3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY THE NAPLES CHAPTER SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION COLOR GUARD IN HONOR OF AMERICA250.

[13.A) A Resolution for the Purpose of 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; Providing A Disclaimer; Directing Recordation; And Providing An Effective Date. ]

MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF 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 C-2, 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. PROVIDING A DISCLAIMER. DIRECTION RECORDATION DIRECTING RECORDATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD MORNING.

[00:35:04]

PLEASE STAND TO BE SWORN BROTHERS INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY.

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

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNSEL. DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER CARL HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AND TWO NEIGHBORS.

THANK YOU. YES, I ACTUALLY HAVE A DISCLOSURE HERE.

AFTER SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OUR ETHICS COMMISSION AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY, I'VE RECEIVED THE OPINION THAT I SHOULD CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM 13 A THIS DISCUSSION WAS DERIVED FROM THE ONGOING BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP THAT I HAVE WITH THE PETITIONER IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

WHILE I AM SURE THAT I COULD HAVE REMAINED FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, THE OPTICS WERE NOT IDEAL, AND I FELT THIS COURSE OF ACTION WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE PETITIONER.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO. WELL, I'M. YES. CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE.

YOU GOT IT? YES, PLEASE. MR. MCDONNELL. SO, YES, PURSUANT TO 112.3143, YOU WILL HAVE TO FILE A FORM WITH THE CITY CLERK BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL VOTING CONFLICT HERE, EVEN IF THERE WEREN'T PURSUANT TO 286.012.

SINCE THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, YOU MAY ABSTAIN TO AVOID ANY PREJUDICE OR BIAS THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING.

SO WITH THAT, I WOULD REQUEST, BASED ON CASE LAW, THAT YOU KINDLY SIT IN THE BACK, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE INFLUENCED OR ANYONE TO SPECULATE THAT YOU INFLUENCED THE DECISION. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR DISCLOSURE.

YOU GOT IT. WITH THAT, I'LL RECUSE MYSELF TO THE BACK. AND I HAVE ALL THE FAITH IN THE WORLD THAT MY FELLOW MEMBERS UP HERE WILL BE ABLE TO PROPERLY MUDDLE THEIR WAY THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ME. THANK YOU. GOING TO COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF JUST AS BACKGROUND TO MAKE SURE I WAS FULLY INFORMED.

COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ I FIRST SAW THIS ITEM WHEN I WAS ON THE PAB, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, THE PROJECT AND COUNCIL FOR THE PROJECT. SO BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO INFLUENCE ME.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I DID MEET WITH THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIVES TO GET AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, AND ALSO DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF AND HAD A COUPLE OF MESSAGES WITH INPUT FROM RESIDENTS.

I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT.

I HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS RECENTLY WITH THE PETITIONER.

PETITIONER'S AGENT. AND WITH THAT CORRESPONDENCE THAT ARE WITHIN THE RECORD.

AND YES, COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER, THIS IS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

WITH MISS LINDA GONE, AND WE STILL NEED FOR FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED.

NO. WHAT DO WE NEED A MAJORITY. SO IT WOULD BE A MAJORITY OF WHO'S PRESENT.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. NOW IF YOU HAD SIX THEN YOU WOULD STILL NEED FOUR BECAUSE FOUR IS A MAJORITY.

BUT NOW IT'S THREE. CORRECT. THANKS. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

OKAY WITH THAT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. FOR THE RECORD, I'M BERT SAUNDERS WITH THE GRAY ROBINSON LAW FIRM, AND I'M REPRESENTING THE VICEROY NAPLES, LLC.

I'M PLEASED TO HEAR THAT THE VOTE WOULD BE TWO THREE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR. IT'S TAKEN A LONG TIME FOR US TO GET THIS PROJECT HEARD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, THIS IS REALLY A VERY SIMPLE PROJECT.

THE DEVELOPER IS COMPLYING WITH ALL OF THE REQUIRED CITY CODES.

ONE OF THE STUMBLING BLOCKS IN GETTING TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY WAS THE DETERMINATION OF MARINA STATUS.

AND THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE MAIN ISSUE THAT REALLY DELAYED US FOR SOME TIME.

