO FIGURING OUT HOW WE CAN WORD SOMETHING TO CITY COUNCIL THAT SAYS, WE WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME. IF I WERE TO IN THINKING IT THROUGH, I REALLY DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING. I JUST DON'T, BECAUSE NOBODY'S HERE. BUT I WOULD REALLY HAVE A GOAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, OF SAYING MY PERSONAL 1ST DECEMBER 31ST BY, YOU KNOW, NOT YOU CAN'T EXACTLY. WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO PUT IT IN STONE, BUT AT LEAST PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE SPECIFIC. AND WHAT I WOULD ENVISION THEM DOING IS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO REENGAGE AND, AND, AND PAY FOR MORE PEOPLE RUNNING MEETINGS. I THINK THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CAN LOOK AT IT AND GIVE US THEIR WRITTEN SUGGESTIONS TO COME THROUGH US TO THE BOARD. SO WE WOULD GET THAT AND HOPEFULLY THE NOVEMBER MEETING AND THAT THEN THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WILL HAVE THE FINAL ONE. I DO CAUTION THE BOARD THAT THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A PERFECT DOCUMENT EVER. AND SO THAT'S A FACT OF LIFE. SO I WOULD ONLY LIKE COMMENTS ABOUT SEEING. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO FIND A MOTION THAT WE CAN SEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT GIVES THEM A, THAT SAYS SUGGESTS A DEADLINE, GIVES THE THOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, ANYBODY ELSE, NOW THAT THEY'VE SEEN IT IN WRITING, THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO GET IT. AND I DON'T THINK IT INCREASES OUR COSTS WITH OUR CONSULTANT AS MUCH. IF IT'S DONE IN THAT WAY, AND THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN THAT. RIGHT.

SO I WOULD JUST REMIND THAT WHAT THE HOA ASSOCIATION ASKED FOR IS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STAFF, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO JUST SAY, GIVE US YOUR COMMENTS. THEY'RE ASKING FOR ENGAGEMENT TO, TO UNDERSTAND AND, AND TO BE ABLE TO FURTHER CLARIFY. WELL, THEN I THINK WHAT WE'D HAVE TO DO IS TO SUGGEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THERE BE A MEETING IN THE EARLY, EARLY IN THE FALL THAN WE MIGHT LIKE, WHERE THE THERE IS A STAFF REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT. WE CAN'T AUTHORIZE THAT, BUT WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT WE HAVE TO ASK. BUT BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF BOTH, BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO HAVE THE WRITTEN COMMENTS OF OF PORT ROYAL AND THE COALITION AND OTHERS WHO HAVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS, NOT JUST GENERAL COMMENTS. THIS IS NO GOOD. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I'D LIKE TO HAVE REALLY SPECIFIC COMMENTS THAT WE CAN REALLY LOOK AT AND SEE IF WE FEEL LIKE THAT THEY MOVE THE NEEDLE. STAFF IS AVAILABLE AT ANY TIME. ALSO, I'VE NOT HAD A REQUEST FROM ANY ONE TO SIT DOWN AND GO THROUGH THIS COMP PLAN ONE BY ONE. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO SET A SPECIAL MEETING. OUR TIME IS AVAILABLE TO ALL THE RESIDENTS ON ANY OF THE ITEMS AT ALL TIMES. SO IF SOMEONE CALLS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND REQUESTS TO MEET WITH STAFF, WE WILL SIT DOWN AND TALK TO ANYONE. IT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE EQUALLY TO EVERYONE. WE CAN'T ONLY MEET WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE, BUT IF A REQUEST WAS MADE FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND SIT DOWN WITH STAFF, WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO DO THAT. THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A YEAH, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT ISN'T THAT ISN'T REALLY WELL KNOWN. I MEAN, EVEN THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DOESN'T THINK THEY CAN ASK PEOPLE TO MEET WITH STAFF. SO I APPRECIATE THE I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT. NO, WE DIDN'T, I WHAT I WAS SAYING IS WE CAN'T. ANY STAFFING REQUESTS THAT INVOLVE STAFF TIME HAS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND OKAY, I UNDERSTAND, I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT. I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL KNOWN THAT IS. SO LET ME. ANDREW. YEAH, JUST A COMMENT AND SUGGESTION. SO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS? WHY IT'S CALLED A TRANSMITTAL IS THAT IT NOT ONLY GOES TO THE STATE, IT GOES TO A LOT OF OTHER WHAT ARE CALLED REVIEWING AGENCIES AND TO THE POINT OF THE WHOLE DOCUMENT, SEEING THE

[01:50:05]

SEEMS TO ME, AND THIS IS JUST KIND OF STRATEGIZING THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, SUBJECT TO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMEOWNERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO HAVE COMMENTS PRESENTED TO BACK TO THIS BOARD BY NOVEMBER OR NOVEMBER MEETING. AND THE GOAL WOULD BE TO GET FINAL APPROVAL IN THE COUNCIL'S DECEMBER MEETING IF POSSIBLE. SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEQUENCE OF THAT BECAUSE THE TIMING OF IT. ME TOO. YEAH. I'M ALMOST I'M ALMOST THINKING THAT MAYBE YOU WANT TO MAKE TWO MOTIONS. ONE WOULD BE ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT MAY BE ANOTHER MOTION THAT'S MORE SPECIFIC TO THE TIMING ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO BREAK IT UP INTO TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS. THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH ME IF IT'S ALL RIGHT. WELL, I THINK I'M OKAY WITH US SAYING WE THINK WE HAVE A PLAN THAT IS APPROPRIATE NOW FOR BRINGING IT BACK TO THE CITIZENRY AND, AND GAINING COMMENT. THE THE NOTION OF TRANSMITTAL AN APPROVING TRANSMITTAL AT THIS POINT TO ME DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT'S LIKE WE'RE SAYING MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, GO AHEAD AND TRANSFER. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE APPROVING THE TRANSFER. THE TRANSFER. THIS IS A PIECE OF PAPER. WE CAN WE CAN REGENERATE THIS PIECE OF PAPER IN THE NEXT PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING IMMEDIATELY AFTER WE GET THAT FROM OUR CITIZENRY. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. I THINK WE I THINK WE SHOULD DEFER THINGS FOR A MONTH TO ALLOW COMMENT. AND LOOKING AT THE SUMMARY SCHEDULE, WE WERE PROBABLY REMISS IN NOT HAVING A PUBLIC FEEDBACK SESSION AFTER WE GOT THE DOCUMENT DONE. SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. THIS IS THIS IS A 20 YEAR DOCUMENT. AND WE, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS PAB HAS CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY PUSHED BACK ON THE TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN PUSH BACK ON THE ABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO, TO COMMENT, TO BE ENGAGED. SO IF I WAS TO MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT TRANSMIT IT TO THE STATE OR THE OR THE COUNCIL, WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD ANOTHER MONTH OF PUBLIC COMMENT. CAN WE CAN WE MODIFY THE. I MEAN, THE MONTH IS A REASONABLE. WELL, SORRY, A PERIOD OF TIME TO BE SPECIFIED. I WOULD SAY YOU IMAGINE. DECEMBER. I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME, OR AT LEAST IN DEFAULT TO SOME DEGREE. WELL, CAN WE JUST. WELL, THE ISSUE WOULD BE IS THAT YOU GOT TO. I LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE CAN'T. WE TALK INTERACTION WITH THE HOA, RIGHT. IF WE HAVE A DEADLINE OF THAT, LET'S JUST USE RIGHT NOW AS THE INPUT HAS TO BE DONE IN ANY COMMENTS YOU HAVE HAS TO BE HERE IN NOVEMBER. WELL, THAT MEANS THERE'S PROBABLY SOME CHANGES. SO THE NEXT THING IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE IS THAT HAS TO THEN GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY'RE GOING TO NEED AT LEAST A MONTH TO BE ABLE TO DIGEST THAT AND APPROVE IT, I GUESS. AND SO IF THAT, WHEN THE MONTH AFTER THAT IS WHEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS TRANSMITTAL THING AGAIN. SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE TIME FRAME WOULD BE GET THE DEADLINE, GET ALL THE INPUTS IN BY NOVEMBER. WE GET THE UPDATES DONE. IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER. AND

[01:55:03]

WHY DELAY IT TILL SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER? WHY NOT ASK FOR COMMENTS BEFORE JUNE AND GIVE STAFF A TIME TO MULL OVER THEM? MAYBE EXTEND TILL SEPTEMBER. BUT PEOPLE ARE HERE NOW. PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO BE ENGAGED. WE'RE HEARING THESE COMMENTS NOW. I AGREE WITH DAN THAT IT'S REALLY HARD TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T SEEN. THIS THING HAS NOW BEEN LIVE TWO MONTHS, RIGHT? TWO MONTHS. IT'S BEEN LIVE. THERE HAVE BEEN A COMMENT SECTION OPEN. YES, WE CAN USE THE THE NEW HOA COALITION, WHICH I THINK HAS THE SAME, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME MEMBERSHIP AS THE PRESIDENT'S COALITION TO GET THE WORD OUT. NOW, YOU KNOW, WHILE PEOPLE ARE STILL HERE, I JUST THINK IF YOU WAIT, WAIT TILL OCTOBER, NOVEMBER TO 7TH DECEMBER, YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE SAME PROBLEM AGAIN. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, TAKE A BREAK OVER THE SUMMER STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT. ASK FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOW. USE THE SUMMER AND EARLY FALL FOR THIS BODY AND CITY COUNCIL TO MARINATE ON IT. COULD I ASK YOU DESCRIBE URGENCY AND THE IRON'S HOT. WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM? WHAT? THE LETTERS WE JUST GOT. DISCUSSION STARTED ABOUT COMMENTS TODAY. WELL, THOSE ASSOCIATIONS ARE ENGAGED NOW, IS THERE? YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED ZOOM AND THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT TO MOVE ALONG. I, I, YOU KNOW, I HAVE MY BUREAUCRACY CONCERNS.

SO THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT. YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN KILL THIS WHOLE THING BY NOT ACTING. AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO. NO, NO, NO, THAT'S YEAH, THAT'S NOT THE OBJECTIVE. I JUST THINK WE'RE, WE JUST NEED SOME TIME. AND I THINK WE NEED TO SHOW RESPECT IN THAT PROCESS. MR. CHAIR, JUST ONE OTHER THING. I'M I'M ANTICIPATING IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE CONSULTANTS THAT THERE MAY HAVE TO BE A CHANGE ORDER THAT HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP WITH THE THE CITY MANAGER AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER THEY'RE UNDER VERY STRICT PROPOSAL THAT THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH. YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S MAYBE RELATED TO THAT, AND I MIGHT NEED ERICA TO ANSWER THIS FOR ME, BUT OUR OFFICIAL DEADLINE FOR REVISING THE COMP PLAN IS 2032. IS THAT CORRECT? UNDER THE SEVEN YEAR ERA PROCESS, YES. SO IF THIS IS EFFECTIVE, IF WE SUBMIT THIS PLAN EVENTUALLY, DOES THAT RESET THE CLOCK. NO NO NO. SO WE HAVE TO REDO THIS ANYWAY IN 20 2030 2032. WELL YOU DON'T HAVE TO REDO IT. YOU DO AN EVALUATION. AND IF THERE ARE NEEDED ANY AMENDMENTS, YOUR

[02:00:01]

[02:05:01]

KAPPLER. YES, MY PEN DIED. OKAY. VICE CHAIR FOWLER. YES. MEMBER. BARONE. YES. MEMBER. BLOMBERG.

YES. MEMBER. FREDRICKSON. YES. MEMBER. CHRIS. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLAN. YES. OKAY. MIRACLE.

WE'D LIKE. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION. SO THE COUNCIL DOESN'T THINK WE'VE LOST OUR MINDS, WHICH THEY MAY ANYWAY. BUT I THINK THE SECOND MOTION SHOULD BE THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM INTERESTED PARTIES. NOW THAT WE HAVE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT TO BE REVIEWED, TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD NO LATER THAN OUR NOVEMBER MEETING. I MEAN, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, GUYS, THAT'S MY MOTION. I SECOND ANY COMMENT. CALL THE ROLL. HOLD ON ONE SECOND, I CAN'T TAKE I'LL GIVE YOU A PEN IF IT'S BROKEN. OKAY. CAN WE JUST BRIEF DISCUSSION. YEAH.

WELL THAT'S WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THAT OCTOBER IS? JUST BECAUSE I WOULD I WOULD PREFER OCTOBER MYSELF JUST TO GIVE US SOME TIME TO WORK THROUGH IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. I HAVE NO THAT'S THAT'S ARBITRARY. BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT I'D PREFER TO KEEP THE NOVEMBER DATE. AND IF WE GET IT SOONER, GREAT. AND, YOU KNOW, AND ENCOURAGE IT, WE OUGHT TO ENCOURAGE IT TO BE SOONER. I MEAN, TO BE TO BE FAIR, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH PUBLIC COMMENT, WE TEND TO GET EVERYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC. THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING. SO I JUST WORD WORD TO EVERYONE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED IN A TIMELY MANNER, PLEASE SUBMIT THEM WITH ENOUGH TIME THAT THEY CAN BE INCORPORATED. THIS IS SO THEN I STILL THINK NOVEMBER, BUT I ALSO I WONDER IF WE WANT TO INCORPORATE ANY OTHER COMMENTARY. I MEAN, WE KNOW WE WANT THEM. THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION COALITION SPECIFICALLY ASKED. SO WE KNOW WE WANT THERE TO BE SOME RESIDENT INTERACTION. FROM A COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE CHARGED WITH COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY, WITH THE OTHER ENTITIES. DO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT THE COUNTY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO COMMENT ON THIS AS WELL? I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BURY IT IN BUREAUCRACY.

IF YOU GIVE ANYTHING TO THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, THAT'S MY PREJUDICE. I, I KNOW, BUT. DO YOU KNOW THAT FROM PERSONAL INTERACTIONS WITH THE COUNTY TO SOME DEGREE? OKAY.

BECAUSE I'D HAVE TO SAY I HAVE THE OPPOSITE OPINION. I, I FIND THE COUNTY FOLKS TO BE NOT ONLY VERY COMPETENT, BUT VERY INTERESTED IN RECOGNIZING THAT NAPLES IS THE ECONOMIC AND TOURIST HUB OF THIS AREA. AND THEY ARE VERY INTERESTED IN DOING ANY AND EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPORT US. I SEE NO PROBLEM BY SAYING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITY. OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. I WILL I WILL TELL YOU ONE. OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES WILL BE CARTER COUNTY.

RIGHT. BUT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD NEW RELATIONSHIPS. AND I DON'T THINK THE WAY YOU BUILD A RELATIONSHIP IS TO GIVE THEM WHAT YOU HAVE AND SAY, IS THIS OKAY? IT'S LIKE WE, WE, THERE'S THINGS IN THIS PLAN, RESILIENCY IN PARTICULAR, THE COUNTY'S INTIMATE, YOU KNOW, WE OUGHT TO HAVE THEM AT THE TABLE WITH US. SO I GUESS A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT. YES. ARE WE ALLOWED TO AS OFFICIALLY AS A BOARD? OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN ALL COMMUNICATE TOGETHER OUTSIDE OF SUNSHINE. CAN WE DESIGNATE ONE MEMBER FROM THE BOARD TO DO SOME WORK PRIOR TO WHATEVER DEADLINE WE SET TO ACTUALLY GO MEET WITH THE COUNTY AND GET GET FEEDBACK? BECAUSE IF WE IF WE GO SEEK IT, NOT OUR DECISION GUY. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL TO, TO DO THAT. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AN

[02:10:09]

I, I TRULY AGREE, AND I THINK THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THEY WILL GO AHEAD. AND IF THEY DO, WE'LL DO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT IT'LL GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST TO HEAR FROM WHAT OUR PERSPECTIVE. SO THERE'S A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? OKAY.

YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? SURE. MEMBER BLOEMKER. YES. OKAY. MEMBER CREESE. YES.

MEMBER. BARONE. YES. VICE CHAIR. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER. KAPPLER. YES. MEMBER. FREDERICKSON. NO.

CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS, FOLKS. I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THAT.

WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO GIVE OUR STAFF A TEN MINUTE BREAK. I THINK I THINK WE'RE THERE AND I COULD USE THE BREAK MYSELF. SO AT TEN MINUTES OF. TEN MINUTES OF 11 WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE.

OKAY. NOW GO AHEAD. MEETING BACK TO ORDER. THE NEXT THING ON OUR AGENDA IS NINE B, A RESOLUTION DETERMINING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26-Q1. PURSUANT TO SECTION 4634 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW FOR TRANSIENT LODGING AS A PART OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICEROY. COMPRISED OF TWO FLOORS OF TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS OVER ONE FLOOR OF OFFICE SPACE IN MARINA SHIP STORE, SERVED BY A COMBINATION OF SERVICE PARKING AND UNDERGROUND PARKING IN THE C TWO, A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 58623 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES ON PROPERTY OWNED BY VICEROY NAPLES LLC, LOCATED AT 599 RIVER POINT DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND WE NEED TO SWEAR IN ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TESTIFY.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER ON EITHER SIDE, RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE BEGIN ANY CONFLICTS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE. I DID VISIT THE SITE AND I DID MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY AND THE DEVELOPER IN THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM. OKAY. I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE AND REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE, REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, AND OF COURSE, BEEN THROUGH THE EARLIER, THE EARLIER HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE. NO CONFLICT, NO CONFLICT. AWARE OF THE SITE BEING PASSED IT MANY TIMES. NO CONFLICT DRIVEN BY THE SITE MULTIPLE TIMES.

FAMILIAR WITH IT FROM THE PRIOR SUBMISSIONS ON PAB. AND DISCLOSE. AND I SAW THE PRESENTATION THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE. OKAY, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT AND MY COMMENT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE SUNSHINE LAW. AND I, I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, BUT I STRONGLY DISCOURAGE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS FROM MEETING PRIVATELY WITH PROPERTY OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS, BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE PRIVATE MEETING IS TO DISCLOSE EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID IN THOSE MEETINGS. AND SO IN THE. THAT'S JUST AN ULTRA CAUTIOUS OPINION. THE ATTORNEYS IN TOWN AND DEVELOPERS LOVE TO SIT DOWN AND BUY YOU A CUP OF COFFEE, BUT I THINK THAT IT SETS AN INAPPROPRIATE, INAPPROPRIATE TONE. SO I'M JUST THAT'S JUST AN OVERALL COMMENT

[02:15:01]

IT'S IT'S A SUNSHINE LAW CONFLICT. YOU JUST SUBJECT YOURSELF TO UNNECESSARY PROBLEMS, IN MY OPINION. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN DECIDE, BUT THANK YOU. OKAY. PRESENTER THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. FOR THE RECORD, I'M BERT SAUNDERS WITH THE GRAY ROBINSON LAW FIRM REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER, THE VICEROY NAPLES LLC. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE. I, YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I ALWAYS THOUGHT WAS SORT OF A ROUTINE THAT WAS UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL.

SO IF I CREATED A SITUATION BY ASKING, NO PROBLEM, I JUST THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO, FOR ME TO BE ON THE RECORD AS TO THAT PIECE OF THING. AND I JUST THINK IT JUST ELIMINATES THE WHOLE POSSIBILITY OF CRITICISM. AND I AM REGISTERED AS A LOBBYIST WITH WITH THE CITY. I ALSO WANT TO THANK. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY STAFF, ERICA MARTIN IN PARTICULAR, AND OF COURSE, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, ANDREW AND MATTHEW. WE HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THEM FOR FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND I APPRECIATE THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US AND TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS ON THIS JUST BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C TWO, A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT 12 TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS WITH SIX UNITS ON EACH OF TWO FLOORS ABOVE ONE FLOOR OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. COMMERCIAL SPACE WILL HAVE A MARINE STORE AND SOME OTHER MARINE TYPE ACTIVITIES ALONG WITH OFFICE SPACES. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RENDERING THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THIS WILL BE A BEAUTIFUL FACILITY, A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING ON THE ENTRANCE WAY INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES. WITH ME THIS MORNING IS THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM THAT WILL PRESENT THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT. THEIR CREDENTIALS ARE ON FILE WITH THE CITY. HARRY ZIA IS THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPER. HE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE THAT THAT MAY COME UP. PETER KULWICKI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF PK STUDIOS ARCHITECTS, WILL PRESENT THE BUILDING OVERVIEW AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THE PROJECT. ANDREW RATH, CIVIL ENGINEER WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, WILL PRESENT THE SITE ELEMENTS. MIKE VALENTINE, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH CAIRNES ENGINEERING, WILL ADDRESS THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF DEALING WITH BELOW GRADE PARKING AND THERE IS BELOW GRADE PARKING ON THIS PROJECT. CHRISTIAN ANDREA IS THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH ARCHITECTURAL LAND DESIGN, INC. AND HE'LL PRESENT THE ARCHITECTURE OR THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. NORMAN TREBILCOCK IS WITH US. HE'S THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND HE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP IN REFERENCE TO TRANSPORTATION.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 599 RIVER POINT DRIVE AND CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.81 ACRES OF VACANT LAND. THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAND REGULATIONS AND CITY STAFF CONCLUDED IN ITS MAY 6TH, 2026 SUFFICIENCY LETTER TO THE PROJECT'S ENGINEERS, QUOTING THE SITE PLAN PETITION 22 DASH SP EIGHT HAS BEEN FOUND SUFFICIENT. THAT'S ON PAGE ONE OF THE SUFFICIENCY LETTER. THE MAY 6TH SUFFICIENCY LETTER IS QUITE LENGTHY AND PROVIDES A GREAT DEAL OF HISTORY OF THIS SITE AND THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. IN THE FINAL SUBMISSION, ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED. THE ISSUE OF BELOW GRADE

[02:20:04]

AND LET ME JUST QUOTE A COUPLE SENTENCES FROM THAT, SUBJECT TO REVISIONS TO THE PLANS THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT. SOME OF THOSE LITTLE DEFECTS THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED WILL BE CLARIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSIENT LODGING CONDITIONAL USE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY MET. THE PETITIONER WILL CONTINUE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REGULATIONS, PLANS AND POLICIES. AND AGAIN, THAT'S ON PAGE 38 OF THE MAY 8TH STAFF REPORT. THESE ISSUES WILL BE WORKED OUT AND SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON ANYTHING THAT YOU DECIDE. THIS MORNING, STAFF DETERMINED THAT A PORTION OF THE PROJECT, CONSISTING OF A MARINE STORE AND 12 BOAT SLIPS, QUALIFIED A PORTION OF THE PROJECT AS A MARINA USE FOR LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS. THE.