ONCE WE GOT A DETERMINATION FROM STAFF ON HOW TO APPLY THE STANDARD DIRECT CONTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS, THINGS MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS VERY QUICKLY.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF RUMORS FLOATING AROUND ON THIS PROJECT.

I'VE BEEN REPRESENTING MR. ZIA AND HIS PROJECTS FOR 11 YEARS, AND I KNOW THAT AND I'VE HEARD SOME OF THESE RUMORS.

SO I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON WHAT YOU HEAR TODAY AND FROM THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS FROM YOUR CITY STAFF.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOUR CITY STAFF, ESPECIALLY ERICA MARTIN AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THE GUIDANCE THEY'VE GIVEN US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED. THIS IS A APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE IN THE SEA TO A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT 12 TRANSIENT

[00:40:03]

LODGING UNITS WITH SIX UNITS ON EACH OF TWO FLOORS ABOVE ONE FLOOR OF COMMERCIAL.

THE COMMERCIAL SPACE CONSISTS OF OFFICE SPACE AND A MARINA SHIP STORE.

THERE WILL BE 14 BOAT SLIPS CONSTRUCTED, ONE FOR EACH OF THE 12 UNITS, AND THEN TWO THAT WILL BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

GENERAL BOATING PUBLIC PARKING IS PROVIDED THROUGH A MIXTURE OF SURFACE PARKING AND ONE LEVEL OF BELOW GRADE PARKING.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN HERE, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT THAT WILL BE A GREAT PROJECT FOR THE ENTRYWAY INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES. WITH ME TODAY IS THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM THAT WILL PRESENT THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT, AND THEIR CREDENTIALS ARE ON FILE. HARRY ZERE IS THE PROJECT DEVELOPER.

I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO MAKE A FEW INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS IN JUST A MINUTE ABOUT HIS VISION FOR THIS PROJECT AND HIS LOVE OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, AND THEN HE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

AFTER OUR PRESENTATION, PETER KULICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF PQ STUDIOS ARCHITECTS, WILL PRESENT THE BUILDING OVERVIEW AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT.

ANDREW RATH, CIVIL ENGINEER WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEER ENGINEERING, WILL PRESENT SOME OF THE SITE ELEMENTS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT.

MIKE VALENTINE, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH CAIRNES ENGINEERING, WILL ADDRESS THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE BELOW GRADE PARKING AND WILL EXPLAIN HOW THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED AT THIS LOCATION. NORMAN TREBILCOCK, TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITH TREBILCOCK CONSULTING SOLUTIONS WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF AN EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ONTO RIVER POINT DRIVE THAT WAS MENTIONED IN CONDITION NUMBER SIX OF THE JUNE 5TH AGENDA MEMORANDUM.

THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE WAS GENERATED ON AN EARLIER PROJECT KNOWN AS THE PROMENADE, AND THAT CONSISTED OF FIVE LARGE RESTAURANTS OVER TWO LEVELS OF BELOW GRADE PARKING DEVICE AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WITH FIVE LARGE RESTAURANTS, GENERATED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. THIS NEW PROJECT, WITH 12.

TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS, WILL HAVE GREATLY REDUCED TRAFFIC, AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR A TURN LANE.

CHRISTIAN ANDREA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH ARCHITECTURAL LAND DESIGN, INC., WILL PRESENT THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.

YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFULLY LANDSCAPED PROJECT.

AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE HARRY, IF IF YOU COME FORWARD JUST FOR A QUICK MINUTE I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON YOUR VISION FOR THIS PROJECT. YES. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS.

STAFF, ATTORNEYS. I APPRECIATE THE TIME TO JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGHLIGHT OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE GOING.

WE INITIALLY STARTED THIS PROJECT TO BE THE FIVE RESTAURANT PROMENADE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH HAD TWO LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING AND ABOUT 400 CARS UNDER SUBLEVEL. WE WERE APPROVED. WE FILED A APPLICATION FOR A FOUNDATION PERMIT, AND THEN THERE WAS A DELAY FOR WHATEVER REASON. BUT THEN THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONCERN WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

AND IN ADDITION, IF WE, AS WE ALL KNOW, GETTING DOWN TO FIFTH AVENUE DURING THE SEASON, THAT'S A MAJOR CHOKE POINT.

SO I WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. WE DELAYED IT.

YOU KNOW, WAITING FOR SOME INFORMATION BACK FROM THE CITY REGARDING THE THE APPLICATION FOR THE UNDERGROUND FOUNDATION PERMIT.

AND DURING THAT TIME, WE DECIDED TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

SO WE CAME UP WITH A CONCEPT THAT WOULD BE THE LEAST IMPACTFUL WHILE STILL MAINTAINING WHAT THE VISION OF THE ORIGINAL CITY PLAN WAS, IS TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY THAT GAVE A FLAVOR TO WHAT WE'RE ABOUT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRIED TO CONSTRUCT IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING IN, IS SOFT WATER.

IT LOOKS ALMOST IT DOES IT IN A LOT OF WAYS, LIKE IT'S WATER BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SQUARE BOX BUILDING YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD AND DESIGN. BUT WE FELT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE THE CITY A YOU KNOW, KIND OF A DIRECTION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FORECASTED OF THE VISION OF THE, OF THE CITY PLAN MOVING FORWARD.

WE TRIED WITH ALL OF OUR PROJECTS BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT BEING A DEVELOPER IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO RUN FOR POLITICAL OFFICE. YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO BE A POPULIST.

YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE EVERYBODY LOVE YOU.

THAT'S NOT THE, YOU KNOW, THE THE IDEA. THE IDEA IS TO NOT DO THAT.

THE IDEA IS TO PLAY BY THE RULES. RIGHT. STAY WITHIN THE BOX.

AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. WE'VE BEEN TRYING EVERY ONE OF OUR PROJECTS.

WE HAVE NOT ASKED FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION. WE HAVE NOT ASKED FOR ANYTHING OUTSIDE WHAT THE CODE ALREADY ALLOWS US.

[00:45:01]

AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE'VE HAD SOME HEADWINDS.

BUT WE'VE MOVED ON AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THIS PROJECT FINALLY GOING.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SOCIAL MEDIA OUT THERE A LOT OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT HAVE COME OUT SINCE WE GOT PAST THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. AND WE GOT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF ON WHICH DIRECTION TO GO IN.

THIS IS THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT GOES THERE IS GOING TO BE DRIVEN BY ECONOMICS, PERIOD.

AND YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO END UP SEEING WHAT YOU WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY THIS PROJECT WORKS FOR THE CITY.

IT WORKS FOR ALL OF US. IT WORKS FOR ME AS A DEVELOPER.

IT'S CERTAINLY A PROFIT CENTER. I'M NOT DOING IT FOR PHILANTHROPY.

IT'S IT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO DO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WALK THAT LINE, DO THE RIGHT THING, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE TO MAINTAIN SOME GOOD BUSINESS SENSE.

SO WE APPRECIATE THE HELP OF LEGAL COUNSEL. WE ARE HERE TODAY SIMPLY FOR WHAT WE, WE, WE SPOKE OF EARLIER, WHICH IS JUST A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. THAT'S REALLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY LIMITED TO THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING TODAY.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT A LATER POINT.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 599 RIVER POINT DRIVE AND CONSIST OF 1.81 ACRES OF VACANT LAND. THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY AND THE CITY, CONCLUDED IN ITS MAY 6TH, 2026, SUFFICIENCY LETTER TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER, QUOTING FROM THAT REPORT.

SITE PLAN PETITION 22 SP EIGHT HAS BEEN FOUND SUFFICIENT IN THE FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE CITY.

ALL ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH TEN CONDITIONS, AND THE PETITIONER HAS AGREED TO ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

NOW, THERE ARE A FEW TECHNICAL DETAILS, SUCH AS ENCROACHMENTS INTO SETBACKS AND DIMENSIONS OF PARKING SPACES IDENTIFIED BY STAFF AND PETER KULICK WITH THE WITH THE ARCHITECTS WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE WITH THAT.

BUT MOST OF THAT IS COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES. IT'S NOT REAL TECHNICAL PROBLEMS. BUT EVEN WITH THAT, STAFF CONCLUDED THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT.

STAFF CONCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY DATED MAY 8TH THAT.

AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM THAT SUBJECT TO REVISIONS TO THE PLANS THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED 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 THAT'S ON PAGE 38 OF THE MAY 8TH STAFF REPORT.

NOW, THE STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR TODAY'S HEARING CONTAINS SIMILAR LANGUAGE.