THIS MARINA USE RESULTED IN A SLIGHT INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE ABOVE THE 40% MAXIMUM FOR NON MARINE USE PROJECTS. NOW WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT THE STAFF USED THE STANDARD QUOTING DIRECT CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THAT INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE. SO STAFF WORKED WITH US TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. WE AGREE WITH THE CALCULATIONS THAT THE CITY STAFF CAME TO WITH THIS PROJECT. THE FINAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY STAFF REFLECTS THAT DETERMINATION, AND THAT'S ON PAGE NINE OF THE SUFFICIENCY LETTER. STAFF RAISED AN ISSUE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT OF A POOL WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE, THE PETITIONER HAS REMOVED THE POOL FROM THESE PLANS. THE APPROVED SITE PLAN REFLECTS THAT CHANGE. STAFF RAISED AN ISSUE CONCERNING ROOFTOP AMENITIES AND WHETHER THEY CONSTITUTED A FOURTH FLOOR IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY. CHARTER STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE, AND THAT DETERMINATION IS FOUND ON PAGE 11 OF THE SUFFICIENCY LETTER. PLANNING STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THE SITE PLAN IS, I WANT TO QUOTE CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THEY ARE. STAFF IS SATISFIED WITH WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. ANY REMAINING TECHNICAL ISSUES, AS I NOTED BEFORE, WILL BE RESOLVED DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE NAPLES AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT AREA AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES FROM THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT TO WORK WITH THEM ON ANY CONDITIONS. WE WILL AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY, IF ANY, THAT THEY IMPOSE. THE PROJECT DOES HAVE BELOW GRADE PARKING, AS I. AS I NOTED, MIKE VALENTINE WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACT THAT BELOW GRADE PARKING AT THIS LOCATION WILL NOT PRESENT ANY DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS THAT CAN'T BE RESOLVED. AND I WANT TO MENTION ONE THING. IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PETITION, BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR YOU. IN A PRIOR PETITION KNOWN AS THE PROMENADE ON FIFTH, CONSISTING OF FIVE RESTAURANTS, STAFF PERMITTED, THE PROJECT WAS READY FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH TWO LEVELS OF BELOW GRADE PARKING ABOVE ONE LEVEL OF RESTAURANTS. I MENTIONED THAT NOT BECAUSE IT'S IT HAS ANY BEARING ON THIS PROJECT, BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT SITE HAS BEEN EVALUATED FOR BELOW GRADE PARKING. IN THE PAST TWO LEVELS OF BELOW GRADE PARKING WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY. TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE LEVEL OF BELOW GRADE PARKING THAT WILL BE DESCRIBED TO YOU BY MIKE VALENTINE. THE PROJECT RECEIVED PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL AND WILL ULTIMATELY BE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED OF THIS PROJECT, AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT THEY AGREED THAT THIS IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL PROJECT FOR THE CITY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUPLE MORE PRESENTATIONS. PETER WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, AND YOU WILL PROVIDE SOME OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ELEMENTS. MIKE VALENTINE WILL DEAL WITH THE BELOW GRADE PARKING, AND CHRISTIAN ANDRE WILL DEAL WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. SO THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE WITH YOU THIS MORNING. GOOD MORNING

[02:25:11]

SO JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, AS BERT MENTIONED, THIS IS C TWO, A WATERFRONT PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED USES ON THIS PROPERTY ARE MARINA SLIPS AND A STORE, SOME COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND TRANSIENT LODGING, PRIMARILY TWO STORIES OF TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS OVER COMMERCIAL OFFICE. THERE ARE 12 UNITS RANGING ANYWHERE FROM 3800 TO ABOUT 4400FT■!S, AND SOE ROOFTOP AMENITIES. YOU'LL SEE THE AERIAL VIEW ON THE RIGHT OF THIS IMAGE. TO THE DIRECT NORTH IS HYATT HOUSE. THERE'S SOME YACHT STORAGE TO THE WEST OF US MARINA AND CONDOS TO THE SOUTH, AND NAPLES BAY RESORT AND THE GORDON RIVER TO DIRECTLY EAST. THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE GORDON RIVER. LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE BUILDING. AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THE THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN, THE TWO STORIES OF TRANSIENT LODGING, THE SINGLE STORY OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE DOWNSTAIRS AND SOME ROOFTOP AMENITIES, AND THE DOCKS IN THE. IN THE FOREGROUND ON THE FAR RIGHT. THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE OPPOSITE CORNER. SO THIS IS US 41 ALONG HERE AND THEN RIVER POINT DRIVE TO THE RIGHT. THIS IS A VIEW OF WHAT WHAT THE PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AGAIN, YOU SEE THIS SOME OF THE SAME ELEMENTS AND THE PROPOSED BUFFERING THAT WE'RE USING ALONG US 41. TO KIND OF SHIELD THE PROJECT FROM THE STREET AND ALSO VICE VERSA FOR THE PROJECT FROM THE NOISE OF THE BUSY HIGHWAY THERE. THIS IS THE, THE BUILDING SECTION. I FIND THIS TO BE HELPFUL TO KIND OF UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE AS A WHOLE. BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PLANS. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THIS BUILDING SECTION IS THE EXISTING MARINA. AND ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE IS US 41. SO YOU CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP OF BOTH OF THOSE ELEVATIONS.

APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS TO THE BELOW GRADE PARKING. THE MAIN WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE GROUND LEVEL. SO THE MAIN COMMERCIAL LEVEL, THE TWO STORIES OF TRANSIT LODGING ABOVE THAT. AND THEN THE THE ROOF ELEMENTS AT THE TOP. FEMA AT THIS SITE, THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS AT TEN FEET. SO WE ARE DESIGNING TO 11FT FOR THE MAIN COMMERCIAL GROUND LEVEL. YOU'LL SEE THAT MARKED HERE IN THIS SECTION. AND FROM THERE TO THE TOP OF OUR BUILDING, WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE 42 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION. THEN STARTING ON THE LOWEST LEVEL AND WORKING OUR WAY UP. THIS IS THE UNDERGROUND BELOW GRADE PARKING LEVEL, SO YOU'LL SEE A MIXTURE OF GARAGE SPACES AND OPEN SPACES AND STORAGE FOR RESIDENTS. THIS IS THE MAIN COMMERCIAL LEVEL. KIND OF WORKING OUR WAY FROM THE THE SOUTH WEST CORNER. THAT'S OUR MAIN ENTRANCE HERE TO THE SITE. FROM THERE YOU BASICALLY HAVE THREE CHOICES. YOU EITHER DRIVE UP A SMALL RAMP TO GET TO THE MAIN COMMERCIAL OPEN PARKING LEVEL. YOU DRIVE DOWN INTO THE BELOW GRADE PARKING LEVEL, OR YOU TURN RIGHT. AND THAT IS AN INTERCONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY THAT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT THERE. ONCE YOU ARE UP ON THIS SURFACE PARKING LEVEL, THERE'S OFFICE PARKING THERE, A COMBINATION OF OFFICE AND AND OTHER AND OTHER PARKING.

THERE'S A TURNAROUND THAT'S REQUIRED FOR FIRE TRUCKS. THERE'S ALSO AN EMERGENCY ACCESS TO RIVER POINT DRIVE. THAT'S ALSO A FIRE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THESE TURNS AND THE WAY THE BUILDING IS CONFIGURED. SO THERE IS A SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS THAT RUNS DIRECTLY INTO THAT SURFACE PARKING LEVEL THERE. YOU'LL SEE WITHIN THE BUILDING IN PURPLE ON THE EASTERN END HERE, THAT IS THE MARINA SHIP STORE. YOU'LL SEE IN KIND OF A MORE MAGENTA COLOR. THAT IS THE TRANSIENT LODGING SERVICE LOBBY. SO THAT IS MEANT TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE TRANSIENT LODGING ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS THAT THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR, FOR THAT FUNCTION. AND THEN GENERAL OFFICE SPACE IN RED, YOU'LL SEE SOME GARAGES IN DIFFERENT

[02:30:05]

AGAIN, NOTHING ENCLOSED, BUT JUST SOME SHADE STRUCTURES AND SMALL LITTLE PRIVATE POOLS SLASH SPAS THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE ROOF AS AN AMENITY. YOU SAW THE NIGHT VERSION OF THIS SHOT EARLIER, BUT IT'S JUST MEANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPATIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT WITH WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. SO AGAIN, EVERYTHING AROUND THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS PRETTY MUCH 3 TO 4 STORIES, PRETTY MUCH A SIMILAR HEIGHT AND MASSING. WE FEEL THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS APPROPRIATE IN SCALE TO, TO WHAT'S AROUND IT AND AS WELL AS IN USES BY INCORPORATING MARINA AND COMMERCIAL SPACES AND TRANSIENT LODGING. AND THE PROPOSED USE MIX. AGAIN, BERT TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT WE BELIEVE THE USE AND THE BUILDING DESIGN ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDINGS, AND THEY SUPPORT THE GOAL OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'VE CONSIDERED CIRCULATION, PARKING, SCREENING, NOISE CONTROL AND ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY. THOSE WERE ALL OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET AND AND INCLUDED WITH WITH THIS APPLICATION. I'LL TOUCH BRIEFLY ON AIRPORT NOISE COMPLIANCE. SO WE ARE LOOKING TO MAINTAIN THE AVERAGE DAY NIGHT SOUND LEVELS AT 45 LN PART OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THIS PARTICULAR NOISE IMPACT ZONE IS THE IS IS THAT VERY FACT MAINTAINING 45LD AND ALSO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS AND OUTDOOR LIVING. SO THAT WAS AN EXHIBIT THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH OUR APPLICATION. WE HAVE MET WITH AIRPORT OFFICIALS A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. WE'VE REVIEWED THE FLEET MIX, FLIGHT PATHS, PROXIMITY TO THE RUNWAYS, AND ANY INITIAL CONCERNS THAT THEY MAY HAVE. AND WE WILL HAVE A ROBUST DESIGN RESPONSE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE AIRPORT THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR NOISE REDUCTION, SOUND INSULATION MATERIALS, LAYERING, INSULATED GLASS CEILING AND CAULKING PRACTICES, DIFFERENT WAYS OF TREATING AIR INTAKES AND EXHAUSTS, AND OTHER TESTED IN INDUSTRY LEADING PRACTICES FOR PROXIMITY TO AIRPORTS. AND WITH THAT, I WILL LET ANDREW DESCRIBE THE SITE. GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. ANDREW ROTH WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEERING. FOR THE RECORD, THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. AND I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE SITE PLAN ELEMENTS.

I GUESS JUST TO BEGIN, THE MAIN VEHICULAR ACCESS IS COMING OFF A RIVER POINT DRIVE HERE ABOUT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE MAINTAINING A INTERCONNECT TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY HERE, WHICH EXISTS TODAY, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THAT. AS YOU ENTER THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE SITE, YOU CAN EITHER GO DOWN INTO THE SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE VIA THE RAMP HERE, OR YOU CAN CONTINUE UP UP HERE TO THIS LOCATION WHERE THERE'S SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED. I THINK WE HAVE 24 PARKING SPACES ON THE SURFACE UP THERE. IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH PETER ALREADY HIT UPON, WE HAVE AN EVA DRIVE ACCESS THAT LEADS DOWN TO RIVER POINT DRIVE HERE, WHICH WE'RE PLANNING TO DO EITHER OUT OF GRASS PAVE OR PERMEABLE PAVERS, YOU KNOW, WITH A GATE CONTROL THERE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES

[02:35:06]

CIRCULATION. IN ADDITION TO THAT, ON THE SITE LEVEL, WE HAVE A SIDEWALK CONNECTION OUT TO THE SIDEWALK ALONG 41, AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOAT DOCKS HERE TO THE EAST ALONG THE GORDON RIVER SLASH NAPLES BAY. SO I'LL TAKE YOU NEXT TO THE. THIS IS THE GRADING PLAN. I KIND OF HAVE A COMBINATION OF A GRADING PLAN. AND IN ADDITION TO A DRAINAGE PLAN, JUST BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE ACTIVITY GOING ON WITH THE PROPOSED GRADING. BUT BASICALLY THIS PROPERTY WAS BROKEN UP INTO TWO STORMWATER BASINS. THERE'S AN UPPER BASIN CALLED BASIN ONE HERE, AND THERE'S A LOWER BASIN BASIN, TWO DOWN HERE. AND IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S COLLECTING RUNOFF FROM CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE IN DIFFERENT ELEVATION RANGES. SO THE WATER IS BEING STORED AT DIFFERENT ELEVATION RANGES. BUT BASICALLY THIS ENTIRE UPPER BASIN SHEET FLOWS AND IS PIPED INTO THIS DRY PRETREATMENT AREA. SO THERE'S A PRETREATMENT ELEMENT OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS DOWN HERE THERE'S A SURFACE SWALE FOR PRETREATMENT. BENEATH THAT IN THE UPPER BASIN, WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS, WE'VE GOT A SUBTERRANEAN CONCRETE VAULT. THIS IS ADJACENT TO AN OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, WHERE AFTER THE PRETREATMENT VOLUME IS ACHIEVED, THEN THE WATER WILL FLOW IN THROUGH ELEVATED GRATES INTO THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM. SIMILARLY, ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE LOWER STORMWATER BASIN, WE HAVE A MORE TRADITIONAL EXFILTRATION TRENCH TO ACHIEVE THE REMAINDER OF THE WATER QUALITY COMPONENTS. THE LOWER SYSTEM RUNS AROUND BEHIND THE SEAWALL, COMES UP AROUND TO LOCATION WHERE WE HAVE A CONTROL STRUCTURE.

THERE'S ALSO A CONTROL STRUCTURE COMING FROM THE UPPER BASIN. THOSE TWO OUTFALLS COME TOGETHER AND THEN OUTFALL INTO GORDON RIVER. WE'VE EVALUATED BOTH PRE AND POST DISCHARGE RATES. SO WE'RE ILLUSTRATING THAT WE HAVE A LESSER DISCHARGE RATE IN THE IN THE POST DEVELOPMENT. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HIT UPON UTILITIES BRIEFLY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME PRETTY GOOD PUBLIC UTILITY BENEFIT HERE WHERE THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REPLACING AN AGING CITY SANITARY LIFT STATION THAT EXISTS ON RIVER POINT DRIVE TODAY. SO THAT THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS OVER IN THIS LOCATION ACROSS RIVER POINT DRIVE. AND THE SANITARY LIFT STATION IS PARTIALLY WITHIN THE SIDEWALK AND PARTIALLY OFF THE SIDEWALK. IT'S IT'S KIND OF A NOT IN A GREAT LOCATION. IT'S AGING. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S DOING SO WELL. SO THERE'LL BE A NEW CITY LIFT STATION THAT'LL GO HERE WITHIN A CITY UTILITY EASEMENT, ALONG WITH SOME NEW SANITARY MAIN LEADING TO THAT, AS WELL AS A SERIES OF NEW MANHOLES, BASICALLY TO PICK UP WHERE ALL THE SANITARY FLOW USED TO GO TO THE OLD WET. WELL, PICKING IT UP, BRINGING IT BACK OVER TO THE NEW LIFT STATION, WET WELL LOCATION. AND THEN IT'LL BE PUMPED BACK OUT INTO THE EXISTING FORCE MAIN. AND THEN WE'RE JUST CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING POTABLE WATER MAIN WITHIN RIVER POINT DRIVE FOR FIRE PROTECTION, AS WELL AS DOMESTIC WATER TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH CONCLUDES, BUT I WAS HERE TO PRESENT ON TODAY SO I CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT UNDERGROUND PARKING WITH MIKE HERE. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MIKE VALENTINE. I'M A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WITH KAREN'S ENGINEERING. I'M THE DESIGN MANAGER UP IN OUR SARASOTA OFFICE, AND I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO TALK ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE ASPECT OF THIS PROJECT. AS WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SEEN THE

[02:40:03]

SURE. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE BUILDING A VAULT UNDERGROUND. WHAT CONTINGENCY IS THERE TO PUMP ANY WATER OUT IF IT DOES HAPPEN TO FLOOD? WELL, THE CODE REQUIRES THAT TO HAPPEN. IF THAT HAPPENS, I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I DIDN'T TOUCH UPON WAS THE ENTRANCES TO THESE GARAGES AS WELL. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INSTALL FLOOD BARRIERS. AND THAT TAKES A DESIGN THAT REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, A TIME FOR THE PERSONNEL ON SITE TO DEPLOY THOSE BARRIERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THERE WILL, THERE ALWAYS IS AN ASPECT OF SEEPAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO PUMPS ARE PROVIDED FOR THAT, FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND SO I'M NOT SURE WE'VE WE'VE HAVEN'T DONE THOSE CALCULATIONS YET BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE VERY EARLY ON STAGE, BUT IT WILL BE ADDRESSED. SO SO LIKE DROP IN BARRIERS WHEN THERE'S A STORM PREDICTED. CORRECT. YEAH. CORRECT. WITH THOSE AND OBVIOUSLY PUMP JUST TO GET ANY.

YEAH. ANY KIND OF ANY, ANY KIND OF SEEPAGE, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY WATERTIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE DO GET SOME PRETTY HEAVY RAIN FROM TIME TO TIME. YES WE DO. YES WE DO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALONG THE SAME LINES, I'M JUST SO DESIGN TODAY VERSUS DESIGN FOUR YEARS AGO. HOW ARE YOU LOOKING AT SURGE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT? WELL, ACTUALLY I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY. THE FEMA MAPS HAVE JUST BEEN UPDATED RECENTLY, AND THEY'VE ACCOUNTED FOR MORE STRINGENT FLOOD REQUIREMENTS. THAT USED TO BE, I THINK 1 IN 100 YEARS. NOW IT'S 1 IN 500. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALSO BOOST THAT IF WE NEED TO. WE'RE AS ENGINEERS. WE'RE PRETTY CONSERVATIVE IN THAT IN THAT STATE. BUT THE CODES ARE PRETTY MUCH ADDRESSED THAT FOR WHAT FOR RECENT EVENTS, ESPECIALLY THE VERY RECENT

[02:45:01]

AND, AND LIKE I SAID, THE FEMA MAPS HAVE BEEN UPDATED RECENTLY, SO WE'LL BE VERY CURRENT. SO AND DEPENDING ON WHEN THE PROJECT COMES IN, WE ALSO HAVE A CODE CHANGE THAT MAY FACILITATE THIS. AND IN JANUARY FOR THE NEW STATE BUILDING CODE. BUT WE CAN WE'LL ADDRESS THAT ALL THE TIME, EVERY EVERY CODE CYCLE WHEN IT CHANGES. SO OKAY. AND A QUICK QUESTION. WE RECEIVED A CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO, WHO FILED THIS, BUT I WANTED TO READ A SENTENCE FROM IT AND PLEASE ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON THAT. IT SAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES, AND HE'S OPPOSING THE PROJECT APPEARS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEAWALLS AND THE UNDERGROUND PARKING.

WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT BEING SO CLOSE TO US. 41 BRIDGE, A CONSTRUCTION DESIGN FAILURE COULD BE A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. FAIRLY VAGUE, BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD COMMENT ON, ON ON HOW YOUR DESIGN WILL, AS JOE WAS MENTIONING AND ASKING ABOUT HOW IT WOULD. BE SUFFICIENT AGAINST, YOU KNOW, VERY EXTREME WEATHER LIKE HURRICANES AND SO FORTH. YEAH. SO THIS, THIS STRUCTURE WILL DEFINITELY BE FOUNDED ON DEEP FOUNDATIONS. AND SO NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN IN THIS AREA, IT IS IT IS DEEP FOUNDATION PILES.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'LL PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE AN AUGER CAST PILE WHERE IT DRILLS IN AND IT DISTURBS LESS OF THE LAND. IT MAKES LESS VIBRATION FOR THE STRUCTURES AROUND. AND SO THE INSTALLATION PROCESS WILL, YOU KNOW, THAT ALL HAPPENS DURING CONSTRUCTION. AND I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW WOULD BE IT WOULD BE AUGER CAST PILES.

AND WE WOULD. AND THOSE THOSE ARE THOSE ARE DETERMINED BY CODE ON HOW YOU SPACE THOSE OUT AND WHERE THOSE GO. AND THOSE ARE FANTASTIC FOR, FOR WE HAVE ADJACENT STRUCTURES LIKE, LIKE THE SEAWALL AND LIKE US 41 BEING RIGHT THERE. SO YEAH, PROVIDING THOSE SCREW PILES, THOSE AUGER CAST PILES REALLY, REALLY BENEFIT AND HELP WITH THAT AND THAT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED BEFORE IN PRETTY TIGHT LOCATIONS. SO AND I, I'VE BEEN ON THE SIDE OF SEEING THE SITE AND I SEE THE PROXIMITY OF THE BRIDGE PIER. SO I, I SYMPATHIZE OR I EMPATHIZE WITH THE, WITH THE COMMENT, BUT WE CERTAINLY DO THAT. I MEAN, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T RECOMMEND MAYBE DRIVEN PILES AND THINGS THAT MAKE A LOUD NOISE AND BE A LOT OF VIBRATION. YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT. SO WE, I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I, WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT. BUT AND. THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. SO JUST MY UNDERSTANDING YOU'VE ENGINEERED AROUND THE ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THIS GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN.

THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. READY. GOOD MORNING. CHRISTIAN ANDREA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN. OOPS. HERE WE GO. THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE, KIND OF THE AERIAL SUPERIMPOSED UNDERNEATH. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND HAVE HAD SUPPORT. SORRY TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ROYAL PALMS HERE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WITH ALSO VERY MATURE, HEALTHY ROYAL PALMS, AT LEAST OF 20 FOOT OF GRAY WOOD. THIS IS THE OVERALL SITE PLAN KIND OF SHOWS THE LANDSCAPE AREAS, PERIMETER.

I'LL GET MORE INTO DETAIL IN A MOMENT. THE DRIVEWAY COMING AROUND THE SITE. THE PARKING AS IS APPROVED, PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCUSSED. PATIO AREAS ALONG THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE SITE. THIS IS THE ACTUAL PLANTING PLAN. SO AGAIN YOU SEE THE ROYAL PALMS ACROSS 41 HERE.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO ROYAL PALMS THIS WAY TO CREATE A FOCAL POINT. WE DO HAVE OVERHEAD UTILITIES THAT RUN ACROSS THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE THAT KIND OF IMPACT VERTICAL. ANYTHING, ANY TALL TREES IN THOSE LOCATIONS WE'RE PROPOSING SMALL FLOWERING TREES. THESE ARE YELLOW FLOWERING TREES CALLED BEAR WOODS. AND THEN UP AGAINST THE BUILDING WE'VE MIXED SERIES OF OTHER PALM TREES. THESE ARE TRIPLE FOXTAILS, TRIPLE MONTGOMERY, I BELIEVE. AND THEN WE'VE ADDED SOME MONTGOMERY'S IN THESE ISLANDS. MONTGOMERY'S A PALM TREE WITH TEN FOOT FROND, EIGHT FOOT FROND QUITE COMMONLY USED. SO WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT AREA THAT ANDREW REFERENCED IS KIND OF SHADED SLIGHTLY BLUE HERE. AND THAT WOULD BE UNDERGROUND. AND ALONG THE DRIVE AISLE HERE, WE HAVE DECENT HEDGE RUNNING HERE AND THEN ALTERNATING WITH BEDS OF COLOR. THESE ARE PURPLE FLOWERING MEXICAN PETUNIA. THEN IN ADDITION ALONG 41, WE'VE CREATED A RELATIVELY STRONG PRIVATE CORRIDOR HERE. SO WE'RE PROPOSING THE USE OF AT LEAST 12 FOOT TALL GREEN BUTTONWOOD TREES. I KIND OF JOKE THESE OR NICKNAME THESE A HEDGE ON A STICK. SO WE PUT TREES VERY CLOSE TOGETHER TO CREATE AN INSTANT BUFFER THAT'S AT LEAST 12FT TALL, AND THEN UNDERPLANTED WITH A HEDGE TO CREATE DENSE PRIVACY FROM THE STREET. AND THEN THAT IS ALSO DUPLICATED WITH THAT HEDGE I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED HERE,

[02:50:04]

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT OR HAPPY TO COME BACK AS WELL. DID YOU JUST MENTION POOL DECK? YES. WHY NOT? POOL DECK? I'M SORRY. ROOFTOP DECK. SORRY IF I USE THAT WORD.

YES. POOL POOL HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SHOWN IN THIS LOCATION THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. SO ARE YOU. ARE YOU PLANNING THE ROOF OR WILL THE RESIDENTS PLANT THE ROOF? BY DESIGN? IT'S THE DEVELOPER WILL BE PLANTING THE ROOF. OKAY. AND JUST JUST ONE QUESTION. OUT OF CURIOSITY, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO WITHIN YOUR DESIGN CONCEPT TO ADD ANY PREDOMINANTLY SHADE TREES FOR FOR CANOPY THE ALONG 41 THIS IS VERY. THESE ARE ALL CONSIDERED SHADE TREES AND THERE'S PROBABLY 30 SOME SHADE TREES THERE. SO THAT SIDEWALK WILL BE WELL SHADED FROM A PUBLIC STANDPOINT. AND THOSE ARE THE 12 FOOTERS. IS THAT RIGHT? THOSE ARE THE 12 FOOTERS. THEY'LL PROBABLY BE MAINTAINED ANYWHERE FROM 16 TO 20. I WOULD WOULD ANTICIPATE. SO THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE A PRETTY HEALTHY SHADOW ACROSS THAT ACROSS THAT PUBLIC SIDEWALK. INTERNALLY. WE'RE ON A ROOF DECK HERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE THE SOIL DEPTH TO ADD ADDITIONAL CANOPY. PLUS THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL CAST A SHADOW, YOU KNOW, WITH, YOU KNOW, PHILOSOPHICALLY, THE THE SUN'S AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE IN THE WINTER. SO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WILL CAST AN EQUAL SHADOW TO THE NORTH. SO THAT ENTIRE MOTOR COURT WILL BE HEAVILY SHADED JUST BY THE BUILDING ITSELF. AND AGAIN, WHERE I COULD PUT CANOPY TREES. THIS SPOT HERE, I HAVE TWO SMALL CANOPY TREES HERE, SO I HAD THE ABILITY TO DO IT THERE. IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, WE DEFINITELY CAN EXPLORE IT. BUT I THINK I WAS A LITTLE VERTICALLY CHALLENGED WITH SOME OF OUR GRADES IN THOSE LOCATIONS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE SHADE TREES ALONG THE SIDEWALKS. I THINK THAT'S A BRILLIANT, A BRILLIANT PLAN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SIR. THE SIDEWALK ON 41. WHAT'S THE WIDTH OF THAT? I WANT TO SAY EIGHT FEET, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE. ANDREW. DINA SIX. IT'S AN EXISTING SIDEWALK. IT'S EXISTING. OKAY. IT'S EXISTING.

YES. HOW WIDE IS IT? DO WE KNOW? WAS IT CONFIRMED? ANDREW DAVIDSON, ENGINEERING FOR THE RECORD, THE EXISTING SIDEWALK IS IS GENERALLY SIX FOOT WIDE, BUT IT DOES CHANGE IN WIDTH AS IT CONTINUES TO THE EAST AND STARTS GETTING INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE BRIDGE AND THE JERSEY BARRIERS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S ALONG THE WAY THERE. WE HAVE PROPOSED TO THE CITY, AND THE STATE WOULD LIKE AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK THERE. SO WE HAVE PROPOSED TO PROVIDE A PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR THE ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK WITH AS WELL AS SIDEWALK EASEMENT TO ALLOW FOR THAT ADDITIONAL WIDTH. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, BEFORE YOU HIT THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE SIX FOOT WIDE, THERE'S AN EXTRA FOOT OF SIDE, EXTRA FOOT OF WIDTH WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THEN WE HAD GRAPHICALLY SHOWN AN ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT SIDEWALK EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE EIGHT FEET TO GET TO EIGHT FEET. OKAY, OKAY. BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TWO PEOPLE WOULD GO AGAINST ME. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO TURN SIDEWAYS TO WALK. YEAH. ONCE

[02:55:02]

SO IT'S THE OBVIOUSLY THE BRIDGE IS GOING UP AND THEN THE BANK IS GOING DOWN TO THE WATER.

SO IT'S GOING TO VARY. OKAY. IN REVIEW. OKAY. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A CONSISTENT IT'S NOT LIKE THAT MONSTROSITY ON. BUT IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE ROAD. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. IT'S GOING TO BE BENEATH THE ROAD. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS NOW OR WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I THINK WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER WE HEAR FROM STAFF. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. THIS IS PETITION 26-C1. AND THIS IS FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICEROY AT 599 RIVER POINT DRIVE. SO THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS IN VARIOUS ITERATIONS FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW. A PREVIOUS REQUEST WAS MADE IN 2016 FOR A SEPARATE PROJECT, WHICH WAS CALLED THE PROMENADE ON FIFTH. THEY DID OBTAIN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, BOARD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BUT CONSTRUCTION NEVER BEGAN, AND THOSE THAT APPROVAL DID EXPIRE. THEY THEN SUBMITTED A NEW PROPOSAL FOR THIS PROJECT, THE VICEROY, AND THIS IS FOR TRANSIENT LODGING. IT'S A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS TWO FLOORS OF TRANSIENT LODGING ABOVE COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE DOES INCLUDE A MARINA SHIP STORE, ABOUT 4200FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL MARINA SHIP STORE. ON THE GROUND FLOOR, THERE IS A MIXTURE OF SURFACE PARKING AND SUBTERRANEAN PARKING. ALSO THAT SUBTERRANEAN PARKING IS AT SOME AREAS FULLY SUBTERRANEAN AND AT SOME POINTS NOT. YOU'VE SEEN IN THEIR PRESENTATION. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE IS PRETTY INTERESTING. THIS PROJECT DID GO THROUGH, DID OBTAIN PRELIMINARY DESIGN APPROVAL FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THAT WAS PETITIONED 22 DASH DRB 16 AND THAT WAS IN JUNE. ON JUNE 22ND OF 2022, FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, THEY DID GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. THERE WERE MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF SITE PLAN, REVIEW AND REVISE AND RESUBMIT AND THE BACK AND FORTH. ONE OF THE ISSUE OR TWO OF THE ISSUES THAT AROSE DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM STAFF WERE RELATED TO SUBTERRANEAN PARKING, AND THE OTHER WAS RELATED TO THE MARINA, THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE MARINA USE. THEY DID SUBMIT A. THEY DID FILE AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DECISION THAT THEY APPEALED WAS AN RA, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS ISSUED BY STAFF FOR THE SITE PLAN. THE APPEAL DID GO BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. HOWEVER. PRIOR TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE. THE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ISSUE IS REALLY A POLICY DECISION FROM CITY COUNCIL. WHAT THEY WERE APPEALING WAS A MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE BODY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WAS CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT PORTION OF THE APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN, WHICH LEFT ONLY THE CLASSIFICATION OF MARINA USE AT THE PAB MEETING THROUGH BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE TO THE PLAN THAT COULD SATISFY THAT ISSUE. SO THAT WAS CONTINUED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. THERE WAS NOT A DECISION MADE. THEY DID COME BACK. THEY REVISED THE PLANS, MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE PLANS TO SATISFY THAT THAT ISSUE. AND TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE I IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T AS CLEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE STAFF'S DETERMINATION IS NOT THAT THIS ENTIRE PROJECT IS A MARINA. THE DETERMINATION IS THAT THERE IS A MARINA COMPONENT TO THIS PROJECT. SO THEY HAVE THE WET SLIPS, THEY HAVE THE MARINA SHIP STORE, AND THERE ARE SOME DIAGNOSTIC. SERVICES OFFERED AT THAT MARINA SHIP STORE. SO WHAT THAT ALLOWS IS WHAT WE COULD CALL THE DIRECT CONTRIBUTION METHOD. SO THE C2A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THE C2A WATERFRONT

[03:00:02]

BUT THEN I ALSO TRIED TO INCLUDE THAT ALSO IN THE THE ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS AS WELL TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT IS CALCULATED, HOW THAT LOT COVERAGE IS DETERMINED BASED ON THOSE USES. SO IN THE END, THE APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE SATISFIED AND THE SITE PLAN WAS THEN FOUND SUFFICIENT. BASED ON THOSE REVISED PLANS, IT'S CONDITIONALLY SUFFICIENT. SO YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IN IN THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY. THOSE CONDITIONS ARE ALL TAKEN FROM THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW. YOU'LL SEE CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

YOU'LL SEE CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE THE ZONING REVIEW, THE PLANNING REVIEW WITH RESPECT TO PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, THERE'S A SETBACK CONCERN. THERE MIGHT BE SOME INCONSISTENCY AMONGST THE CIVIL PLANS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS WITH RESPECT TO SOME HEIGHTS OF SOME PLANTERS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE. CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE SITE PLAN, BUT NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE PROPERTY AS A TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY. SO THAT'S WHY STAFF FELT WE COULD BRING THIS BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DETERMINE THE USE. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE YOU. SO IT'S YOUR DETERMINATION THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE USE OF THE SITE AND ALLOW THEM TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, THOSE SMALL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PLAN PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, EVERY TIME A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, WE DO A FULL REVIEW. ALL CITY STAFF, ALL, YOU KNOW, REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS, DO A REVIEW TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT I'VE REALLY JUST SKIPPED AHEAD TO THE, THE CONCLUSION OF MY REPORT, WHICH IS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN REQUESTS. I CAN READ THEM FOR YOU. WE DO HAVE OUR CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HERE, BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT WAS SUBMITTED. BUT SO THE FIRST CONDITION THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE AIRPORT NOISE, NO AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT AREA AND REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSIENT LODGING USE. REVIEW OF THE REQUEST BY THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AGAINST THE CRITERIA PROVIDED IN SECTION 58-1078 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT WAS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, I DID HEAR FROM THE NAA THE DIRECTOR OF THE N A AND THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AT THIS MONTH'S NA MEETING, SO THEY WILL BE GOING. THE BOARD WILL AND THEY WILL BE CONSIDERING THAT. AND THAT WILL BE PASSED ON TO CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. THE SECOND IS THAT THE PARKING SPACES, SPECIFICALLY SPACES ONE THROUGH TEN AND 25 THROUGH 34, AS SHOWN ON SHEET A3 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROVIDE INSUFFICIENT DEPTH FOR VEHICLES. SO THOSE ARE THE 45 DEGREE ANGLE PARKING SPACES.

THERE'S A CHART IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE DEGREE OF THE PARKING IS, REQUIRES A CERTAIN LENGTH. SO THEY JUST HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THAT. THE LENGTH OF THAT, THOSE PARKING SPACES. NUMBER THREE IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 58-6263A OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS IS A SETBACK. SO IT REQUIRES A REAR YARD OF 25FT EXCEPT AND THIS IS THE EXCEPTION FOR MARINE USES OR DIRECTLY RELATED USES THERE. LIKE I SAID, THERE WERE SOME PLANTERS AND SOME OTHER ELEMENTS SHOWN WITHIN THAT SETBACK THAT WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON, BUT NOTHING, NOT THE BUILDING. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THESE ARE NOT CHANGES THAT WILL AFFECT THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES BEFORE THEY SUBMIT FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. AND NUMBER FOUR, STAFF'S REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT, THIS IS INFORMATIONAL, DID NOT INCLUDE A REVIEW OF THE DOCKS DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS, NOR THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE SURROUNDING WATERFRONT PROPERTIES. THE DOCKS WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE MARINA SITING CRITERIA IN CHAPTER 52 AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF NAPLES CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER APPLICABLE OUTSIDE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. THE PROXIMITY OF THIS PROJECT TO THAT BRIDGE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEP REVIEW OF THESE DOCKS. SO WE JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE THAT WHILE THEY ARE SHOWING THE DOCKS, THEY HAVE TO IT'S PART OF THEIR MARINA USE. THOSE DOCKS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR SUFFICIENCY BY OUTSIDE AGENCIES NOR THE CITY. SO THAT'S JUST AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM, NOT REQUESTING ANY CHANGES AT THIS TIME. AND THEN WE GET INTO THE TRAFFIC. I, I'M NOT GOING TO READ NUMBER FIVE IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE'LL BE HERE ALL DAY. BUT IT IS ESSENTIALLY ADDRESSING THE EIGHT FOOT WIDE

[03:05:04]

OKAY. I, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. ALSO. SECOND QUESTION, HOW INTEGRAL TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MARINA COMPONENT IS THE SHIP MARINA STORE? VERY. IT IS VERY. YES.

OKAY. SO COULD THE PETITIONER AS SOON AS THEY GET THEIR OWN SEA CHANGE THAT INTO A LULULEMON OR THEY COULD NOT. SO THAT IS LIKE DEEDED IN THEIR HARDWIRED. IT'S SO SO IN A COUPLE OF WAYS. ONE, IF THIS PLAN IS APPROVED, THIS RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY CITES THE PLANS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY, WHICH ALLUDE TO IT. 4200FT■!S OF MARINA SHIP STORE, SO THAT THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE APPROVED PLANS IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE THAT USE.

AND IT COULD CHANGE TO A DIFFERENT MARINA TYPE USE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A MARINA TYPE USE. OKAY. AND IS THERE ANY SORT OF LIKE QUALIFICATION WHICH MAKES IT A MARINA STORE? I'M THINKING OF BEST TEA SHOP IN THE LAND WITH NO CHEESE. THERE'S A DEFINITION OF MARINA IN YOUR CODE. SO I MEAN, IT'S NOT THAT PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IT ADDRESSES THE.

OKAY, MARINA, USE ERICA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. OTHER QUESTIONS? SOMEWHERE IN THIS STAFF REPORT, I SAW LIKE $245,000 IN FINES THAT ARE OUTSTANDING. SURE. UNRELATED TO THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS. YES, IT'S IN THE SITE PLAN. COMMENTS UNDER THE STAFF, THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW SECTION. IT WAS IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION. THERE IS THERE ARE

[03:10:01]

SO THE REMAINING THING IS, IS THE FINE ANY ANY LIENS ARE GOING TO BE PAID. THAT'S THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THEY HAVE TO BE. SO THANK YOU. QUESTION ON THE IN DOING THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE MARINA VERSUS THE SORT OF NORMAL HOMES AND STUFF, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT MUST INCLUDE THE MARINA SHIP STORE, DOES IT INCLUDE ANYTHING RELATED TO THE DOCKS OR NUMBER OF SLIPS? SURE.

YES. SO SO NOW IF I LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SLIPS THERE, YOU SAID IT DOESN'T IMPACT HOW MUCH THAT COMES INTO THE GORDON RIVER. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 2 OR 3 THAT ARE SORT OF ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT ARE KIND OF ON A, A DOCK THAT GO OUT INTO NOWHERE OR THE PERSON'S NEXT TO HIM SPACE, WHATEVER THE HECK THE THING, DOES THAT IMPACT THAT? OR THEY HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE DOCKS, THE DOCKS THAT ARE DEEDED TO OR RELATED TO THE TRANSIENT LODGING THAT'S NOT REQUIRED. THAT'S A BENEFIT. SO THEY COULD, AT THE END OF THE DAY, NOT PROVIDE. I'M NOT SAYING THEY HAVE TO DO THIS, BUT IF THEY HAD TO LOSE DOCKS IN THIS CONFIGURATION, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DOCK SLIPS FOR THE TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS. SO THAT WOULD BE WHERE THAT CHANGE WOULD COME, BUT THEY WOULD ONLY BE BASED ON THE APPROVALS AND THE PLANS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THEY COULD RETAIN THE FEW SLIPS THAT ARE DEEDED THAT ARE DEDICATED TO THE MARINA USE AND AND LOSE TRANSIENT LODGING DOCK SLIPS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THING? BECAUSE THAT'S THE MARINA'S WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PUT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH I THINK MAKES SENSE BASED UPON SOME SORT OF LOGIC. AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS THE LOGIC IS NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SLIPS. NO. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. OKAY.

YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THERE WAS A QUESTION OVER HERE, LUKE. YEAH. JUST TO CLEAR UP MR. RUSSELL'S CONCERNS ON THAT LETTER, THE OBVIOUSLY YOU YOU KNOW THAT THE SEA WALLS ON THAT PROPERTY ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF REPAIR AND ENGINEERING. YOU GUYS PLAN TO DO THAT? IF I MAY HAVE MR. Z ADDRESS THE NEIGHBOR CONCERN. YEAH. HARRY. I WAS ALREADY SWORN IN. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY. SO JUST TO ADDRESS THE ADJACENT MARINA'S CONCERNS THERE. SO THE FIRST ONE IS OBVIOUSLY ON THIS PROJECT. THE CURRENT SEA WALLS ON THIS PROJECT ARE IN DISREPAIR. SO AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, YOU PLAN TO. YEAH, THEY HAVE TO EXACTLY CATCH. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE TOTALLY REPLACED WITH THE ENGINEERING OBVIOUSLY BEING THE MAIN CONSIDERATION UNDER FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, OF COURSE, ACCORDING TO CITY ORDINANCES. AND WE'VE ALSO BEEN WORKING WITH OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, WHICH IS THE MARINA RIVER POINT MARINA. WE ACTUALLY ON A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD. WE'VE ALREADY PUT KIND OF AN OUTLINE OF AN AGREEMENT TOGETHER, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THE CITY ORDINANCES. BUT YES, THEY WILL BE. SO YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH RIVER POINT MARINA ABOUT EXCESSIVE. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO WORK WITH THEM ON ACCESSIBILITY FOR THOSE SEA WALLS THERE. HE'S HE'S SAYING THEY HAVE A PARKING EASEMENT. IS HE MISTAKEN IN THAT WHERE YOU'RE WHERE YOU'RE YOU'RE THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER WHERE YOUR ENTRANCE IS NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT'S THEIR PARKING EASEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT OR. WELL, THERE IS A PARKING EASEMENT IN THE DEED. IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE SIX SPACES FOR THE MARINA. THERE'S NO ACTUAL DESIGNATION OF WHERE IT HAS TO GO, JUST THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE IT AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IN ORDER TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. NOT ONLY ARE WE PROVIDING SIX SPACES, WE'RE ALSO ADDING A DROP OFF AREA, REDOING THE TRASH AREA, SO IT'S MUCH MORE ESTHETICALLY APPEALING. AND WE'RE ACTUALLY GIVING THEM AN ADDITIONAL FOUR SPACES. THEY ARE UNDER PARKED RIGHT NOW. THEY HAVE 14 ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VERMEER CONDOMINIUMS. AND ON THIS SIDE, THEY ONLY HAVE THE SIX SPACES THAT YOU REFERENCED. WE'RE GIVING THEM AN ADDITIONAL FOUR. SO A TOTAL OF TEN PLUS. WE'RE ADDING THAT

[03:15:03]

AND WE OUTLINED THAT AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE POINTS THAT HE HAD BROUGHT UP AND AND STAFF HAD BROUGHT UP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AGREED TO. AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THE CITY ORDINANCES. SO I COMMITTED TO DO THEM. AND THE SHAPE OF THEM IS, IS KIND OF PUT INTO A BOX OF WHAT IS ALLOWED. SO, YES, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE ASKED WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

AND WE'VE BEEN VERY TRY TO BE VERY USER FRIENDLY. SO WE HAVE ANOTHER NEIGHBOR DOWN THE ROAD WHO HAS SEVERAL EVENTS A YEAR, THE SAILING YACHT CLUB WE PROVIDED THEM WITH WITH PARKING IN THE PAST TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE HAD. AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT SAME OFFER TO THEM. THEY HAVE SEVERAL, I THINK IT'S LIKE 2 OR 3 EVENTS A YEAR. I SPOKE TO THE. MR. TREBILCOCK, WHO HANDLED THE TRAFFIC STUDY ALSO DOES WORK FOR THEM. SO WE'VE AGREED TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL SPACES WE MAY HAVE FOR THOSE PERIODS OF THE YEAR THAT THEY MAY NEED THEM. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SINCE YOU'RE UP THERE, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

MAYBE NOT TERRIBLY RELEVANT TO THIS, BUT WHEN ARE YOU LOOKING TO HAVE THIS COMPLETED? WELL, THE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF THE APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL AND FINAL DRB, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET STARTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO WE ENVISION PROBABLY ABOUT A BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF CONSTRUCTION, PROBABLY ABOUT A 3 TO 4 MONTH. YOU TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT EXECUTED AND APPROVED. AND THAT MAY HAVE A DELAY OR TWO IN THERE BASED UPON, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT CROP UP DURING THE, YOU KNOW, THE PERMITTING PROCESS. FEMA IS A BIG ONE. YOU KNOW, TOT AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF OTHER, YOU KNOW, AFFILIATE ASSOCIATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. SO, NO, THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS, AS WE ALL KNOW, THIS LOT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG TIME. YOU DEAL WITH A LOT OF TRASH BEING. YEAH, I JUST DID A ROUGH CALCULATION. SO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IMPACTS THE. YEAH. MY PSYCHE, THE DELAY FROM JUST THE 21 DELAY TILL TODAY IS OVER $25 MILLION IN REAL VALUE. THAT'S BEEN PAID OUT AND HAS BEEN LOST IN A SIMPLE 10% RETURN. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ANXIETY AND I GUESS THE MOTIVATION TO GET IT DONE, IT WOULD BE EQUALLY SHARED BY ALL OF US. I'M SURE THAT'S GREAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU FOR BEING IN FRONT OF US AGAIN TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. QUESTION. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

MAINLY OF STAFF. I THINK THE EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK EASEMENT. SO $50,000 APPROXIMATELY PAID IN LIEU OF CONSTRUCTING THAT SIDEWALK. BUT WILL THAT CLEARLY BE DONE? I MEAN, WILL THAT EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK BE BE DONE? YEAH. I HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN IN. SO I JUST WANT TO DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO THANK YOU, SIR. FOR THE RECORD, CITY. CITY ENGINEER FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE. THE EASEMENT WAS REQUESTED AND I TRIED TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO THAT. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REQUESTS, AS YOU PROBABLY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF, FOR A WIDENED SIDEWALK IN THAT CORRIDOR. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FDOT OVER THE YEARS.

THERE'S A STUDY THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE. SO THIS ADDITIONAL A COUPLE OF FEET BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING APPROXIMATELY SIX FOOT SIDEWALK. I REQUESTED THE ADDITIONAL A COUPLE OF FEET FOR THE SIDEWALK. I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR. US, 41 IS TO HOPEFULLY GO TO TO PAY FOR THAT IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ENTAILS, BUT AT THIS TIME, WE WANTED TO KIND OF BE FORWARD THINKING AND PREPARE FOR THAT. AND SECOND QUESTION WILL GIVE THE RIGHT TURN LANE IS REQUIRED. I MEAN, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT DECIDED YET. IS THAT CORRECT?

[03:20:03]

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND. SECOND. WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL. PLEASE VERIFY. IS THAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION. CONDITIONS. YES. YES. SUBJECT EVERY ONE THROUGH TEN. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. MEMBER KAPPLER. YES. MEMBER. CHRIS. YES. VICE CHAIR. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER.

BARONE. YES. MEMBER. FREDRICKSON. YES. MEMBER. BLOEMKER. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLIN.

YES. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. I KNOW WE WANT TO TAKE ITEMS. I JUST WANT TO GET THIS QUICKLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO A NEW BUILDING AT THAT SITE. WE LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING THAT COMPLETED. YEAH. AND THANKS FOR YOUR DILIGENCE AND EVERYONE INVOLVED. THANK YOU. TERRIFIC. WE'RE GOING TO COMBINE NINE C AND NINE D FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION. BUT THERE'S PEOPLE HERE THAT WANT TO TALK ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND WE ALSO HAVE A LUNCH ISSUE. SO LUNCH WILL BE HERE SHORTLY. IT'S NOT HERE. NOT HERE YET. SO LET'S BEGIN AND THEN SEE HOW WE'RE DOING. OKAY. THAT'D BE GREAT.

OKAY SO I'M GOING TO READ IF YOU'LL PUT UP WITH ME BOTH NINE C AND NINE D, AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN CONFLICTS AND THEN GO FROM THERE. A RESOLUTION 9CA RESOLUTION DETERMINING

[9.C) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 26-CU2 Pursuant to Sections 46-34, 58-833, and 58-838 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for Construction of a New Church Sanctuary Building and Steeple to Exceed the Maximum Height of 30 Feet for Principal Buildings in the Public Service Zoning District for Property Owned by Trinity-By-The-Cove Episcopal Church and Located at 550 Galleon Drive, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

[03:25:06]

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND WE DO HAVE ONE LETTER FROM MR. OR THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD AS WELL. OKAY. THE FIRST THING IS ANY SHOULD WE SWEAR EVERYBODY IN? I SWEAR EVERYBODY IN. IS ANYBODY GOING TO TESTIFY IN THIS? RAISE YOUR HAND ON BOTH SIDES IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YEAH.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY DISCLOSURES? I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE TRINITY RESIDES. I'VE BEEN TO TRINITY ON MANY OCCASIONS. I GUESS THAT'S AS MUCH AS I NEED TO SAY. I ATTENDED TRINITY ON A SEMI-REGULAR BASIS. I KNOW FATHER EDWARD. I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER PARISHIONERS ABOUT THE DELAY IN WHY THIS HASN'T COME SOONER, BUT THERE WERE. THEY WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE. OKAY. THANK YOU LUKE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND I'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS. THANK YOU. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS AS WELL. MY WIFE AND I ARE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE TRINITY CONGREGATION. WE ARE NOT CLERGY. WE HOLD NO LEADERSHIP BOARD OR PAID POSITIONS WITHIN THE CHURCH AND HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OR THESE APPLICATIONS. I CONSULTED WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES ETHICS TEAM, SPECIFICALLY MIKE MOROSKI, WHO CONFIRMED THAT I HAVE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE. ANY REWARD THAT I MAY RECEIVE WILL ONLY COME AFTER I HAVE SHUFFLED OFF THIS MORTAL COIL. NO CONFLICTS. I'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. THAT'S IT. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. I'VE SEEN THE SITE.

NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. SO THE APPLICANT IS FIRST UP. THANK YOU. AND I GUESS. YEAH, IT'S VERY CONFUSING. THANK YOU. USUALLY READ IS SOMETHING BAD. SO GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD, RICH IVANOVICH, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT WITH ME TODAY IS IS FATHER GLEASON.

WAYNE ARNOLD IS OUR PROFESSIONAL PLANNER. RICHARD DUBOIS IS OUR CIVIL ENGINEER, AND BILL WARD IS OUR ARCHITECT. I'LL DO A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE OF THE PETITION. I'LL HAVE MR. ARNOLD TAKE YOU THROUGH BOTH THE CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE DOCUMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THIS IS A UNIQUE SCENARIO. WE THE ZONING WE HAVE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS PUBLIC SERVICE, ALLOWS US TO DO NOTHING UNLESS WE COME THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE, AND THIS IS THE ONLY JURISDICTION I'VE EVER WORKED IN THAT HAS A ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAS NO PERMITTED USES. SO WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING A CONDITIONAL USE AS WELL AS A VARIANCE, BECAUSE SIMPLY THE CHURCH WANTS TO REPLACE WHAT IT HAS TODAY. THERE'S A SMALL INCREASE OF BASICALLY 130, 130FT■!S TO THE TO THE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE MODERN AIR CONDITIONING. WHAT IS HAPPENING? WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY IS THE CHURCH WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN

[03:30:05]

AS I SAID, WE'RE JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO REDO WHAT ALREADY EXISTS TODAY.

THE CHURCH HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 50S. WE'VE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE. THE CONSTRUCTION IS OLD, AND WE WANT TO REPLACE WHAT'S BASICALLY THERE. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINT. IT'S REALLY A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PETITION. THE STAFF REPORT IS THOROUGH. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF BOTH PETITIONS. I'LL HAVE MR. ARNOLD COME UP AND TAKE YOU THROUGH BRIEFLY THE VARIANCES. WE'RE REQUESTING THE SITE PLAN. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE ALL HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THE THE TWO PETITIONS.

THANK YOU. THANKS, RICH. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M WAYNE ARNOLD, I'M A CERTIFIED PLANNER WITH PATE DAWSON, AND I'M HAPPY TO BE ON THE TEAM. HELPING THE TRINITY BY THE COVE CHURCH REESTABLISH ITSELF. SO AS RICH MENTIONED, WE'RE TRYING TO ESSENTIALLY REBUILD IN THE FOOTPRINT THAT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE THE 1950S. AND I WILL SAY AND STAFF NOTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT THIS DISTRICT IS UNIQUE BECAUSE WHILE WE HAVE REQUIRED SETBACKS, WE'RE REQUIRED TO USE THE SETBACKS OF A MORE RESTRICTIVE ADJACENT DISTRICT. SO INSTEAD OF UTILIZING THE ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE 20FT, FRONT YARD SETBACKS ARE THREE FRONT YARDS REQUIRE 40FT SETBACKS, AND THERE ARE ALREADY EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS INTO THAT. THE GREEN HIGHLIGHT ON THIS SHOWS YOU THE 40 FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK FROM EACH OF OUR ROAD FRONTAGES, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WHILE A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE DOES SIT NICELY WITHIN IT, PORTIONS DO NOT, INCLUDING THE TWO OUTBUILDINGS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE VESTRY, AND THAT'S ESSENTIAL TO THE SITE AND FUNCTION FOR THE SANCTUARY. GOOD PORTION OF THE CHURCH FUNCTIONS ALSO OCCUR AT THE PARISH HALL, WHICH IS NORTH ACROSS GALLEON DRIVE, SO THE.

WE CREATED THESE TWO EXHIBITS. WILL WARD, WHO'S THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT AND WHO WAS INTEGRALLY INVOLVED IN. THE REESTABLISHMENT OF. THIS DESIGN SHOWS YOU THE EXISTING. ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR PAGE AND THE PROPOSED IS ON THE RIGHT. THERE IS. YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE STRUCTURE UNDER. PROPOSED BECAUSE IN WILL'S IMAGING, SOME OF THE SHADE TREES THAT HAVE OBSCURED A PORTION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL SEEN, IT ACTUALLY IS THERE. YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF THE SHADING FOR THE VEGETATION THAT'S THERE. BUT IN ESSENCE, THE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS ALLOWS US TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT. SO WE'VE ASKED FOR AN EIGHT INCH INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT TO REPLICATE THE BUILDING HERE, WHILE UPLIFTING THE BUILDING ABOUT FOUR FEET IN TOTAL FOR THE FINISHED FLOOR SO THAT WE MEET THE NEW REQUIRED FEMA PLUS ONE FLOOD ELEVATION. AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE IMAGING THAT'S THERE, THE SIMPLE WALKWAY THAT'S ON THE LEFT GOING TO THE FRONT DOOR THAT'S ESSENTIALLY AT GRADE BECOMES A SET OF SMALL, ELEVATED STAIRS TO GET YOU THERE. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE SITE ELEVATIONS TO JUST SHOW YOU IN CONTEXT THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO REPLICATE, AS RICK MENTIONED, WITHIN ABOUT 100FT■!S OF WHAT'S THERE TODAY, AND THAT IF YOU NEED CLARIFICATION FROM MR. WARD, THAT IS REALLY TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE DUCTWORK AND THINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL FOR CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING TO YOUR MODERN BUILDING CODES, AS OPPOSED TO ONE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 50S BEFORE WE HAD FEMA REGULATIONS AND A VALID BUILDING CODE. WE HAVE A LOT OF CRITERIA. I CAN GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT IN ESSENCE, WE'RE WE ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHICH WE ARE PARKING, WHICH IS TYPICALLY A FACTOR FOR YOUR CONDITIONAL USE. ALL THE PARKING FOR THE SANCTUARY IS PROVIDED ACROSS THE STREET AT THE PARISH HALL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME PARKING THAT DOES OCCUR ON THE STREET. AND I REALIZED THAT WE HAVE A LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT. AND I WILL SAY THAT WHETHER THE BUILDING IS ALLOWED TO BE

[03:35:01]

AND I THINK THAT SUITS US WELL TO ALLOW FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING THAT'S CERTAINLY IN SCALE WITH SOMETHING THAT WE'VE KNOWN FOR DECADES, AND THAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE APPRECIATE HOW BEAUTIFUL THE STRUCTURE IS. AND, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE ALL ENJOYED IT. AND THOSE OF US WHO'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE WITH THAT, I CAN CEASE MY PRESENTATION. WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AS A TEAM. I THOUGHT STAFF STAFF REPORT WAS VERY THOROUGH AND LAID OUT OUR OUR ISSUES WITH THE SITE AND MEETING THE SETBACKS. THANK YOU, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH AS MUCH OF OUR CODES AS YOU CAN. AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS. ONE QUESTION, IF IT'S A FACTUAL QUESTION STAFF FIRST, PLEASE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS PROPERTY IS A PAIR OF PETITIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY. ONE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, THE OTHER FOR A VARIANCE. BUT AS YOU'VE HEARD, THEY'RE ULTIMATELY FOR THE SAME PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CHURCH SANCTUARY BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550 GALLEON DRIVE. THIS IS THE TRINITY BY THE COVE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. IT'S AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALLEON DRIVE AND TREASURE LANE IN PORT ROYAL, AND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT. THE CHURCH SPANS. THE CAMPUS SPANS GALLEON DRIVE WITH THE RECTORY, PARISH HALL, CLASSROOMS AND OFFICES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET. THE SANCTUARY BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET. THIS PROJECT ONLY AFFECTS THAT PARCEL WITH THE SANCTUARY BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE'S NO IMPACT ON. ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE PETITIONER PROPOSES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW SANCTUARY IN ITS PLACE. PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ELEVATE THE BUILDING AND IMPROVE THE PROPERTY'S RESILIENCY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SANCTUARY HAS SUSTAINED FLOODING DAMAGE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IN RECENT YEARS. THE CONGREGATION CONSIDERED MANY STRATEGIES FOR PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION. THEIR COMMITTEE DETERMINED THE MOST PRACTICAL STEP WOULD BE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION AT AN INCREASED ELEVATION. ARCHITECTURALLY, THE PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A REPLICA TO MATCH THE HISTORIC BUILDING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES THE SIZE, THE LOCATION, THE MATERIALS AND THE ORNAMENTATION. THE IDEA IS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTED SITE AND STRUCTURE TO READ SIMILARLY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, AS IT DOES TODAY, THE PROPERTY WILL BE RE LANDSCAPED. SIMILARLY, THEY WILL ALSO BE ELEVATING TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN PLACE. AS PROPOSED, THE PROJECT REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR A PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN THE PS DISTRICT. THE PROJECT ALSO WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR THE SANCTUARY BUILDING AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. I'LL TAKE THE CONDITIONAL USE FIRST. PURSUANT TO CODE, THE PS DISTRICT LIMITS THE HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS AT 30FT. THIS IS MEASURED FROM THE FIRST FLOOR FEMA ELEVATION. THE SANCTUARY WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ITS CURRENT PLACE IN 1953. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AT GRADE HERE. THAT'S A LITTLE OVER FIVE FEET AND A B D THIS IS ABOUT THREE FEET BELOW THE FEMA. THE CURRENT FEMA BASE ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS AND FOUR FEET BELOW THE CURRENT DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION. THE EXISTING MAIN SANCTUARY BUILDING IS 31FT TALL.

THE EXISTING STEEPLE ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS 68FT TALL. AGAIN, THE. THE REPLICA THEY PROPOSED WILL WILL ULTIMATELY MAINTAIN THOSE HEIGHTS. THE PS ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS A DIVERSE VARIETY OF USES. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE CODE ALLOWS PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS TO EXCEED THE 30FT IN HEIGHT IN CERTAIN CASES, AND THE CODE ACTUALLY CITES CHURCHES AND STEEPLES AS AN EXAMPLE OF A POTENTIAL EXCEPTION. THE THRESHOLD FOR REVIEW IS THAT TALLER BUILDINGS CAN BE APPROPRIATE IF THEY DO NOT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE AS PROPOSED. THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD COMPROMISE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE IN ANY WAY. QUITE FRANKLY, YOU ALREADY SEE TODAY ON SITE WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. IT'S THERE. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE ABOUT FOUR FEET TALLER. THEY ALSO

[03:40:05]

[9.B) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 26-CU1, Pursuant to Section 46-34 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for Transient Lodging as Part of a Mixed-Use Development to be Known as The Viceroy Comprised of Two Floors of Transient Lodging Units Over One Floor of Office Space and Marina Ship Store, Served by a Combination of Surface Parking and Underground Parking, in the C2-A, Waterfront Commercial Zoning District Pursuant to Section 58-623 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, on the Property Owned by Viceroy Naples, LLC, Located at 599 River Point Drive, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

[03:45:03]

THAT'S THE AREA BEHIND THE ALTAR. THERE'S BEAUTIFUL WOODWORK THAT THAT IS THERE.

THE PEWS WHICH HAVE MADE IT THROUGH TWO STORMS, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. MOSTLY BECAUSE I GO OVER FROM THE RECTORY AND SWEEP OUT THE CHURCH. THOSE WILL BE SAVED. THOSE WILL THEN BE SANDED DOWN AND REDONE. SO AS MUCH AS INTERIOR AS POSSIBLE TO SAVE, WILL WILL DO THAT. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NOT MUCH TO SAVE. IF YOU ALL HAVE BEEN INSIDE THAT CHURCH. IT IS LOVELY FOR ITS SIMPLICITY AND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL RETAIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. OTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? YEAH. QUICK QUESTION. I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY THAT THE SITES THE HEIGHTS WERE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. IS IT JUST THAT WE'RE ELEVATING THE BASE BY FOUR FEET, WHICH MEANS THAT THE BASE AS IT EXISTS TODAY, WHICH IS THE 6068FT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE AT ALL. WE'RE JUST MOVING EVERYTHING UP BY FOUR FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE SECOND THING IS, WHERE'S THE 134 ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT I GUESS IT WAS BOUNCED OUT ON ONE OF THE SIDES TO ADD A CERTAIN ELEMENT TO ADD SOME HVAC. CAN WE SEE WHERE THAT IS? SO IT'S NOT IN I MEAN, PERHAPS THE ARCHITECT. EDWARD GLEASON. TRINITY BY THE COVE. I'LL START AND THEN WE CAN HAVE OUR ARCHITECT FINISH. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A 1950S CONSTRUCTION.

ADD A STUFF IN A A C STUFF WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SO THE THE BUILDING WILL INCREASE, I THINK, FOUR INCHES ON THE SIDE AND A LITTLE BIT ON THE TOP. THE TOP IS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE HVAC DUCT WORK THAT HAS TO GET IN THERE. NOW, OUR OLD AC SYSTEM DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A FRESH AIR AND ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND.

THE NEW AC DOES HAVE TO HAVE THAT. SO WE HAVE TO ADAPT TO THE CURRENT CODE. THAT'S SOME OF THE INCREASE. AND THEN WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE CHURCH, THERE'S AN AREA CALLED A NARTHEX. AGAIN, THE CHURCH IS A GEM OF SIMPLE CONSTRUCTION AND AND IT'S SMALL. AND SO THAT SPACE WHEN YOU FIRST WALK IN VERY SMALL. BUT WE HAVE TO ENLARGE ONE OF THE DOORS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE AN ADA BATHROOM IN THERE. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT, A COUPLE OF INCHES TO DO THAT AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHERE THE SPACE COMES FROM. WILL, DID I GET THAT RIGHT? DID YOU WANT TO COME? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. YEAH, IT'S ACTUALLY WE MADE THE CHURCH. WE'RE KEEPING THE INSIDE OF THE CHURCH THE SAME SIZE SO WE CAN FIT ALL THE EXISTING PEWS IN THE WALLS AROUND THE PERIMETER BECAME A LITTLE THICKER, YOU KNOW? SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING WE ADDED ABOUT FOUR INCHES TO EACH SIDE, TOOK THAT STRAIGHT UP TO THE SAME HEIGHT. BUT IF YOU KEEP THE ROOF AT THE SAME SLOPE, IT GOES UP THOSE EXTRA EIGHT INCHES IN HEIGHT BECAUSE THE WIDTH OF THE BUILDING IS FOUR INCHES WIDER ON EACH SIDE.

THAT'S THE EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE, OKAY. AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT IN THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY AROUND. IT'S JUST INCHES HERE AND THERE TO MAKE THE EXISTING SHELL WORK PROPERLY.

OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, JUST ONE COMMENT. AND NUMBER ONE INTRODUCTORY COMMENT. WHAT A WONDERFUL PLAN AND WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA. I MEAN, THIS IS THE SORT OF THING THAT WE, I REALLY LIKE SEEING IN THE CITY OF NAPLES IS THIS PLANNING THAT KEEPS SOMETHING THAT MANY, MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF, LOVE IN THE SAME, YOU KNOW, SAME CONFIGURATION, THE SAME PLEASANT STYLE AND, AND DOING YOUR JOB TO PRESERVE IT. AND SO I APPLAUD THAT. AND JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT UP FRONT. AND THEN JUST TO, TO MENTION SOMETHING I THINK IS, IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLARIFY IN THE ORDINANCES, BECAUSE THE WAY I READ THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ORDINANCE, IT SEPARATES BETWEEN PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. AND SO IF YOU WERE TO READ THIS WITH AN OVER, I'M A LAWYER, AN OVER LAWYERLY LIKE VIEWPOINT, YOU COULD CONSTRUE THIS AS SAYING THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW A BUILDING, A PRINCIPAL BUILDING GREATER THAN 30FT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THIS. AND I JUST

[03:50:06]

THE CODE SECTION IS 58-838. THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT AND IT SAYS MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT IS 30FT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS. NEXT SENTENCE. BECAUSE OF THE WIDE DIVERSITY OF USES, ALLOWED STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF THIS HEIGHT AND THEN PARENTHESES, CHURCH SPIRES, WATER TOWERS, ETC. AND PARENTHESES MAY BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, PROVIDED THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. SO, AS PART OF YOUR CONDITIONAL USE TODAY, YOU WOULD NOT ONLY BE APPROVING THE USE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PERMITTED USES, BUT YOU WOULD ALSO BE MAKING A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE HEIGHT THAT'S PROPOSED TO YOU TODAY, SO THAT IT WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION AND A DETERMINATION BY THE CODE, BY THIS BOARD, THAT THAT CODE SECTION WOULD ALLOW THE THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AS WELL TO EXCEED THE 30FT IN HEIGHT. AND THAT WOULD BE A. AND I JUST WANTED TO, TO SAY THAT THIS IS A THIS IS A LAW SCHOOL EXAM QUESTION. AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE ORDINANCES WOULD WOULD APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS. AND I JUST RAISE IT FOR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING IT AND THEN APPROVING THIS WITH FULL AUTHORITY. AND SO MY, MY QUESTIONS TO STAFF ARE, WE'VE OBVIOUSLY JUST CONFIRMED THAT CHURCHES ARE EXEMPT OR POTENTIALLY. WELL, IT SAYS CHURCH SPIRES. SPIRES. OKAY.

SPIRES. THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. THIS, THIS, THE STEEPLE REMAINS THE SAME HEIGHT, 68, 68FT.

THAT'S CORRECT. WE'VE GOT AN EXTRA EIGHT INCHES ON THE ON THE RIDGE LINE, THE RIDGE LINE OF THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING, OVER 30FT. THAT'S WHAT, 2.25%, ISN'T IT? YEAH. DE MINIMIS.

NICE WORD. AND IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE'VE GOT AN EXTRA 135 ON TOP OF THE CURRENT 33 300, WHICH ALSO IS LIKE 2.5%. SO REALLY VERY, VERY SMALL VARIANCES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY, DO WE NEED TWO MOTIONS HERE, ONE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ONE FOR THE VARIANCE. YES, SIR. OKAY. THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION PROVIDED BY STAFF. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. ANY COMMENT? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. SORRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN I USE THIS ONE? YES. NO, YOU CAN USE THAT ONE. JUST HOW DO I PUSH THE BUTTON? IT'S ON, IT'S ON. OH, HI. MY NAME IS BEBE CANTOR. ARE YOU SURE? YEAH, I JUST GOT IT. CAN YOU JUST. OKAY.

THERE YOU GO. HELLO. MY NAME IS BEBE CANTOR AND WILL, AS WILL BECOME APPARENT, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PROJECT SO ATTRACTED MY ATTENTION. I LIVE AT 5960 PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD IN AN HOA THAT IS CALLED THE SANCTUARY. AND LIKE YOUR SANCTUARY, MINE WAS BUILT TO OBSOLETE CODES IN A FLOOD ZONE. YOU KNOW THE ZONE A. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WE HAVE AN ON PERMITTED RETENTION POND THAT IS OVER 40 YEARS OLD. SO I WAS REALLY AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I AM A CERTIFIED, I'M NOT A CERTIFIED PLANNER, BUT I DO HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN CITY PLANNING. AND LIKE YOU, I, YOU KNOW, RELATE TO MY GRADUATE SCHOOL BECAUSE AS A STUDENT AT HARVARD, I DID A JOINT PROJECT AND WE WROTE A BUSINESS SCHOOL CASE STUDY, WHICH WAS USED ABOUT HOW THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE WORKED WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO COME UP WITH GOOD SOLUTIONS. SO THIS DOES BRING ME BACK TO 1976. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN NAPLES AND IN COLLIER COUNTY WHO DENY THAT WE NEED TO BECOME MORE RESILIENT. THEY DO NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT

[03:55:04]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? SURE. NOPE. I HAVE A SECOND. IS THIS FOR THE CONDITION OF THIS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE. OKAY.

THIS IS MEMBER BLOCKER. YES. MEMBER FREDERICKSON. YES. MEMBER CREESE. YES. MEMBER.

KAPPLER. YES. MEMBER. BARONE. YES. VICE CHAIR. FOWLER. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. AND NOW

[9.D) A Resolution Determining Petition 26-V4, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Sections 46-37 and 58-836 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for Encroachments into the Required 40-Foot Minimum Front Yards for a New Church Sanctuary Building and Two Accessory Buildings in the Public Service Zoning District for Property Owned by Trinity-By-The-Cove Episcopal Church and Located at 550 Galleon Drive; More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.]

I WILL HAPPILY SECOND THAT ANY COMMENT VOTE PLEASE. OKAY. MEMBER. CHRIS. YES. MEMBER.

FREDERICKSON. YES. MEMBER. BLOCKER. YES. MEMBER. BARONE. YES. VICE. CHAIR. FOWLER. YES.

MEMBER. KAPPLER. YES. AND CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. AND I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THE CHURCH FOR MAKING SUCH A GREAT EFFORT TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC BUILDING.

THANK YOU. AGREE TO LUNCH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE STILL WAITING FOR A COUPLE OF MORE HEARINGS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE NEED? HALF AN HOUR OR 20 MINUTES, 20, 20 MINUTES FOR LUNCH, AND WE'LL BE BACK AT TEN MINUTES OF ONE, I GUESS ONE AND ONE. WE'LL BE BACK AT ONE. OKAY. YEAH, ONE.

[9.E) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 26-CU3 Pursuant to Sections 46-34, 58-833, and 58-838 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for Construction of a New Clubhouse and Amenity Center Buildings to Exceed the Maximum Height of 30 Feet for Principal Buildings in the Public Service Zoning District; and to Allow for Consideration of a Parking Needs Analysis to Reduce the Required Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Pursuant to Section 50-107 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for Property Owned by Royal Poinciana Golf Club, Inc., and Located at 1600 Solana Road, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WOULD ALL THOSE PEOPLE WISHING TO BE TESTIFY STAND UP TO BE SWORN IN, PLEASE? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DISCLOSURES. I WAS THAT AGAIN.

I DIDN'T KNOW THE RULES. I DID MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY AND THE PROJECT MANAGER. I'M SORRY. I DID MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY AND THE PROJECT MANAGER AT THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. JUST TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. NO, NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE. OKAY. I PLAYED GOLF THERE

[04:00:03]

I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE REVIEW THE APPLICATION, NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. I'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. I AM NOT FAMILIAR AT ALL WITH THE SITE REVIEW, THE APPLICATION, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, AND NOTHING ELSE TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. OKAY. THANK YOU APPLICANT. THANK YOU AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON.

FOR THE RECORD. RICH JOVANOVIC, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I DON'T SEE DAVE HERE. ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB IS SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE IN THAT PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW ANY PERMITTED USES. SO THE CONDITIONAL USE IS TO BASICALLY DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE, REPLACE IT WITH A NEW CLUBHOUSE, AND HAVE THE HEIGHT OF THE NEW CLUBHOUSE BE 60FT IN HEIGHT, WHICH YOU'RE ALLOWED 30FT IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT UNLESS YOU GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. PATTY KULICK IS WITH OUR BY PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE, SHE WILL BE TAKING YOU THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE SITE PLAN RELATED TO THE THE NEW CLUBHOUSE. MICHAEL HERRERA IS OUR CIVIL ENGINEER. JIM BANKS IS OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WHO PREPARED THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS AS WELL. KEN HART FROM PEACOCK AND LEWIS IS THE BUILDING ARCHITECT. JEFF CURL IS OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND DON GARRETT IS THE CONTRACTOR WHO WILL BE DOING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW CLUBHOUSE. THIS IS THE OVERALL GOLF COURSE ACREAGE SHOWING THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CENTER IS THE CLUBHOUSE. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN THERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A LONG, DRAWN OUT CLUBHOUSE. IT'S BEEN MODIFIED SEVERAL TIMES. AND I THINK THE CLUB HAS FINALLY REALIZED IT'S TIME TO PUT THE RIGHT CLUBHOUSE FACILITY IN THERE TO GET EVERYTHING UNDER ONE ROOF IN A MORE ORGANIZED MANNER FOR FOR MOST OF THE CLUBHOUSE OR GOLF RELATED AMENITIES, THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS 350, ROUGHLY 356 ACRES. AGAIN, I MENTIONED WE'RE ASKING YOU FOR A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE HEIGHT OF THE CLUBHOUSE. AND WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES BY 20%. AS YOUR STAFF REPORT INDICATES, AND THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS INDICATES, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 735 PARKING SPACES. WE'RE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT TO 588, WHICH IS AN INCREASE OVER THE PARKING THAT EXISTS TODAY, WHICH IS AT 520. BUT BASED UPON THE USAGE OF THOSE PARKING SPACES AT, WE WOULD ONLY BE AT 83% CAPACITY FOR THOSE 580 PARKING SPACES. SO WE HAVE BASICALLY HAVE 90 PARKING SPACES MORE THAN WE REALLY NEED TO SERVE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THIS CLUB AND HAVE THE ABILITY SHOULD. SHOULD IT PROVE THAT WE'RE WRONG ON OUR PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE FUTURE IF NECESSARY, WE HAVE OUR FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC SEMI. PUBLIC PRIVATE, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR THE GOLF COURSE TO EXIST. AND OUR ZONING, AS I MENTIONED, WAS PUBLIC SERVICE, WHICH ALSO ALLOWS FOR US TO ASK FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING HERE TODAY. OUR NEIGHBORS ARE PREDOMINANTLY GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES TO OUR WHICH IS I CAN'T KNOW IF YOU CAN'T COUNTY POINT. WE HAVE A HOLE IN THE WALL, WHICH IS A GOLF COURSE, MOORINGS PARK, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE.

THIS IS COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES OVER HERE, QUAIL RUN, WHICH IS GOLF COURSE. AND THEN WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO US. AS YOU'LL SEE THROUGH OUR PRESENTATION. WE'RE A SUFFICIENT OR A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM ANYBODY AROUND US. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE THIS, THIS CLUBHOUSE FROM EITHER THE STREET OR FROM ANY OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IN 1999. WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. WHEN WE GET ANNEXED IN, WE RETAIN THE COUNTY'S DESIGNATIONS UNTIL WE GET THE PROPER DESIGNATIONS IN THE CITY,

[04:05:05]

PATTY KULAK FOR THE RECORD. AS WE DISCUSSED, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ON THE SCREEN. THIS DID GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN PROCESS WITH STAFF. YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE CENTER OF YOUR SCREEN. THE WELLNESS BUILDING IS OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE. THE PROPOSED CART BARN IS OVER TO THE LEFT, AND THE COMMISSARY IS CLOSEST TO GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD. WE HAVE THREE ELEVATIONS WITHIN OUR PACKAGE TO SHOW YOU. THIS IS THE ELEVATION OF THE CLUBHOUSE. THIS IS THE BUILDING THAT WILL BE AT THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT. THE WELLNESS CENTER WILL BE AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 44FT, AND THE COMMISSARY WILL BE AT 27FT.

HERE IS THE RENDERING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DURING THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW. THIS IS THE VIEW FACING NORTH OF THE NEW CLUBHOUSE, AND THIS IS THE VIEW FACING SOUTH.

AS RICK MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, SO THEY ARE NOT CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT SITE OF THE WELLNESS CENTER. SO ALL OF THESE DISTANCES ARE TAKEN FROM THE CLUBHOUSE LOCATION, WHEREAS THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT BY STAFF WAS THE PERIMETER AND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. SO THAT NOTICE DID GO OUT TO ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. BUT OUR CLUBHOUSE IS VERY INTERNAL TO THE SITE. WE DID GO THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE VISION. WE ALSO HAD THE FUTURE LAND USE POLICIES AND CONSISTENCY THAT WE SHOWED FOR BOTH THE USE ITSELF AND THE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT CRITERIA THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO MEET. BECAUSE AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE CLUBHOUSE BUILDING WILL NOT BE WITHIN THE DISTANCE REQUIRED TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE THE PROPERTY IS. HERE'S THAT LDC CRITERIA THAT WE DO COMPLY WITH. AGAIN, WE HAVE ALL OF THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION OF THE SITE IS DONE IN THE SITE. WE HAVE THE PARKING AND LOADING. THAT SHOWS THAT WE DO HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING ON SITE VIA THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT I WILL SPEAK TO MOMENTARILY. WE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES. THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE UTILITIES WILL BE UPGRADED ON SITE. AND WE DO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL BUFFERING AND SEPARATION FROM ANY NEIGHBORS PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT IS INCLUDED WITH THIS PETITION.

THIS REQUEST IS TO HAVE A REDUCTION IN PARKING. THE CURRENT PARKING FOR THE SITE HAS 520 SPACES. WITH THESE CHANGES TO THE NEW CLUBHOUSE, WE ARE. WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN THAT, SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THAT. BUT WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE USE FOR THE BUILDING AND THE MEMBERSHIP FOR THE CLUBHOUSE WILL NOT BE INCREASING WITH THIS BUILD OUT. SO EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING IS BEING REDONE, THE MEMBER WILL NOT INCREASE.

HOWEVER, THE STAFF NUMBERS FOR THE CLUBHOUSE WILL BE INCREASING BY TEN PEOPLE. SO WITH THAT, WE DID PROVIDE THAT PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS SHOWING THAT THE DEMAND DOES NOT MEET THE NEED BY THE CODE, AND WE ARE REQUESTING A 20% REDUCTION IN SHOWING THAT EVEN AFTER THAT, WE STILL HAVE A 98 PARKING SPACE. SURPLUS STAFF DID DO A FULL REVIEW OF, AGAIN, THAT SITE PLAN, SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. THEY DID DETERMINE THAT IT IS ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE VISION FOR THE CITY. WE ARE ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. AGAIN, WE'RE IN A VERY GOLF ORIENTED COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DID RECEIVE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WITH THE RENDERINGS THAT WERE SHOWN IN THIS PRESENTATION, AND THIS IS JUST TO REBUILD THE CLUBHOUSE THAT'S ALREADY THERE. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION, RICH. AND WITH THAT, WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

AS RICH MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE OUR CONSULTANT TEAM HERE FOR BOTH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND

[04:10:02]

BOARD AGAIN, JEFF BRAMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM IS A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CLUBHOUSE, WELLNESS CENTER AND COMMISSARY AT THE ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1600 SOLANO ROAD. THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT. AS PROPOSED, THE PROJECT REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS IN THE PS DISTRICT. SECOND, TO ALLOW FOR A 20% REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING.

PURSUANT TO CODE, THE PS DISTRICT LIMITS MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS AT 30FT.

THIS IS MEASURED FROM THE FIRST FLOOR FEMA ELEVATION. THE PETITIONER PROPOSES THREE BUILDINGS. THE NEW CLUBHOUSE, WHICH IS ABOUT 105 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET, WILL BE 60FT TALL, 60FT, 68FT WITH THE CHIMNEYS. THE NEW WELLNESS CENTER WILL BE ABOUT 3300 ZERO SQUARE FEET, AND THAT WILL BE 52FT TALL, ABOUT 52FT TALL, AND THE NEW COMMISSARY WILL BE 30FT TALL. THE PS DISTRICT ALLOWS A DIVERSE VARIETY OF USES. THERE IS LANGUAGE ALLOWING STRUCTURES IN CERTAIN CASES TO EXCEED THE 30FT IN HEIGHT IN THE PS DISTRICT. THIS IS PROVIDED THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY OR WELFARE AS PROPOSED. THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD COMPROMISE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE IN ANY WAY.

AS YOU HEARD, ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE TO NEIGHBORS, NOR CAN THE PUBLIC VIEW THESE FACILITIES FROM THE STREET.

HOWEVER, THIS CODE HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPLIED TO ALLOW HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR AN ENTIRE BUILDING LIKE THIS. THE CODE STATES SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT CHURCHES AND STEEPLES OR CHURCHES, CHURCH STEEPLES, WATER TOWERS, THOSE KINDS OF EXCEPTIONS. THE PREVIOUS PETITION WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE. THE PETITIONER HERE IS REQUESTING THE ENTIRE CLUBHOUSE AND WELLNESS CENTER TO EXCEED THE 30 FOOT THRESHOLD. PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE FOR A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING. CURRENTLY, THE CLUB HAS PARKING CAPACITY FOR 520 SPACES. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSES TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER TO 588 SPACES. HOWEVER, BY CODE, THE TOTALITY OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WOULD REQUIRE 735 SPACES. THIS IS 147 SPACES, OR 20% MORE THAN WHAT THEY PROPOSE. PURSUANT TO CODE, THE PETITIONER PREPARED A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS TO DEMONSTRATE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT GRANTING A REDUCTION. SIMPLY, THE CODE ALLOWS A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS TO REDUCE A PARKING REQUIREMENT BY AS MUCH AS 20%.

IF APPROPRIATE, THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS DOCUMENTING HIGH SEASON ACTIVITY, SHOWING THE 588 SPACES PROPOSED WOULD EXCEED ACTUAL DEMAND, ACCORDING TO THE STUDY, WHICH WAS TAKEN THIS FEBRUARY, PEAK PARKING DEMAND FOR THE CLUB WAS 436 OCCUPIED SPACES. THEY FACTORED IN ROOM FOR A 10% GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR PARKING AND TEN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES. WITH THAT, THE STUDY SHOWED A FUTURE PEAK DEMAND OF 490 SPACES. THAT STILL LEAVES A SURPLUS OF 98 SPACES AVAILABLE, COMPARED TO THE 588 PROPOSED. THE CLUB IS NOT INCREASING THEIR MEMBERSHIP FROM WHERE IT'S CAPPED AT TODAY. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS, AND THESE PARKING FACILITIES, LIKE THE BUILDINGS, ARE INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY.

THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC AS WELL. THERE'S NO OUTDOOR DINING OR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. SHOULD THERE BE IN THE FUTURE, THE PETITIONER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR THOSE FROM CITY COUNCIL. THE PROJECT RECEIVED PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LAST SUMMER, SUBJECT TO EIGHT CONDITIONS. THE DRB RESOLUTION IS ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA PACKETS. IF ENTITLEMENTS ARE ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE FINAL DRB APPROVAL BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. PROJECT ALSO RECEIVED CONDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN SUFFICIENCY FOLLOWING A REVIEW BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS. THIS WAS COMPLETED IN LATE MARCH OF THIS YEAR. OF COURSE, THAT SITE PLAN SUFFICIENCY IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE. THAT'S NOT APPROVED. THEN THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS VOID. PROJECT WAS NOTED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED SOME CORRESPONDENCE AND THERE'S A LETTER OF SUPPORT WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKETS. SHOULD THE

[04:15:01]

I JUST ASKED THE ARCHITECT IF THE CURRENT. THE NEW BALLROOM WILL ACCOMMODATE 400 PEOPLE.

400. YES. OKAY. SO NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE. NO, SIR. NO. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU MENTION THE NAPLES VISION DOCUMENT. MY QUESTION IS, HOW DOES DOUBLING THE HEIGHT OF A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL CLUB ALIGN WITH THE NAPLES VISION THAT EMPHASIZES SMALL TOWN CHARACTER AND PREVENTING OVERDEVELOPMENT AND OVERBUILDING? I THINK MOST GOLF COURSES HAVE SIGNIFICANT CLUBHOUSES TO SUPPORT THEM. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW A GOLF COURSE, HAVING A CLUBHOUSE IN ANY WAY NEGATIVE EFFECTS NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THE SMALL TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES. WHAT ARE THE GOLF COURSES HAVE SIMILAR BUILDINGS, SIGNIFICANT CLUBHOUSES? WELL, THE PORT ROYAL CLUB HAS A SIGNIFICANT CLUBHOUSE. I DON'T 60FT HIGH. WHAT'S THAT, 60FT HIGH? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THAT IS. OKAY. BUT WE'RE INTERNALLY WE'RE INTERNAL TO WHERE NOBODY COULD SEE IT.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL BY HAVING A TWO TWO, BY GOING FROM A SINGLE STORY CLUBHOUSE TO A MULTI STORY CLUBHOUSE. AND YET THE CLUB HAS 356.1 ACRES OF LAND, SO THEY DON'T NEED TO GO UP INTO THE HEAVENS. THEY COULD EXPAND HORIZONTALLY. THEY COULD. BUT THEN IT BECOMES IF YOU'VE BEEN TO IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THE CURRENT CLUBHOUSE, IT'S IT'S AN INEFFICIENT CLUBHOUSE BECAUSE IT IS LONG AND SPREAD OUT. SO BY CONDENSING IT, THE FOOTPRINT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE FOOTPRINT BY GOING UP. I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO FROM IT'S A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT USE FOR THOSE WHO ARE UTILIZING

[04:20:02]

IT'LL BE THE CART STORAGE AND BAG STORAGE AREA, AND THE MEN'S AND WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS, AND A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYEE BREAK ROOM. IT'S PROBABLY IN THE RANGE OF 2 TO 3000FT■!S, WHICH IS DOUBLE THE SIZE OF WHAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY. AND THE SECOND FLOOR IS MOSTLY ALL THE SOCIAL SPACES. SECOND FLOOR OR THE UPPER LEVEL WOULD BE THE BALLROOM MEMBER DINING, THE GRILL, MEETING ROOMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE. AND THAT'S REALLY THE DISTINCTION THAT CHARACTERIZES THE TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? WAIT A MINUTE. DOWN HERE. YES, I HAVE I HAVE ONE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO DINING AND ANOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT. CURRENTLY THERE'S OUTDOOR DINING. I HEAR THAT THIS PLAN HAS NO OUTDOOR DINING.