I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM THAT REPORT AS WELL. DEFICIENCIES RELATED TO ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS, DIMENSIONS OF PARKING SPACES AND THE TRAFFIC STATEMENT WERE IDENTIFIED, SUBJECT TO REVISIONS THAT CAN BE TO THE PLANS THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSIENT LODGING CONDITIONAL USE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY MET.

AGAIN, PETER KALICKI CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THOSE TECHNICAL DETAILS.

THESE. THESE ISSUES WILL BE RESOLVED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TODAY.

STAFF DETERMINED THAT A PORTION OF THE PROJECT, CONSISTING OF A MARINE STORE AND 14 BOAT SLIPS, QUALIFIED A PORTION OF THE PROJECT AS A MARINA USE FOR LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS.

THE MARINA USE CALCULATIONS RESULTED IN A SLIGHT INCREASE IN PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE.

THE LOT COVERAGE IS GOING FROM THE 40% MAXIMUM THAT'S GENERALLY IMPOSED TO JUST JUST THAT 41%.

SO A VERY SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE LOT COVERAGE IS PERMITTED.

THE THE CITY STAFF USED THE STANDARD DIRECT CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THAT INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE, AND WE ACCEPTED STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF THAT LOT COVERAGE.

THE FINAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY STAFF REFLECTS THAT DETERMINATION, AND THAT'S ON PAGE NINE OF THE MAY 6TH SUFFICIENCY LETTER.

STAFF RAISED AN ISSUE WITH THE ROOFTOP AMENITIES AND WHETHER THEY CONSTITUTED THE FOURTH FLOOR IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CHARTER.

STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THIS PROJECT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CHARTER AND DOES NOT IN ANY WAY VIOLATE ANY CITY CODES.

AND THAT'S ON PAGE 11 OF THE MAY 6TH SUFFICIENCY LETTER.

I KNOW SOME SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT.

IT IS IT MEETS ALL OF YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE NAPLES NOISE IMPACT AREA AND HAS BEEN APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BY THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

THE PETITIONER HAS AGREED TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

THE PROJECT DOES INCLUDE BELOW GRADE PARKING, PARKING.

[00:50:03]

NOW, STAFF ADVISED THAT THEY CANNOT APPROVE BELOW GRADE PARKING THAT IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT BELOW GRADE PARKING BE APPROVED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

THIS MORNING BELOW GRADE PARKING IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE BUILDING CODE.

THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE BELOW. GRADE PARKING IS NOT PROHIBITED BY ANY CITY ORDINANCES.

BECAUSE OF THAT, BELOW GRADE PARKING IS PERMITTED AS LONG AS IT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT DETERMINATION THAT BELOW GRADE PARKING IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE CITY.

LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY WE WE KNOW THAT BELOW GRADE PARKING IS FEASIBLE AT THIS LOCATION.

I MENTIONED THE PROMENADE ON FIFTH WITH THE FIVE RESTAURANTS THAT WAS APPROVED WITH TWO LEVELS OF BELOW GRADE PARKING AT THAT LOCATION.

AND AGAIN, I'M ONLY MENTIONING THAT AS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT BELOW GRADE PARKING AT THAT AT THAT LOCATION WILL NOT BE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM.

AND AS I NOTED EARLIER, MIKE VALENTINE WILL ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING BELOW GRADE PARKING.

THE PROJECT OBTAINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL AND WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL.

AT THIS POINT, I THINK I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. PETER KALICKI IF HE'D COME UP AND GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT.

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

GOOD MORNING. PETER KALICKI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF PK STUDIOS.

AS BRETT MENTIONED THIS PROJECT IS IN THE CEQA WATERFRONT DISTRICT.

IT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH AND RIVER POINTE DRIVE.

SOME OF THE ADJACENCIES AND CONTEXT FOR THIS PROJECT ARE CURRENTLY ON YOUR SCREEN.

WE HAVE THE HYATT HOUSE TO THE NORTH, A YACHT STORAGE BUILDING TO THE WEST, A MARINA AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOS TO THE SOUTH AND THE NAPLES BAY RESORT, ANOTHER MARINA AND MULTI-USE PROJECT TO THE EAST.

THE PROPOSED USES ON THIS PROPERTY INCLUDE MARINA, INCLUDING A MARINA, SHIP STORE AND MARINA SLIPS.