THERE'S CURRENTLY OUTDOOR DINING BY THE POOL. ARE YOU NOT GOING TO HAVE OUTDOOR DINING BY THE NEW POOL? BY THE NEW POOL, WE'LL HAVE LOUNGE CHAIRS AND CABANAS. THAT'LL BE PART NO FOOD SERVICE. THE FOOD SERVICE IS ALL WITHIN THE BUILDING. WITHIN THERE'S A 19TH HOLE AND A BAR GRILL. BUT IT'S ALL INSIDE. OKAY, THE SECOND QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SAYING THE 60FT HIGH, IT'S NOT A YOU. IT'S NOT VISIBLE TO FROM OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINES. WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT IT TRIGGERS THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT HAS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF TRIGGERING THE ABILITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE BUILT WITHIN ONE MILE RADIUS AT THAT 60 FOOT HEIGHT. SO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT SAYS THAT THE HIGHEST CURRENTLY APPROVED ALLOWED HEIGHT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AGAIN BUILT WITHIN A ONE MILE PERIMETER. SO THAT WOULD BE EITHER IN THE COUNTY OR IN THE CITY WOULD ALLOW THAT NEW HEIGHT TO BE 60. IT SAYS THAT THIS IS FOR COMMERCIAL OR THE COMPARISON HAS TO BE MADE FOR A BUILDING THAT IS COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT DOESN'T SAY COMMERCIALLY ZONED OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED. I DON'T I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS MORE FOR THE OUR ATTORNEY HERE. DOES THIS TRIGGER TRIGGER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT NEW HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WITH A ONE MILE RADIUS WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING? GREAT.

THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. ONE THAT I DID NOT ANTICIPATE. I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE A ZONING CATEGORY, BUT IT MIGHT BE USE RICH. LET ME, LET ME, LET ME. YEAH, I'M SORRY. I TOTALLY DIDN'T GET INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE LIVE LOCAL ACT AS A LAND USE DEVELOPER. I MEAN, A LAND USE ATTORNEY. WHAT THE ACT SAYS IS IT'S THE HIGHEST EITHER CURRENTLY BUILT OR ALLOWED HEIGHT IN THE JURISDICTION. SO YOU CAN'T USE A COUNTY HEIGHT IN THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. SO BECAUSE IF YOU COULD AND I DON'T HOLD ME TO THIS, BUT YOU'VE GOT THE DEVO BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA ON SOLANA THAT ARE CLEARLY WITHIN A MILE OF THE CITY. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN APPLY THE DEVO, AND THAT IS PROBABLY C-4 ZONING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MOST AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS ARE.

AND C-4 ZONING IN THE COUNTY IS 75FT. OKAY, SO YOU'RE ALREADY AT A HIGHER HEIGHT THAN THE 60FT WE'RE ASKING FOR. IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. PLUS, THE LIVE LOCAL ACT APPLIES TO COMMERCIALLY ZONED MIXED USE ZONED OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTIES. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT CAN BE CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, SHE'S CONCERNED THAT IF THEY GRANT THIS HEIGHT, COULD THIS HEIGHT BE USED FOR SOMEONE TO DEVELOP UNDER LIVE LOCAL ON A SEPARATE PROPERTY? IF THERE WERE IF THERE ARE ANY COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN A MILE THAT COULD CONVERT TO LIVE WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES. SO THEY HAVE TO BE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES TO USE THIS 60 FOOT HEIGHT. BUT THIS IS WITHIN THE CITY, RIGHT? SO WHAT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, ARE THERE ANY WITHIN A MILE OF THIS

[04:25:06]

BUT HOW TALL ARE THOSE BUILDINGS IN THE MOORINGS PARK AREA? THEY'RE TALLER THAN THAT.

I KNOW I DID THAT. THEY'RE THEY'RE 7 OR 8 STORIES. YEAH, THEY'RE THEY'RE PRETTY BIG ALREADY. AND THAT'S JUST RIGHT NEXT DOOR. BUT I DON'T. ARE THEY 60FT. OH, THEY'RE MORE THAN THAT. THEY'RE MORE THAN 60FT. YEAH. UP HERE. THIS IS MORRIS PARK RIGHT HERE. THAT'S THAT RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. NO WORRIES. BUT IF YOU TOOK THE ONE MILE RADIUS FROM HERE, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW, THIS IS 2400, 2400FT. SO YOU DOUBLE IT UP. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT TO HERE ISH. I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GOT ANY IN THE CITY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT MIGHT BE CONVERTING UNDER LIVE LOCAL. THAT'S YOUR CONCERN. I THINK MY CONCERN WAS RESOLVED FOR A DIFFERENT ISSUE. I MEAN HOW ARE YOU SAYING THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN A MILE LONG NORTH SOUTH? NO, I'M SUGGESTING I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I'VE GOT A MEASUREMENT THAT I KNOW RIGHT HERE IS 2400FT. THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE DOWN HERE. SO THAT'S ABOUT 4800FT.

SO YOU KNOW, I DID I DID LAWYER MEASUREMENT. OKAY. SO THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT AROUND HERE FROM A SCALE STANDPOINT. AND I TRIED TO ROUGHLY DO A CIRCLE OF WHAT, WHAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COULD BE THERE. I THINK WHAT DAN SAID SATISFIES MY CONCERN THAT THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY THAT ARE HIGHER ALREADY. SO THIS IS YEAH, I DON'T I THINK THIS IS NOT GOING TO CREATE THE CONCERN YOU HAVE ABOUT PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THAT. OKAY. QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WERE HERE EARLIER WHEN I WAS ASKING MY QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 58. 838. WERE YOU HERE DURING THAT BY ANY CHANCE? NO. OKAY. SO LET ME JUST READ TO YOU THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING HEIGHT AND DISTRICT. IT SAYS MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT IS 30FT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS. BECAUSE OF THE WIDE DIVERSITY OF USES ALLOWED STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF THIS HEIGHT, CHURCH SPIRES, WATER TOWERS, ETC. MAY BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. MY READING OF THAT OF THAT SECTION IS THAT WE ARE NOT, AS A PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, EMPOWERED TO ALLOW FOR BUILDING IN EXCESS OF PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 30FT. AND AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND SO WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS IF YOU'VE GIVEN THAT CONSIDERATION AND HOW YOU MIGHT GIVE ME COMFORT THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THIS AS A, A 60 FOOT HIGH BUILDING. WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULDN'T BE HERE AS AN ATTORNEY THINKING THAT I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ASK FOR WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF THE HEIGHT CAN OCCUR, AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

RIGHT. I THINK THAT THAT AND AND AND I WAS ON THE LAST PETITION. MAYBE YOU DID ASK THAT QUESTION. I MISSED IT ON THE LAST PETITION, BUT WE'RE SLIGHTLY OVER 30FT FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, NOT JUST THE SPIRE. WE JUST DID IT, DID WE NOT, JEFF. FOR, FOR, FOR THE CHURCH. SO WE DID IT FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. WE WENT ABOVE 30FT, NOT JUST FOR THE STEEPLE, BUT ONLY BY TWO AND A HALF, 2.25% OVER. IT DOESN'T MATTER. HE'S READING AN ABSOLUTE IT'S EITHER ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED OR IT'S ALLOWED. AND AND BUT BUT THE THE DISCUSSION WE HAD ON THE DAIS WAS THAT IT WAS A DE MINIMIS ISSUE FOR THE FOR THE CHURCH AND SO FORTH. SO

[04:30:09]

YOU KNOW, AND, AND I, AND I, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND, AND I, I THINK IT IS, IT'S EITHER AS WE WERE TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL, IT'S EITHER ABSOLUTE UNLESS THE CODE HAS A DE MINIMIS STANDARD IN THERE. THERE'S NO DE MINIMIS STANDARD THAT SAYS. SO YOU EITHER CAN DO IT OR YOU CAN'T DO IT. I BELIEVE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS YOU CAN GO ABOVE 30FT, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, YOU CAN IMPROVE IT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE BUILDINGS WE TALK ABOUT ARE ACTUALLY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES, THOUGH, RIGHT? OKAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROHIBITION ON ON THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. AS LONG AS WE GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, RIGHT. THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION. I APPRECIATE IT. RIGHT. THANK YOU. WHICH WORKED FOR ME ON THE LAST PETITION. I HOPE IT WILL WORK ON THIS ONE. OTHER QUESTIONS. I, I HAVE ONE COMMENT THAT JUST I APPRECIATE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT YOU USED IN THIS. IT DOES HARKEN BACK TO IT ALMOST. YOU KNOW, IT HAD SOME INDONESIAN AND EVEN CALLBACKS TO OUR PIER BEFORE IT WAS GONE. SO I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB ON THE DESIGN. IT DOES. I KNOW IT'S A BIG SCALE, BUT WITH THE DESIGN YOU PUT TOGETHER, IT BRINGS THAT MASSING DOWN A LITTLE BIT. SO. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS TWICE THE HEIGHT. THAT'S IT. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND. CALL THE ROLL. MEMBER. BARONE. OKAY, SO THAT WAS A MOTION FOR DENIAL. SO A VOTE FOR YES IS DENIAL. YES. YES. NO. MEMBER. CHRIS. YES. VICE CHAIR. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER.

FREDERICKSON. NO. MEMBER. KAPPLER. NO. MEMBER. BLOEMKER. NO. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. OKAY.

THREE. FOUR. SO THE MOTION FAILS, RIGHT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I JUST KIND OF WANT TO BRING UP A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION HERE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE CITY IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE CITY, BUT THIS IS MILES AWAY FROM CITY CENTER AND, YOU KNOW, MILES NORTH OF MAYBE THE THE NEXT CLOSEST AREA IN THE CITY. AND SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN NECESSARILY LIKE IF THIS IF THIS BUILDING WAS ON FIFTH AVENUE, I THINK IT'D BE A NO BRAINER DENIAL. BUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS ON A GOLF COURSE KIND OF ON ITS OWN, I DO THINK THAT YOU, UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD LINE STANCE OF. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN EVER GO ABOVE 30FT. I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS KIND OF ON ITS OWN. IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. SO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL COMFORTABLE JUST PUTTING A BLANKET RULE ON EVERYTHING. AND I DO THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO RUN INTO ISSUES WHEN YOU GO IN FRONT OF COUNCIL BECAUSE OF THIS SAME ISSUE. SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON IT. WE CAN MAYBE COME TO A CONSENSUS, I GUESS ONE COMMENT FROM MY THE REASON WHY I SAID NO IS BECAUSE I MAKE THE SIMILAR ASSUMPTION THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. IT'S AROUND WITHIN THE, THE GOLF COURSE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF THIS IS WITHIN A ONE HOUR OR ONE MILE AREA WITH ANY KIND OF MULTI USE, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY NO. AND SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE THING THAT WOULD DISCUSS WOULD DETER ME AND WITHOUT HAVING TO, WITHOUT HAVING MAYBE THE ANSWER, BUT MAYBE I MIGHT CHANGE MY NAME. IS THAT MAYBE UNTIL YOU COME BACK AND SHOW ME THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT SOMEBODY WITHIN A ONE MILE CIRCUIT CIRCLE, MAYBE I WOULD CHANGE MY MIND. JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR WITHIN THE OTHER CITY, PROBABLY WITHIN WITHIN THE CITY THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND THIS THING HERE. SO MAYBE I CAN I, CAN I CHANGE MY CAN, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? AND SHAME ON ME FOR NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER. HOW MANY FEET ARE IN A MILE? 42,000 TWO, 52, 8200. SO SO YOU CAN'T.

SO THIS PROPERTY YOU CAN'T REACH CITY PROPERTY. YES WE ARE CITY GO ACROSS THE STREET OF OF GOODLETTE. FRANK. THERE'S AUTOMOBILE DEALERS AND THOSE ARE IN THE CITY. THEY ARE NOT

[04:35:03]

YEAH. I GUESS MY COMMENT WOULD BE I. I JUST FELT THAT GOING FROM 30 TO 60FT WAS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL, TOO MUCH OF A MOVE FOR MY TASTE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER 45 OR 50 IS BETTER, BUT IT'S, IT'S A HUGE BUILDING. I MEAN, THERE'S JUST NO GETTING AROUND IT. I AGREE THAT PEOPLE CAN'T SEE IT, BUT THAT WAS MY CONCERN THAT IN THE CHURCH SITUATION, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE THE GOLF OF GOD, BUT IT'S A GREAT COURSE AND A GREAT OPERATION. BUT GOING FROM 30 TO IT'S NOT A DE MINIMIS DIFFERENCE. IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT IMPACTED ME. BUT I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M SOMEWHAT AMBIVALENT AT THE SAME TIME, BUT I JUST THOUGHT THAT DIFFERENTIATION WAS SO GREAT THAT I COULDN'T VOTE FOR IT. I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK MR. PERONE, YOU KNOW, MADE A POINT THAT WE MAYBE WE WENT TOO QUICKLY IN TALKING ABOUT THIS. IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THIS CLUBHOUSE IS, IT AFFECTS NOBODY. IT'S A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT USE OF THE SPACE THAN 1000 FOOT LONG THAT I AGREE WITH. AND TO HAVE TWO STORIES IN A NICE ARCHITECTURALLY LOOKING BUILDING, YOU NEEDED THE HEIGHT WE HAVE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT 60FT. I WENT THE WRONG WAY.

SORRY. THAT'S BASICALLY YOU SEE THAT YOU SEE THE I HATE THIS THING THAT'S TO THE CHIMNEY.

OKAY, SO THE ROOF LINE AND I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M GETTING THIS WRONG, IS IT IS NOT 60FT TO THE TIP TO RIGHT HERE. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF? I CAN'T. TO THE RIGHT. IT'S HIGHER. YEAH. ROUGHLY 44 TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE NOW. OKAY. BEING THAT THE BUILDING IS AS LONG AS IT IS AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IS OVER THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS IN LENGTH. WE'RE COMPRESSING THAT. BUT WITH A LOT OF SOCIAL CLUBS LIKE THIS, WE DESIGNED 15 FOOT CEILINGS. IT'S NOT OUT OF OUT OF ORDINARY FOR THE TYPE OF CLUBS THAT WE DESIGN. AND SO IF YOU COMPACT A 16 FOOT FLOOR TO FLOOR FROM FIRST FLOOR AND THEN A 1516 FOOT CEILING AND THEN A MANSARD TO HIDE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THAT ON THE GROUND.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING THAT HEIGHT OUT OF. SO THAT ACTUAL ROOF LINE IS ACTUALLY THE MANSARD THAT SHIELDS THE MECHANICAL WELL BEHIND IT. AND AGAIN, BEING THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING, WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME, SOME TERRACING TO SOME STEPPING TO IT. SO THE VERY CENTER PART IS WHERE WE HAVE THE 60 AND THOSE ARE THE APPENDAGES. COULD YOU SHOW A PICTURE? I'M LOOKING AT IT NOW, BUT I CAN'T SEE HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING EXCEEDS THAT 40 SOME ODD FOOT. YEAH. SO IF WE GO TO THE CENTER OF IT HERE, THIS CENTER PART RIGHT HERE IS THE TALLEST PART. AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN QUESTION AT THIS POINT. THE WINGS ON EACH SIDE TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT ARE BOTH AT 44. AND YOU CAN BARELY SEE BEHIND THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. IT'S THE MANSARD THAT HIDES THE TALL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE SEVEN FOOT TALL AS IT IS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BALANCING THE HEIGHT OF THE MANSARD TO HIDE THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND ALSO THE HEIGHT OF THE CEILING BEHIND THAT. WELL, THE MOTION TO DENY FAILED. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MAY I JUST CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION BRIEFLY? THE I THINK THAT THE BUILDING IS BEAUTIFUL. THE PLAN IS SOUND.

I THINK THAT YOUR WORK ON THE PARKING IS SPOT ON. AND IF. 58838 DIDN'T WASN'T DRAFTED IN EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS, I WOULD BE A YES, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE PRECLUDES ME FROM,

[04:40:05]

IF I'M PRECLUDED FROM VOTING YES INSTEAD OF I'M VOTING NO BECAUSE I THINK I'M PRECLUDED FROM VOTING YES, BECAUSE I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALLOWED TO BE HERE. THE INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE AND WE CAN GO ABOVE 30FT. YOU MAY YOU MAY, YOU MAY HAVE. AND AS LAWYERS, WE DO THIS SOMETIMES DIFFERING OF OPINION. AND YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAMSTRUNG, HAMSTRUNG FROM VOTING. YES. BUT YOU'VE SAID ON THE RECORD YOU'D VOTE YES IF YOU THOUGHT THE CODE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO VOTE YES. YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT. AND ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT IS IF I'M SORRY, IF THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS FOWLER, NICE TRY. YOU'RE ALL WET. BUT THIS IF 58, 838 WOULD ALLOW YOU TO VOTE YES FOR THIS PROJECT, IF YOU WERE INTERPRETING IT THE RIGHT WAY, ASSUMING THAT I'M WRONG, THEN I'M SAYING MORE POWER TO YOU, CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S MY. THAT WOULD BE MY DEAL. I JUST THINK THAT I'M CONSTRAINED BY 58838 THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN TO APPROVE THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT PHRASE OF ABOVE OF 60FT. WELL, I WOULD AGREE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS WATER TOWERS, CHURCH STEEPLES. RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S THE KEY. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT A WATER TOWER OR A CHURCH STEEPLE. OKAY, GUYS, BUT WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY. SO I THINK MY ANSWER, I JUST SANITY CHECK THE MOTION WAS FOR A DENIAL. YES. AND FOR PEOPLE VOTED NO TO DENY IT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHAT I'M WANTS TO CHANGE. OKAY. BUT AS IT STANDS. OKAY.

SORRY. THANK YOU. I JUST YEAH, WE CAN YOU CAN REMAKE THE MOTION, BUT CAN I ALSO ASK A QUESTION? YES, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT WHAT THE PETITIONER SAID ABOUT ULTIMATELY THIS IS GOING TO BE COUNCIL'S DECISION. ISN'T THERE AN OPTION FOR US TO IF WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE OR DENY THIS, WE CAN JUST MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO VOTE IT UP OR DOWN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU HAVE TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION. IF WE VOTE NO, THOUGH, IT DOES NOT GO TO COUNCIL. YES IT DOES. IT STILL GOES TO COUNCIL VOTING. YOU'RE YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY. YEAH, YEAH. I WILL REMAKE THE MOTION TO DENY. I WILL SECOND. WE'RE READY BEFORE WE VOTE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION ON THIS, WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT. I WOULD RELY UPON WHAT IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS AN OPINION ON THIS AT THIS TIME? I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS.

WELL, A COUPLE OF A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST, I THINK THIS IS A KIND OF A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE IN A WAY, I DON'T KNOW. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN APPLIED STRICTLY TO A PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR TO A PRIVATE BUILDING OR TODAY, OR TODAY FOR TODAY, I GUESS WHAT'S JUMPING OUT AT ME IS WHY MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND STRUCTURES? WHY NOT JUST SAY, STRUCTURES MAYBE APPROVED BY CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS HIGHER THAN THAT, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT. SO AND THAT'S HOW THAT'S BEEN APPLIED HISTORICALLY, IT'S BEEN APPLIED THAT IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. IF YOU RECALL, THE HOSPITAL CAME THROUGH AND THEY WANTED THEIR IN THE PUBLIC, THEY REASONED PUBLIC SERVICE. WE DID NOT. WE ACTUALLY DID AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT TO CREATE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION LANGUAGE FOR THE HOSPITAL, BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THEY COULD NOT BRING THE ENTIRE BUILDING UP. AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE HEART INSTITUTE IS CRITICAL TO THE COMMUNITY. YEAH, ALL I DON'T REALLY HAVE A FIRM OPINION ON IT. ONLY THEN ONLY THAT I THINK THAT THIS IS POORLY WRITTEN IN A WAY, BECAUSE I, I JUST IF IT THE THEY'RE CALLING OUT PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND STRUCTURES AND THEN THEY'RE GIVING YOU SOME EXAMPLES, WHICH I AGREE WITH COUNSEL HERE.

THAT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. IT SAYS, ET CETERA. SO THERE IT'S NOT THE ONLY LIST. BUT YOU KNOW, I AGAIN, YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, NOT FINAL APPROVAL. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW

[04:45:01]

SO, YOU KNOW, WHY DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK WITH THAT ANALYSIS? I THINK WHAT I HAVE, I THINK I HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO SAID THEY, THEY WOULD DO IT. ONE FEELS AT LEAST ONE SAYS HE FEELS CONSTRAINED AT 30FT. AND ANOTHER SAID, IF IF I IF HE HAD AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWED ONE MILE THAT THERE WAS NO CITY PROPERTY IMPACTED BY THAT, HE WOULD HAVE SAID YES. AND MY. MR. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE'LL WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT AT THE. WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVEN'T COMPLETED THAT VOTE, HAVE WE? OH, I THOUGHT WE HEARD I THOUGHT. OH, I THOUGHT I THOUGHT YOU ALREADY VOTED. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALREADY VOTED YES. STAY TUNED. MY BAD. OKAY, CHAIR COUGHLIN, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. BUT WITH THE ONE WE'RE GOING TO NEED AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION. BUT I AM GOING TO LIMIT THE AREA OF THE BUILDING THAT CAN BE OVER THE 45FT. AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT PASS. BUT I WANT TO HAVE THAT VOTE. LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND YOU. YOU BASICALLY WANT THIS PLAN, AND THE HEIGHTS I WANTED TO BUILD THAT PLAN SHOWS ME. OKAY, SO YOUR YES IS CONDITIONED UPON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEING CHANGED AS TO THE AREA. SO WE DON'T INCREASE THE THE HIGH AREA. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND THE CENTER SECTION, WE ARE AT 44 ON THE WINGS HERE. YEAH, THE CENTER SECTION IS AT 60. THAT'S TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE SCALE. SO IT WASN'T A REALLY LONG. I GOTCHA THAT'S SO YOU'RE BASED ON THIS PLAN. YOU'LL GET YOUR VOTE. OKAY. SO I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE HAVE WE COMPLETED OUR VOTE ON THE MOTION. YES WE DID. IT FAILED. FAILED FAILED FAILED. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO THE THE BEING CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE PLANS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. AND IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THAT, IT HAS TO COME BACK TO US. SECOND. OKAY. MAY I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION? COULD YOU READ THAT BACK TO ME, PLEASE? SORRY. EXCUSE ME. THAT'S GREAT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. SO THE RESOLUTION THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET REFERENCES THIS EXACT PLAN. SO IF YOU'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THAT RESOLUTION, THAT RESOLUTION IS TIED TO APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THIS THIS PLAN THAT YOU HAVE. THEY HAVE TO BUILD WHAT THEY SUBMITTED OR COME BACK TO US. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CAN'T TAKE THIS EXTRA 15FT AND RUN IT DOWN THE EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND INCREASE THE I GOT YOU.