COMMERCIAL OFFICES ON THE MAIN LEVEL, TWO LEVELS OF TRANSIENT LODGING AND VARIOUS AMENITIES TO SUPPORT THOSE FUNCTIONS.

THERE WILL BE 12 UNITS OF TRANSIENT LODGING. THOSE RANGE FROM ABOUT 3800 TO 4400FT² EACH.

THIS IS A RENDERING VIEW OF THE WATER OFF THE WATER SIDE.

SO ON THE THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THIS RENDERING, YOU SEE THE EXISTING MARINA ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WOULD BE SOME OF THE NEW SLIPS THAT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT. AND YOU SEE THE THE REAR SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH THE GROUND LEVEL OR MAIN LEVEL COMMERCIAL.

TWO STORIES OF TRANSIENT LODGING ABOVE THAT WITH THEIR BALCONIES AND SOME ROOFTOP AMENITIES.

THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH AND RIVER POINTE DRIVE.

FIFTH AVENUE GOING UP TO THE LEFT OF THE IMAGE, AND RIVER POINT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THIS IS BASICALLY A CORNER SHOT ONTO THE PROJECT.

YOU CAN SEE THE HEAVY BUFFERING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT ANDREA WILL ADDRESS IN HIS PRESENTATION.

ALONG 40 ONE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING FROM THIS ANGLE.

I INCLUDE THIS BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT THROUGH A BUILDING SECTION, BUT THIS IS A SECTION THAT SHOWS FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH US 41 ON THE RIGHT AND THE EXISTING MARINA ON THE LEFT.

AND THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EXISTING ROADWAYS, EXISTING GRADE, AND THE PROJECT ITSELF.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT. EXISTING FEMA ELEVATION AT THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY TEN FEET.

WE ARE PROPOSING THE REQUIRED 12IN OF FREEBOARD.

SO THAT'S SETS OUR MAIN GROUND FLOOR LEVEL AT 11FT.

AND FROM THERE WE COUNT OUR 42 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO THE TOP MOST ELEMENT OF THE BUILDING.

AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S THE ELEVATOR SHAFT THAT RUNS ALL THE WAY TO THE ROOF.

REALLY QUICKLY, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE BUILDING STARTING AT THE BOTTOM AND GOING UP TO THE TOP.

[00:55:02]

THIS IS THE UNDERGROUND PARKING. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE I HAVE THE MOUSE.

THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL TALK OUR WAY THROUGH IT. ON THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER IS THERE WE GO. OKAY. RIGHT HERE ON THE LOWER LEFT.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. ON THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT.

AND A RAMP DOWN TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING. AND IT IS A ONE WAY PARKING UNDERGROUND CIRCULATION WITH THE STORAGE AND THE, AND THE PARKING AREAS DOWN THERE. THIS IS THE MAIN LEVEL.

SO AGAIN, FROM COMING IN FROM RIVER POINT DRIVE, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF RAMPING DOWN TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING OR RAMPING UP TO THE MAIN LEVEL PARKING AREA HERE. THIS IS THE MAIN DRIVE KIND OF PARALLEL WITH WITH US 40 ONE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH WITH ALL THE COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES.

THERE'S A HAMMERHEAD FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND AT THE END ON THE VERY EAST END OF THE PROJECT, AND AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADWAY ON THE VERY WEST SIDE, ALSO CONNECTED TO RIVER POINTE DRIVE.

ON THIS MAIN LEVEL, YOU'LL SEE IN THE PURPLE COLOR ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS THE MARINA SHIP STORE.

IT'S ABOUT 4200FT², DEDICATED TO FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE MARINA, SUCH AS BOATING GOODS, RESTROOMS, AND SHOWERS. THINGS THAT WILL SERVE THE BOATERS DURING THEIR DAY.

AND THE LIGHT PURPLE HERE IS OUR TRANSIENT LODGING SERVICE LOBBY THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE UNITS THAT ARE OVERHEAD.

AND IN RED IS OUR COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE. ON THAT MAIN LEVEL, EVERYTHING ELSE DOWN HERE CONSISTS OF SOME GARAGES AND MECHANICAL AREAS, TRASH ROOMS AND THE LIKE.

THIS IS A TYPICAL FLOOR OF UNITS. IT'S SIX UNITS PER FLOOR.

YOU'LL SEE THAT BALCONIES ARE INCLUDED ON BOTH SIDES, THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.

SO EACH UNIT HAS VIEWS TO BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING.

AND THIS IS A TYPICAL UNIT AGAIN RANGING ANYWHERE BETWEEN 3800 AND 4400FT².

THE ROOFTOP AMENITIES CONSIST PRIMARILY OF PRIVATE TERRACE FOR EACH UNIT, WHICH HAS A PERGOLA THAT'S PARTIALLY SHADED BUT STILL OPEN TO THE SKY. THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME SPA OR POOL PREFABRICATED UNITS UP THERE AND MECHANICAL SPACES, ELEVATOR TOWELS, TOWERS, STAIRS AND SO FORTH.

AGAIN, THIS IS A VIEW, A DAYTIME VIEW, THIS TIME OF KIND OF THE MASSING RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO ITS SURROUNDINGS.

YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF LANDSCAPE HERE BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO SHOW THE THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING AND HOW IT RELATES TO WHAT'S AROUND IT.

YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE IN SIZE AND SCALE, HEIGHT, AND OF COURSE, THE, THE USES WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS SHORTLY HERE.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY. AND LET'S STICK WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

CONSISTENCY IS DISCUSSED IN THE APPLICATION. IT IS THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF COMPATIBLE USES.

THIS AREA FOCUSES ON MARINE ACTIVITIES AND RECREATION.

THE COMP PLAN DOES TALK ABOUT LODGING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO MARINAS AND DINING.

IT INCLUDES COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT SUPPORT NEARBY BUSINESSES.

IT INCLUDES UNITS THAT COULD SUPPORT EMPLOYEES, RETIREES AND SEASONAL RESIDENTS.

THE PROJECT PROVIDES FOR REDEVELOPMENT, IMPROVES THE CITY'S ESTHETIC AND PROVIDES FOR MIXED USES AS THE COMP PLAN ENCOURAGES THE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA, WHICH ARE THE STANDARDS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN YOUR SECTION 4634 OF THE CODE AND ORDINANCES ARE OUTLINED HERE.

I'LL GO THROUGH THEM BRIEFLY, BUT INGRESS EGRESS, INGRESS EGRESS FOR SAFETY CONVENIENCE, TRAFFIC FLOW CONTROL AND CONTROL, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS. SO WE DO HAVE A SINGLE ACCESS POINT MAIN ACCESS POINT FROM RIVER POINT DRIVE TO THE PROJECT.

THERE'S NO ACCESS OFF US 41, BUT WE DO HAVE CROSS ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT.

THERE'S AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS POINT THAT ALLOWS DIRECT ACCESS ONTO THE PROPERTY.

AND WE ARE PROVIDING NEW SIDEWALKS ALONG RIVER POINT.

AND WE'LL ALSO SPEAK TO THE SIDEWALKS OR PAYMENT IN LIEU ALONG US 41 HERE IN THE PRESENTATION SHORTLY

[01:00:02]

PARKING AND LOADING IS ADEQUATE. THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AFFORDS US THE ABILITY TO SCREEN MOST OF THE PARKING ON THIS PROJECT BETWEEN US 41 AND THE BUILDING. AND BE ABLE TO HIDE THE REST OF THE PARKING UNDERGROUND SO THAT IT'S NOT AN EYESORE TO TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SERVICE AREAS ARE SCREENED, UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE, AND ADEQUATE SCREENING AND BUFFERING IS PRESENT OF ANY NUISANCE FEATURES WITH LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.

AND WE WILL CONSIDER OR HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED SIGN STANDARDS AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AS PART OF THE SITE REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE'RE NOT HINDERING ANY DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE. AS I MENTIONED ON THE AERIAL VIEW, THE LAND AND BUILDING IS COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF SIZE, SHAPE, TYPE, SCALE WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS, AND THE PROPOSED MIXED USES DO NOT CREATE A SINGLE SERVICE DISTRICT IN THE CITY. AS BRETT MENTIONED, WE DID GO IN FRONT OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO PRESENT THE PROJECT AND RECEIVED UNANIMOUS SUPPORT, SUBJECT TO THEIR ONGOING NEGOTIATION AS TO THE EXACT CONDITIONS WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN 45 FOR INTERIOR SPACES. THAT'S BASICALLY A DAY NIGHT AVERAGE OF THE THE NOISE WITHIN THE BUILDING, AND THAT WILL BE EVALUATED BY BOTH DURING DESIGN, DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY. AND THERE WILL BE A ROBUST DESIGN RESPONSE TO ACHIEVE THAT.