OKAY. SO JUST. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. OKAY. MEMBER. BARONE. YES. MEMBER. FREDERICKSON. YES.

MEMBER. KAPPLER. NO. WITH THE ONE MILE SHIRT. VICE CHAIR. FOWLER. NO. MEMBER. BLOCKER.

YES. MEMBER. CREASE. NO. CHAIR. COUGHLAN. YES. WARD THREE PASSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS FUN. I WISH I'D HAVE BROUGHT SOMETHING THAT I COULD HAVE DONE. THAT NEXT ITEM ON

[9.G) A Resolution Determining Petition 26-V3, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Sections 56-54 and 58-176 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow an Additional Encroachment of 7.5 Feet into the Required Front Yard for a Means of Egress and an Encroachment into the Required Side Yard as the Line of Setback Bends to a 12:12 Slope Beyond the First 15 Feet of Vertical Height Relating to the Elevation of an Existing Single-Family Home in the R1-10 Zoning District, for the Property Owned by Susan and Douglas Pearson, Trustees, and Located at 2170 Sheepshead Drive, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing An Effective Date.]

[04:50:01]

WAIT A MINUTE. DON'T BEGIN YET. I'VE GOT TO READ IT. A SECOND. OKAY. THIS IS AND THIS IS BEING PROVIDED ADDITIONAL. OKAY. IS IT. IS THERE A QUESTION I HAVE. WHILE YOU'RE PASSING THAT OUT.

I'M GOING TO READ SAVE A LITTLE TIME. THIS IS A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 26 V THREE RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 56, 54 AND 58, 176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 7.5FT TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FOR MEANS OF EGRESS AND ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD. AS A SIDE SETBACK BENDS TO A 1212 SLOPE BEYOND THE FIRST 15FT OF VERTICAL HEIGHT RELATING TO THE ELEVATION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THE R1 TEN DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY SUSAN DOUGLAS PEARSON. TRUSTEES AND LOCATION AT 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS CLOSURE IS WHERE EVERYBODY IN. IF YOU'RE INTENDING TO TESTIFY, IF YOU COULD, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. THANK YOU. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. DISCLOSURES STARTING ON MY LEFT.

NONE. NONE, NONE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. AWARE OF THE PROPERTY. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. OKAY. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. YOU CAN PROCEED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, AND THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. I'M SUSAN PIERSON, AND I'M HERE WITH MY HUSBAND, DOUG. WE'RE THE OWNERS OF 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE. AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE TASHIMA LEWIS FOR ALL THE HELP SHE'S GIVEN US AS RESIDENTS TRYING TO GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WHICH IS JUST NEW TO US. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO A DIFFERENT PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S RAISING A HOUSE AND HASN'T BEEN DONE A NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE.

BEFORE GOING INTO THE DETAILS, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN MAYBE WITH THE END IN MIND, TO LOOK WHERE WE'RE GOING. WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO END UP SEEKING THE APPROVAL OF A 4.6FT ADDITIONAL VARIANCE NEEDED TO PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS TO OUR PLANNED ELEVATED HOME. THE TWO KEY FACTORS DRIVING THIS DECISION ARE HEIGHT AND STAIR DESIGN. SO WHEN WE BRING OUR HOUSE UP, WE NEED TO GET STAIRS TO GET DOWN, AND THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THIS VARIANCE. AS YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESOLVE THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION. IT WAS ONLY SIX INCHES. AND I'LL EXPLAIN IN DETAIL HOW WE DID THAT. BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, WE FOUND A WAY TO DEAL WITH THOSE SIX INCHES. SO LET ME GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF OUR HOME AND A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON IT. HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1969, ITS CURRENT LOWEST LEVEL FLOOR ELEVATION IS SIX FEET, SO WE'RE QUITE LOW. THE CURRENT DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION IS TEN FEET, WHICH

[04:55:01]

TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE ON OUR HOME, YOU. THIS IS A PICTURE ON THE LEFT THAT SHOWS OUR HOUSE RELATIVE TO THE OTHER TWO OR THE OTHER HOUSES AROUND US. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE MUCH LOWER. WHAT WILL COME UP LATER IS IF WE RAISE THAT 11FT, WE'RE STILL AT 2211 FOR OUR TOTAL HEIGHT FOR THE HOUSE. THE HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE 30FT. SO EVEN BY RAISING IT, WE'RE UNDER THE THE HEIGHT OF THE OF THE OTHER HOMES AROUND US. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE A ONE STORY HOUSE, NOT A TWO STORY HOUSE. THE THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS YOU THE HOUSE, NOT EVEN AT THE. THE HEIGHT OF HURRICANE A, BUT IT DOES SHOW YOU HOW SIGNIFICANTLY WE FLOODED AND BRINGS UP THE POINT THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING MOVING FORWARD. BEING FAIRLY NEW TO. LOOKING INTO RESILIENCY PROJECTS, WE STARTED ON A PATH OF TALKING TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. SO WE CONSULTED WITH DAVID SHAWN, WHO HAS LIFTED OVER 5000 HOUSES SINCE 1993. WE ALSO SPOKE WITH. SEVERAL OTHER LIFT COMPANIES WHO HAVE EXPERIENCES IN THIS AREA. ALL OF THEM LOOKED AT OUR PROPERTY, GAVE US BIDS, AND EVERY ONE OF THEM TOLD US THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS A FULL STORY LIFT. WE DID.

WE ALSO WORKED WITH RDA CONSULTING ENGINEERS BECAUSE THEIR LOCAL RYAN ARCHITECTURE.

AND THEN BECAUSE WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT GOING UP 11FT. WE ALSO SPOKE WITH GANDY FIRE AND SAFETY CONSULTING BECAUSE ONCE YOU'RE UP THAT HIGH, YOU START WORRYING ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES.

SO PART OF OUR DESIGN INCORPORATES DEALING WITH THOSE SAFETY ISSUES. FEMA IN THEIR BROCHURES ALSO STATE THAT IF YOU ELEVATE A FULL STORY OR IF YOU ELEVATE OVER FOUR FEET, WHICH WE NEED TO DO AT LEAST FOUR FEET, THAT THEY RECOMMEND GOING 2 TO 3FT ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, WHICH PUTS US UP PRETTY HIGH. AND ONCE WE DO THAT, WE NEED PARKING UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHAT DRIVES THE 11 FOOT. SO I'LL GET TO THAT. ANOTHER INTERESTING PIECE I FOUND WAS NFIP IS CURRENTLY DISCOUNTING PROPERTIES. SO I ACTUALLY YESTERDAY CALLED AND LOOKED AT WHAT WHAT ARE THEIR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES. AND I FOUND THAT IF I RAISE THE HOUSE FOUR FEET, I GET A DISCOUNT SIGNIFICANTLY OVER WHAT I HAVE NOW BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGE ISN'T THE, THE WHAT I'M POINTING TO, IT'S HOW THEY SEE THE RISK IN THE HOUSE. BUT IF I RAISE IT 11FT, THEY GIVE ME A 50% MORE DISCOUNT BECAUSE THEY SEE THAT'S HOW MUCH MORE IMPORTANT IT IS FOR ME TO GET IT ABOVE FOUR FEET. WHAT I'M POINTING TO IS THAT WE REALLY ARE LOOKING AT LONG TERM FLOOD RESILIENCY. A FOUR FOOT LIFT WOULD. WE'VE ALREADY HIT THREE FEET. I DON'T SEE AS A LONG TERM ALTERNATIVE FOR US BECAUSE

[05:00:07]

WE'RE KEEPING THE LANDSCAPING FAIRLY CONSISTENT. AND WHEN YOU DO A LIFT. THIS I FOUND REALLY

[05:05:04]

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THOSE ARE THE DRAWINGS THAT SHOW IT NO LONGER ENCROACHES. AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'RE GOING TO CUT AWAY THE CONCRETE FOOTER AROUND THE AT THE UPPER LEVEL. SO WHAT USED TO BE THE FOUNDATION? WE'RE GOING TO CUT THAT AWAY.

PUT IN STEEL BEAMS TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE SIX INCHES. SO YOU CAN STILL GET IN AND OUT OF THE THE NEW PARKING AREA. AND WE TOOK CARE OF THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION ISSUE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY, SO THAT'S WHY WE TOOK THAT AWAY. THE THE SECOND PART IS A FRONT SETBACK FOR THE EGRESS STAIRS. OUR HOUSE SITS AT 31FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S A 30 FOOT SETBACK. SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE FOOT. SO BY BY ELEVATING THE HOUSE GOING FOR RESILIENCY, WE HAVE TO HAVE STAIRS. AND WE NEED TO HAVE SAFE STAIRS. AGAIN, THESE ARE IT'S 11 FOOT DROP. SO WE ENGAGED THE ARCHITECT, THE ENGINEERS AND THE SAFETY EXPERT TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS HERE. WE DID MULTIPLE STAIR DESIGNS AND HAD LOTS OF GOOD DISCUSSIONS AROUND IT. AND YOU KNOW, IT BOILED DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE THERE'S VARYING WAYS YOU CAN POSITION THEM, BUT YOU HAVE THE STRAIGHT BACK, THE SWITCHBACK AND A T SHAPED STAIRS. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TALK ABOUT TWO OPTIONS THAT OOPS, SEVERAL OPTIONS THAT WE HAD AND WHERE WE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING MOVING FORWARD. SO THIS IS OBVIOUSLY STRAIGHT LINE STAIR. THE ADVANTAGE OF IT IS IT IS THE IT HAS THE LEAST ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK. AS YOU SEE, IT JUST COMES. WELL, LET ME GO BACK. THE REAL LEAST ENCROACHMENT IS IF WE IF WE JUST LITERALLY COME RIGHT OUT OF THE HOUSE AND GO STRAIGHT DOWN, THAT'S GOING TO BE WITH A PLATFORM, A 17 FOOT DROP, WHICH WE WHICH WE DECIDED JUST IT'S NOT REALISTIC. SO WHAT WE DID

[05:10:03]

IT REDUCES THE FLOOD PRESSURE. IT'S CENTRALLY BALANCED. AND WE HAVE A HORSESHOE DRIVEWAY THERE NOW. IT STILL IT DOESN'T COME OUT SO FAR. IT IMPACTS THE HORSESHOE AND IT REMAINS 16FT WIDE, WHICH MEANS AMBULANCES, FIREARM FIRE TRUCKS CAN COME IN BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE A 12 FOOT.

BUT IT IS THE LONGEST ENCROACHMENT. AND THAT'S WHY WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY SEE IS THAT ENCROACHMENT. SO WHAT WE ALSO HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT IS WHAT WE CALL THE INSET T T SHAPED. WE HAVE A. WE HAVE A FRONT PORCH AREA THAT NOW IS GOING TO BE UP HIGH. THAT'S TEN FEET LONG. IF WE CUT INTO THAT FOR BY THREE FEET, WE CAN MOVE THE WHOLE STAIRCASE STARTING UNDER THAT PORCH. SO THAT'S A THREE FOOT BENEFIT. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING 4.6 VERSUS SEVEN. THE SEVEN. SO WHAT THE THE FULL T SHAPE IS SEVEN. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR. SIX NOW THE REASON WE DID NOT PRESENT THAT INITIALLY IS WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT. BUT DAVIE SHORING, WHO'S ALSO A FOUNDATION EXPERT, TOLD US THAT WHEN THEY LIFT THEY REALLY CAN'T CONFIRM THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE CONCRETE THAT'S HOLDING UP THE PORCH IS GOING TO WORK WHEN WE LIFT THE HOUSE AND IT'S GOING TO BE STRONG ENOUGH. SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS HOPE FOR THAT. BUT UNTIL THEY LIFT THE HOUSE ENOUGH TO SEE THE FOUNDATION, YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT'S AN OPTION. SO WE WORKED WITH WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM, TALKING ABOUT CAN, CAN WE? BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT HOW FAR THESE GO OUT. CAN WE, CAN WE DO THAT? AND THEY SAID IT IS A RISK. IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT RISK. SO WHAT WE WHAT WE'VE COME BACK TO SAY IS. WE WOULD. LOOK FOR THIS 4.6. WELL, INSTEAD OF SAYING WE'RE NOT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE BIGGEST ENCROACHMENT NOW. AND THEN IF WE CAN DO BETTER, WE WILL.

WE'RE NOW REVERSING THAT AND SAY, WELL, WE'RE PRETTY SURE WE CAN GET THE CONCRETE CUT AND IT WILL WORK. AND WE MAY NEED TO DO REDESIGN OR SOMETHING ELSE IF IT DOES NOT. BUT AGAIN, THEY DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIG RISK, A SIGNIFICANT RISK. HOWEVER, THEY CAN'T GUARANTEE

[05:15:09]

SO WE'VE MADE CHANGES BASED ON SOME OF THEIR COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU DID AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION AND YOU PROBABLY CAN HIRE YOUR SERVICES OUT. WE HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH ABOUT THIS.

AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT IT'S A BUILDING PLAN. CAN I SEE ALL YOUR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS? WELL, I'M NOT CHANGING THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS LITERALLY GOING UP. NO WE HAVEN'T. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE STAFF NOW. OKAY. AND THEN IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL GET BACK AND ASK YOU A QUESTION. BUT I WILL JUST MAKE A GENERAL OBSERVATION THAT THIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF METHODS TO DEAL WITH THE FLOODING WE'RE GETTING IN NAPLES, AND TRY TO MAKE WHAT WE CALL LESS BAD DECISIONS SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE STAFF. NOW, YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT IF YOU'D LIKE. OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEFORE YOU IS VARIANCE PETITION 26 V THREE. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PETITIONER IS SUSAN AND DOUGLAS PEARSON. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 7.5FT INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FOR A MEANS OF EGRESS AND AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD. AS THE LINE OF SETBACK BENDS TO A 1212 SLOPE BEYOND THE FIRST 15FT OF VERTICAL HEIGHT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 56, 54 AND 58-176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE, BUILT IN 1969, THE PROPERTY IS A ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RANCH STYLE HOME WITH MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES LOCATED IN THE ROYAL HARBOR NEIGHBORHOOD. ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025, THE PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR BUILDING PERMIT PRAD2506786 TO ELEVATE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE PERMIT FAILED THE PLANNING REVIEW, FINDING THAT THE PLANS DID NOT SATISFY THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 56-54 AND 58-176. SECTION 56-54 REGULATES ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE REQUIRED YARDS, AND SECTION 56-176 ESTABLISHES THE SETBACK OR MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THE ENGINEERING PLANS PREPARED BY DAVIE SHORING AND DATED MARCH 12TH, 2026, INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION D F WILL BE 17.1 9VD FEMA CURRENT FLOODPLAIN MAP, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 8TH, 2024. ADOPTED THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION B F AT NINE FEET. THE BUILDING CODE, ADOPTED IN ITS FIFTH EDITION IN 2014, ALLOWED FOR FREE BOARDING ELEVATIONS TO BE ABOVE B F. THEREFORE, THE ESTABLISHED DESIGN FLOOR ELEVATION FOR THIS RESIDENCE IS TEN FEET. THE PROPOSED 17.1FT ELEVATION RESULTS IN THE ROOF STRUCTURE EXTENDING BEYOND THE 1212 SLOPE, OR THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION, AND THE FRONT ENTRY STAIRWAY SYSTEM PROPOSED THAT 19.4FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR A TOTAL ENCROACHMENT OF 10.6FT, WHICH INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED THREE FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD. IN AN EFFORT TO MITIGATE HURRICANE RELATED FLOOD IMPACTS, THE PETITIONERS BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL PROVIDE A SAFE AND HABITABLE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND SUPPORT THE CITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES TO PROMOTE RESILIENCY, BALANCED REDEVELOPMENT PRESERVATION AND HELP ALLEVIATE CITY RESOURCES RESULTING FROM GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT. THE PETITIONERS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO SECTION 58-176 TO ENCROACH INTO THE 1212 SLOPE

[05:20:02]

A TOTAL OF 154 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS OF TODAY, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE, BOTH IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST AND A LETTER OF SUPPORT WITH FIVE SIGNATURES FROM NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS. I PLACED ON YOUR DESK THIS MORNING CORRESPONDENCE THAT CAME IN AFTER THE PUBLISHED AGENDA AND THE WHAT WAS WHAT WAS PROVIDED BEFORE WAS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET. ASIDE FROM THE OPEN CODE VIOLATION FOR INSTALLING FLOOD PANELS WITHOUT A PERMIT, NO OTHER NOTEWORTHY CONCERNS DERIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW. PURSUANT TO SECTION 4636 C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FOUND THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET EXCEPT FOR THRESHOLD CRITERION THREE, AN ADDITIONAL CRITERION ONE WITH ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOUR AND FIVE ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED IN POLICY 1-3 BEST SUMS UP THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS. THE AIM OF THE PROPOSED ELEVATION IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME FROM DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED ENTRY STAIRWAY SYSTEM AND DECORATIVE SLAT WALL PANELS CREATE A VISUAL AND GEOMETRIC DISCONNECTION FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL ESTHETIC. INSTEAD, THE STAIRCASE PRESENTS AS A UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD AND DETRACTS FROM THE VISUAL CONTINUITY OF THE EXISTING STREETSCAPE, WHILE MITIGATING HURRICANE IMPACTS IS INDISPENSABLE FOR SAFETY AND RESILIENCY, THE USE OF APPROPRIATE DESIGN AND MATERIALS IS COMMENSURATELY ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS REMAIN SENSITIVE TO THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN BE REVISED TO LIMIT THE ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE TO A HEIGHT THAT ALLOWS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD. AS THE LINE OF SETBACK BENDS TO A 1212 SLOPE BEYOND THE FIRST 15FT OF HEIGHT, AND TO LIMIT THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT ENTRYWAY SYSTEM INTO. THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE FRONT MINIMUM YARD NECESSARY FOR EGRESS, AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. TODAY, I PROVIDED YOU DOCUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER THAT CAME IN. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU DID. THE DOCUMENT CAME IN FROM EMINENT CONSTRUCTION, AND RYAN ARCHITECT, INC. NONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE ANALYSIS OF MY REPORT. EVEN IN READING IT TODAY, THE FOUR FOOT LIFT OPTION ELEVATION IS AN OPTION ACCORDING TO EMINENT CONSTRUCTION, WHERE THEY CAN ACHIEVE THE SAME INTENT TO PRESERVE THEIR HOME FROM FLOODING IMPACTS AT A FOUR FOOT ELEVATION. THE RYAN ARCHITECT ALSO INDICATED IN HIS REPORT TODAY THAT THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS THAT WAS PROVIDED DO NOT PROVIDE THE FINAL DETAILS OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE STAIRWAYS AND SO FORTH, WHICH ALSO LEND ITSELF TO SAY THAT WHAT WAS PROVIDED DID NOT TIE NICELY WITH THE EXISTING HOME. BASED ON ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TODAY, THIS IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY REVISE THE PLANS AND SUBMIT WHAT WE CAN SEE TO VERIFY THAT THEY NO LONGER NEED THE 12 VARIANCE FOR 1212 SLOPE, AND TO SEE EXACTLY HOW LESS THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE FRONT STAIRWAY SYSTEM WILL BE. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. AND I WOULD ADD TO. WE HAVE EVEN IN THE PLAN SETS THAT ARE IN THE PACKAGE AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS TODAY, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT. THE PLANS WERE, YOU KNOW, THE DRAW THAT I'M LOOKING AT, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS WERE NOT SIMILAR. THE THE GARAGE DOORS ON THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE THAT I'M SEEING IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, IT WAS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN HERE TODAY WITH RESPECT TO THE STAIRS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF AMBIGUITY FOR US. WE DON'T HAVE FLOOR PLANS. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS ALL OPEN. BUT IF YOU KNOW FROM THE FRONT IT'S FILLED IN. BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE REAR ELEVATION, IT LOOKS LIKE THE WHOLE SIDE AND REAR ARE OPEN. SO IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT'S PARKING, WHAT'S STORAGE, YOU KNOW, COULD, COULD A GARAGE DOOR, QUOTE UNQUOTE, BE OBSTRUCTED WITH A STAIRWAY IF IT'S TRULY JUST STORAGE SPACE UNDERNEATH AND IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT PROVIDING FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS. IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE WHAT, YOU KNOW,

[05:25:02]

VARIANCE. WHEN WE GRANT A VARIANCE, WE DON'T JUST SAY WE'RE GRANTING YOU A VARIANCE TO ALLOW YOUR HOUSE TO BE AT THIS HEIGHT. SO THE VARIANCE IS A VERY SPECIFIC APPROVAL FOR A PROBLEM HERE THAT I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT, THAT WE NEED TO BE SYMPATHETIC ABOUT RESILIENCY ISSUES. AND FRANKLY, I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT STAIRS. AND I THINK IF I WERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, THE APPLICANT, I PUT AN INTERIOR ELEVATOR IN IF I COULD, BECAUSE THAT'S A LONG WAY UP. AS WE GET OLDER. LET ME FINISH. BUT I'M HEARING THAT WE NEED A BETTER SET OF PLANS FOR HER TO PROCEED. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WE NEED A CONSISTENT SET OF PLANS THAT ALL SHEETS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER, AND ALSO DEPICTING EXACTLY WHAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE REFERENCING A RESOLUTION IN OUR RESOLUTION. WE'RE REFERENCING THIS SET OF PLANS.

WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. SO IF WE COULD. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TALKING ABOUT A POTENTIAL CONTINUANCE HERE. IF WE COULD GIVE HER A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION OR GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT SHE MIGHT ACCOMPLISH HERE, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT WOULD EITHER BE A CONTINUANCE IF YOU WANTED IT TO COME BACK TO YOU, OR IF YOU FELT COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL. BUT BASED ON THE PROVISION OF OUR REVISED PLAN SET, WE ALSO HAVE OUR FLOODPLAIN COORDINATOR IN OUR STAFF TODAY THAT CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO ELEVATION, FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS, FEMA REGULATIONS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE. I JUST DISAGREE WITH THEM. I THINK THEY'RE TOO CONSERVATIVE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON. YES, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER. WOULD YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM? ABSOLUTELY. AND HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU JUST HIT THE BUTTON ON THE RIGHT HAND.

OH IT'S ON, NEVER MIND. IT'S ON. OKAY. WELL, I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET. WE'VE BEEN NEIGHBORS FOR A LONG TIME, AND WE ACTUALLY HARBORED THE PIERSONS WHEN THEIR HOUSE HAD THREE FEET OF WATER IN IT. SO OBVIOUSLY IT WAS UPSETTING TO ALL OF US AND THEY'RE TRYING TO AVOID IT.

WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE HERE IS REALLY THE SETBACK FOR THE STAIRS. BY NOT ELEVATING THE HOUSE BY 11FT, THEY LOSE THEIR GARAGES AT FOUR FEET. THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE GARAGES IN THE HOUSE. GOING TO 11FT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE GARAGES, BUT IT ALSO NECESSITATES NECESSITATES A STAIRWAY TO GET UP THERE. AND THE ISSUE HERE IS REALLY THE AMOUNT OF SETBACK FOR THE STAIRS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WOULD BE APPROVED IS LESS THAN THREE FEET.

VISUALLY, YOU WILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE FROM THE STREET. IT DOES NOT EVEN ENCROACH ON THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE AND ALL OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THEM BEING ALLOWED TO RAISE THEIR 11FT, PUT THE PROPER STAIRCASE IN AND GET ON WITH IT. THANK YOU. I LIKE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE IN THIS WORLD. THANK YOU.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO PASS IT AROUND. BUT IF I HAD A GOAL HERE TODAY, IT WOULD BE TO TRY TO PASS IT ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ENOUGH GUIDANCE SO WE DON'T SLOW HER DOWN TOO MUCH BECAUSE SLOWNESS IS MONEY. BUT ANYWAY, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YES. AND I APPLAUD THE PETITIONER FOR LOOKING TO RAISE THEIR PROPERTY. WE'VE HAD SOME BEFORE, AND I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE THINKING THAT WAY, HOWEVER. TEN FEET VERSUS 17.1FT. I THINK THAT THE PETITIONER IS CREATING A PROBLEM FOR THEMSELVES WITH THE THE VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD, OF THE ENCROACHMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AT TEN FEET, BECAUSE I SUSPECT THE ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE WAY LESS AND LESS PROBLEMATIC, AND I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE

[05:30:01]

SO I KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS. IN THE HOUSE I HAVE. HERE WE ARE, 17FT NAVD, 13.5FT ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD, SO I KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS. WITH A SITUATION LIKE THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT HOW YOU CAN GO TO THE MINIMUM AMOUNT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A GARAGE UNDERNEATH IT. I NOTICE YOU HAVE THREE FEET HERE ABOVE THE TOP OF THE GARAGE TO THE TOP OF THE FIRST FLOOR. IN OUR HOUSE, IT'S A FOOT AND A HALF. SO I THINK SOMEHOW BETWEEN YOUR TRUSSING AND WHERE YOU CAN PUT THE POSTS AND STUFF, I THINK THERE'S A WAY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A FOOT AND A HALF FROM YOUR 11.5, 11FT TO NINE AND A HALF. SO THAT IS AWESOME.

I WOULD SAY THAT I LIKE THE IDEA OF ADDING AN ELEVATOR HERE. SO YOU GOT THE SPACE IN THE OLD GARAGE. I WOULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO USE THAT. I WOULD NOT USE THAT AS STORAGE. IT'S ONLY GOING TO DO THIS THING. YOU GOT A WHOLE NOTHER SPACE. THAT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IN A ANOTHER ROOM AND ANOTHER. ANYWAY. I MEAN, YOU DON'T NEED TO. I MEAN, SO THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATIONS AS FAR AS THE STAIRS GO, YOU YOU DID ONE WHERE IF THIS IS SORT OF THE THE HOUSE, YOU HAD THE THING COME THIS WAY AND GO THIS WAY AND OUR HOUSE, IT GOES SORT OF A LITTLE BIT THIS WAY, IT GOES THIS WAY AND LIKE THIS WAY. SO IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GOING OUT. SO I WOULD CONSIDER DOING THAT. AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT FLOOD PANELS YOU USED BECAUSE I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR BECAUSE MY GARAGE HAD 37IN IN, AND I'D LIKE NOT TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. BUT I SUPPORT THIS, I THINK WITH A COUPLE SWITCHES TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, FINE TUNE THE, THE DIMENSIONS AND STUFF. I, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WE TRY TO FINE TUNE IT. YES. SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, ONE, IF THERE IS A CONTINUANCE, CAN THEY COME BACK IN A MONTH AND PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT FOR.

WHAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE PETITIONER? THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO YOU ESSENTIALLY, AT THIS POINT, IF A BUILDING PERMIT CAME IN, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE WOULD BE. RIGHT. SO YOU NEED MORE CONSISTENT DESIGNS, RIGHT? WOULD THAT RESOLVE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT ABOVE FEMA? WELL, THE VARIANCE IS, IS IS UP TO YOU. SO THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE GREATER ENCROACHMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STAIR DESIGN GUY, YOU KNOW, DRIVES THE ENCROACHMENT, WE WERE JUST WANTING MORE. THE TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD SUBSTANTIATING WHY THAT, WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT. WHY DO YOU NEED THAT? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS A VARIANCE. THIS IS A HARDSHIP BASED REQUEST. THIS ISN'T YOU KNOW, UNLIKE OTHER REQUESTS BEFORE YOU. THIS IS IT'S A VARIANCE.

SO THERE NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, TESTIMONY AND HARDSHIP ON THE RECORD FOR WHY IT'S NECESSARY FOR THAT VARIANCE. IT SOUNDS TODAY LIKE THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED. WE NEED TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO WE NEED SOMETHING TO IF I CAN ADD, IF THEY IF THEY COME BACK HERE AT THE END OF THE MONTH, I MEAN, AT THE NEXT MEETING, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO GET TO. IT WOULD NOT GO TO COUNCIL UNTIL THE FALL BECAUSE COUNCIL TAKES A RECESS.

YEAH. SO SO ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE IS THAT WE CONDITION IT UPON A SET OF CONSISTENT DESIGNS, AND THEY'D HAVE A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET THAT TOGETHER. IS THAT POSSIBLE FOR YOU FOLKS? CAN I, CAN I SAY SOME LIGHT ON THIS? THAT'S THE BUILDER ON OUR PANEL. OH GOOD. BECAUSE I THINK I MAY THIS MAY BE HELPFUL. WHAT THEY'RE IN FRONT OF US FOR TODAY IS A VARIANCE, RIGHT? WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DESIGN OR HOW THIS HOUSE IS COMING TOGETHER. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE ONLY THING THEY'RE COMING TO US IS FOR VARIANCE. SOUNDS LIKE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION THING FIGURED OUT. WHAT ERIC IS LETTING US KNOW IS PERMITTING WISE. THEY HAVE A LOT TO DO BECAUSE THEY NEED TO COME. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A FULL SET OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, ENGINEERING THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH US.

HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET A VARIANCE, STAFF AND US WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE BECAUSE THIS WON'T GO TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL HOME. SO WE DO WANT TO PROBABLY SEE WHAT THOSE STAIRS LOOK LIKE AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO HELP THEM MOVE AHEAD. AGAIN, I'M ISOLATING. WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A VARIANCE FOR THE STAIRS, RIGHT.

LET'S SAY THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT BECAUSE I A FEW OF THE EMAILS ARE CONFUSING THE DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD'S EDGE. OKAY, SO TO DO THE MATH FOR EVERYONE, EVEN THEIR PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S ALSO A SETBACK. SO, SO EVEN IF THEY GET, IF THEY GET THE SEVEN AND A HALF ADDED TO THE THREE, 10.5FT, WHEN YOU STAND ON THE ROAD'S EDGE, IT'S STILL 41.5FT

[05:35:07]

SHOW WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT GARAGE DOORS SHOWN HERE THAT ARE SHOWN THERE WHERE THE STAIR ENDS. WE JUST NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. CONSISTENT. ONE SET OF PLANS WE CAN REFERENCE IN THE RESOLUTION SO THE COUNCIL KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. OKAY. CONSISTENT WOULD HELP THEM DO THAT. IF WE GIVE YOU THE VARIANCE. IF YEAH, IF YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO COUNCIL WITH THAT CONDITION, THEN THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE DO NOT OBTAIN THOSE REVISED DRAWINGS, WE CAN'T TAKE THAT TO COUNCIL. WELL, THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. YEAH. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE 7.5FT, SUBJECT TO THEIR PROVIDING A CONSISTENT DRAWINGS BEFORE, BEFORE AND TIME TO SUBMIT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING. OKAY.

SECOND, THE REASON I'M DOING IT IS BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE A FOUR FEET, YOU'RE CRAZY PERSON NOT TO GO TO THE FULL RIGHT, THE FULL HEIGHT. THAT'S JUST NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. SO THAT'S MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND AND DISCUSSION? YEAH. DO WE IS THERE ONE OR HOW MANY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE THERE NOW AND MICROPHONE. HOW MANY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE THERE BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THEY GO ON ON RECESS? THREE, THREE. BUT THE ABILITY TO GET ON A CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS. SO MAY 20TH IS BEING PUBLISHED TODAY.

SO THAT'S THAT'S PAST. AND THEN THERE'S A JUNE 3RD MEETING AND A JUNE 17TH MEETING. OKAY.

BECAUSE BECAUSE YOUR MOTION WAS THE NEXT ONE. AND SO THE NEXT. THIS WOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 17TH. YES. YEAH. JUNE 17TH WOULD BE THE MEETING DATE. THE SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. MEMBER. KAPLAN. YES. VICE CHAIR. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER. BARONE. YES. MEMBER. BLOEMKER.

YES. MEMBER. FREDERICKSON. YES. MEMBER. CREESE. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS. THAT WAS GREAT. THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. AND GREAT THINKING ABOUT TRYING TO GET IT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. THE NEXT THING IS UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT. THIS REALLY GOOD WORK THAT WAS SMOOTH. STEVE BAUER NOT HERE. OKAY, SO THE NEXT THING WE HAVE THREE THINGS TO COVER. HOPEFULLY FAIRLY PROMPTLY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE AND CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION. JUST FOR THE RECORD, I NEED TO LEAVE HERE BY 330. SO GOOD NEWS,

[11.A) Update on Naples 2045, the Elective Changes to the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan. ]

[12.A) Traffic Study Update from the Public Works Department. ]

BUT THE NEXT STEP IS THE THE OKAY. ALL THE INPUT THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED SO FAR WILL BE

[13.A) Provision of April 2026 PAB Action Report and City Council Voting Record through April 15, 2026.]

[05:40:04]

WHERE DO WE GET THAT? I'LL SEND A LINK TO THE WHOLE BOARD AFTER HERE ALSO ON OUR WEBSITE, WHICH I THINK IS VERY HELPFUL, IS UNDER ON THE PLANNING PAGE AGAIN. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE UNDER THE DEPARTMENTS, CITY DEPARTMENTS, YOU'LL PICK THE PLANNING PAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS, IS THE TAB WE PROVIDE AS PETITIONS ARE SUBMITTED. SO THIS IS FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL. WE POST ALL OF THOSE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS ON THE WEBSITE. SO AS SOON AS THEY'RE SUBMITTED WE ARE WE REQUIRE SUBMITTALS 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE. I KNOW WE DON'T PUBLISH OUR AGENDA WITH THE STAFF REPORTS UNTIL A WEEK AHEAD, BUT WE DO POST ALL OF THE SUBMITTALS. SO THE APPLICATIONS, THE PLANS, ALL OF THAT IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE UPCOMING. SO YOU, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC SAYS WHAT'S GOING ON ON THIS AND YOU, YOU WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED THAT'S THERE. IT ALSO ALLOWS YOU TO GET A HEAD START ON PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETINGS, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE PLANS BEFORE YOU CAN SEE THE STAFF REPORT. SO THAT'S HELPFUL TOO. BUT THE OTHER MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WE MADE, AND THIS IS VERY NEW THANKS TO A CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATION, IS SUBDIVISIONS. SUBDIVISIONS ARE NOW REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVE. SO THAT'S LOT SPLITS, LOT COMBINATIONS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS. THOSE ALL ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED NOW. SO I CAN CREATE. WE HAVE WE HAVE IT INTERNALLY, BUT WE CAN CREATE IT AND HAVE IT PUBLIC FACING AS WELL. A SIMILAR SUMMARY REPORT FOR THAT LIKE WE DO FOR THE SITE PLAN. GREAT. SO THAT WOULD BE THE TWO THOSE ARE THE TWO REAL, YOU KNOW, REGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS THAT ARE MADE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND ERICA, YOU SPOKE WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS, I THINK. RIGHT. SO THE THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND HOW THAT'S CONVEYED HAS BEEN GOING ON THE SITE PLAN SUMMARY REPORT HAS BEEN WE'VE BEEN PUBLISHING THAT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW. SO THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE. YEAH. AND I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND MY, MY ALMOST NONSTOP REQUESTS OF YOU. SO I APPRECIATE IT. I'M GOING TO HAND OUT SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO DISCUSS AT ANOTHER MEETING. SO I'M GOING TO HAND THESE THIS WAY AND I'LL HAVE A COPY FOR, FOR YOU, ERIC, AS WELL. AND SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS, AND I'M GOING TO, I ACTUALLY WROTE OUT MY RATIONALE FOR WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST IN A, IN A PAGE AND A HALF OR PAGE DOCUMENT. AND THEN WHAT I CALL ENHANCING THE BOARD'S PLANNING FUNCTION. AND, AND SO I'M GOING TO READ THE FIRST TWO LITTLE SEGMENTS OF MY OF MY LITTLE PRESENTATION ON THIS. AND THEN YOU CAN READ THE REST OR NOT AT YOUR AT YOUR LEISURE, BUT I IT'S CALLED PROPOSED PAB ROLE

[05:45:05]

I HAVE ALSO REVIEWED, RECEIVED AND INCORPORATED INPUT ON THIS DRAFT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU FROM FOR A FORMER CITY COUNCIL AND PAB MEMBERS, AS WELL AS A PROFESSIONAL URBAN PLANNER, BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I JUST WASN'T WAY OFF BOARD. AND SO I RECEIVED THOSE COMMENTS. I INCORPORATED THOSE THERE IN THIS, THIS PROPOSAL. AND, AND THE HOPE IS, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OBVIOUSLY FOR MONTHS. SO WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF PLANNING. YEAH, YEARS, TWO YEARS. AND, AND SO I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T DO ANY PLANNING, BUT I THINK THAT THAT BY STEALING THE IDEAS FROM MIAMI BEACH, SAINT AUGUSTINE, ETC. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO A LITTLE MORE PLANNING AS A REGULAR FUNCTION OF THE BOARD, WHICH I THINK IS INTENDED FOR US BY BOTH THE CITY CHARTER, THE THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE PAB AND THEN JUST THE COMMON PRACTICE AROUND FLORIDA. SO ANYWAY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST HAVE PEOPLE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND THEN IF I CAN GET THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING, JUST TO GET PEOPLE'S COMMENTS, THEN I CAN REVISE, SHRED WHATEVER, WHATEVER PEOPLE THINK AND, AND GO FROM THERE. CAN, CAN. I THINK IT'S GREAT. THIS IS AWESOME. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO PUTTING IT ON THE END OF THE AGENDA FOR NEXT, MAYBE FOR THE. SO WE WOULD PUT IT AT THE END OF THE AGENDA. SO WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WAITING WHILE WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING. BUT YEAH, TO HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR US TO TALK IS AWESOME. GOOD. OKAY. WE CAN'T TALK OTHERWISE. THERE ISN'T COMMENTS AHEAD OF TIME OR AT THAT MEETING. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN I DON'T THINK I THINK IT HAS TO BE IN OUR PUBLIC SESSION IN THE SUNSHINE HERE AS A GROUP.

YEAH. BUT YOU CAN PREPARE WRITTEN COMMENTS. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. LIKE IF WE HAVE WRITTEN FEEDBACK, CAN I JUST EMAIL THE WHOLE GROUP? NO, NO NO NO, NO, ERICA, IF YOU DO THAT. BUT HERE'S THE THING. NO. SO WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS DON'T EMAIL ME YOUR COMMENTS WITH THE IDEA THAT I WILL THEN DISTRIBUTE THEM TO THE BOARD, BRING THEM TO THIS MEETING. IT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED HERE IN THE SUNSHINE AS A GROUP. BUT. BUT ONE ONE THING I MIGHT SUGGEST, THOUGH, IS I REALLY WANT YOUR INPUT AND AND I'M POINTING TO ERICA AND THE CITY MANAGER'S CITY COUNCIL, WHOEVER. SO IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS, YOU CAN SEND THEM TO ERICA. AND SHE COULD THEN SHARE THEM WITH OTHERS. IF. NO, I CAN'T, SO I CAN'T. YOU CAN'T. YEAH, THAT KIND OF SUBVERTS THE WHOLE PROCESS HERE OF. BUT BUT I KNOW SHE IF IF MISS PETERSON HAS QUESTIONS FOR ME, I CAN RESPOND TO HER. BUT WHAT WE CAN'T HAVE IS YOUR COMMENTS. THEN. THEN SHE SUBMITS HER COMMENTS TO ME AND I DISTRIBUTE THEM TO EVERYONE. AND THEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS AND I DISTRIBUTE THEM TO EVERYONE. NO, NO, I JUST MEANT I CAN RESPOND DIRECTLY TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. OH I SEE. WELL, THIS IS REALLY USEFUL TO ME. I THOUGHT THAT IF, IF, IF SALLY SENT YOU SOME SOME COMMENTS, YOU COULD SHARE THEM WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER, NOT THE PAB, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU FELT LIKE IT WAS WORTHWHILE.

WELL, NO. SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS ALL GOT TO GO THROUGH DISCUSSION. YEAH. HAVE THIS DISCUSSION HERE AS A GROUP. AND THEN IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS OR THE BOARD HAS BOTH, YOU KNOW, VOTES ON SOMETHING, THEN THAT GETS TRANSMITTED OR VICE VERSA. SO SO JUST ONE MORE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SUNSHINE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ONE WAY COMMUNICATION. NO, NO I CAN'T NOT EVEN ONE WAY COMMUNICATION. I CAN'T TALK TO YOU AND YOU CAN'T TALK TO ME ABOUT RIGHT.

WE CAN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION. BUT I MEAN ON, ON AN ITEM THAT'S ANTICIPATED OR ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA. YOU CANNOT CIRCULATE THINGS TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. AND EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT FOR DISCUSSION. SO FOR THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY, IF I WANTED PEOPLE TO HEAR MY COMMENTS AHEAD OF TIME, THEY'RE PREPARED TO RESPOND AT THE MEETING. NO, NO, CAN'T DO THAT.

OKAY. WELL, WELCOME. WELCOME TO THE A B. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF QUESTION. SO WE JUST GOT THIS.

WHO ELSE IS GOING TO SEE THIS OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE HERE? UNLESS IT'S PUT INTO THE MINUTES AND EVERYBODY DISTRIBUTED. YOU HAVE IT HERE. I WILL THEN IF IF THERE'S A

[05:50:06]

SO ESSENTIALLY NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER IS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS OR ANYTHING TO COUNCIL. IT'S DISCUSSED HERE AS A BOARD. AND THEN THE OUTCOME OF THAT DISCUSSION IS THE MESSAGE THAT WILL BE SENT TO CITY COUNCIL. SO. BUT IF SOMEBODY SAYS THIS, DOES THIS DOCUMENT GET SEEN BY EVERYBODY? BECAUSE I WOULD SAY THAT'S A FAILURE. AND NO, NO, THAT WILL SHINE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S NOW SEEING THIS AND NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD IS UNTIL THIS THING GOES INTO PUBLIC AS PART OF AN AGENDA ITEM. NO. AND SO IF I GO AND DISTRIBUTE MY COMMENTS AT THIS NEXT MEETING THAT IT'S ON THE TOPICS, IT WILL NOW BE THE REST OF THE WORLD SEE IT.

UNLESS THEY PUT IT ON THE MEETING MINUTES, IT WILL NOW BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FROM TODAY'S MEETING AS A HANDOUT. OKAY. AND IT'LL BE, BUT NOT FOR DISCUSSION. YOU GUYS AREN'T DISCUSSING THAT ITEM RIGHT NOW. OKAY? OKAY. BUT THE CONTENT OF IT, IT'S ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE AS PART OF THAT MEETING. THEY'RE DISTRIBUTED HERE, WILL BE PUT INTO THE MINUTES SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN. OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.

I'M OVERWHELMED BY YOUR OPTIMISM AND THINKING SOME THIRD PARTY IS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, GEE, I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT. THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM, I DON'T KNOW. ERICA'S INBOX IS FILLING UP RIGHT NOW. I WAS GOING TO SAY, NO PRIDE OF AUTHORSHIP HERE. ANY AND ALL COMMENTS, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US COME UP WITH A GREAT PLAN FOR FOR NOT MADE DIRECTLY TO HIM, BUT MADE AT THE NEXT MEETING IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS? YES.

YES, YES. ARE WE READY TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.