THAT WILL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, SOUND INSULATION, LAYERING, THINGS LIKE INSULATED GLASS, GOOD SEALING AND CAULKING PRACTICES. TREATING AIR INTAKES AND EXHAUSTS AND OTHER TESTED AND INDUSTRY LEADING PRACTICES.

AND AT THIS TIME, I'LL BRING UP ANDREW RATH. GOOD MORNING. HEY, GOOD MORNING, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, ANDREW RATH WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEERING.

I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU THE CIVIL SITE PLAN.

TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SOME UTILITIES HERE. SOME OF THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SHARED, BUT I'LL GO THROUGH THE CIVIL SITE PLAN WITH YOU A BIT.

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THERE'S A, A SINGULAR MAIN ACCESS POINT HERE OFF OF RIVER POINT DRIVE INTO THE PROPERTY WHERE YOU CAN EITHER PARK MAKE A LEFT PARK UP ON THE SURFACE SPACES OR DESCEND DOWN INTO THE GARAGE AND PARK IN THE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING.

THERE'S AN EXISTING INTERCONNECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN, AS WELL AS A EVA DRIVE THAT WILL BE LIMITED ACCESS UP HERE CLOSER TO 41, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE FIRE TRUCK TO HAVE BETTER ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND AT THE END HERE TOWARDS THE EAST.

AND WE'VE ALSO GOT ON THE SITE PLAN HERE, A SIDEWALK PROPOSED GOING DOWN RIVER POINT DRIVE AS WELL AS A SIDEWALK CONNECTION. 241 OUT THIS WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINKING UP WITH THE GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL.

SO WE'VE GOT A SERIES OF SURFACE LEVEL PARKING HERE AND THEN THE PARKING BELOW GRADE, AS YOU'VE SEEN PRESENTED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.

TAKE YOU TO. THIS DRAINAGE PLAN HERE. SO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS PROVIDED ON THIS PROPERTY IN TWO DIFFERENT BASINS JUST BASED ON THE ELEVATIONS DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE PROVIDING STORMWATER PRETREATMENT AND SURFACE LEVEL SWALES.

WHICH IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE HERE IN THIS BLUE AREA WHERE THAT PRETREATMENT IS PROVIDING WATER QUALITY FOR THAT FIRST FLUSH COMING OFF OF THE VEHICULAR USE AREAS. SIMILARLY, DOWN ALONG THIS EDGE HERE, THERE'S A, A SURFACE SWALE AFTER THAT PRETREATMENT VOLUME IS ACHIEVED THEN IT WILL SPILL OVER INTO THESE GRATES WHICH GO INTO THE SUBTERRANEAN STORAGE, WHICH IS WHERE THE BULK OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS OCCURRING IN THAT SUBTERRANEAN VAULT.

IN HERE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH IS PROVIDED ALONG THE SOUTH END.

[01:05:01]

ULTIMATELY, EACH ONE OF THESE BASINS HAS A CONTROL STRUCTURE.

THERE'S ONE HERE AND ONE HERE, WHICH IS CONTROLLING THE OUTFALL FROM THAT STORMWATER SYSTEM.

THAT ULTIMATELY DISCHARGES INTO THE GORDON RIVER SLASH NAPLES BAY JUST TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER.

OR SHOULD I SAY EASTERN CORNER OF THE PROPERTY HERE.

AND THEN I'D LIKE TO HIT UPON THE UTILITIES BECAUSE THERE IS A, SOME GREAT PUBLIC UTILITY BENEFIT TO THIS PROJECT.

THE DEVELOPER AND WORKING WITH CITY UTILITY DEPARTMENT HAS AGREED TO RECONSTRUCT THE CITY'S SANITARY LIFT STATION THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON RIVER POINT DRIVE TODAY.

THAT IS QUITE DATED AND NOT IN A GREAT FUNCTION THESE DAYS.

SO THAT SANITARY LIFT STATION IS LOCATED HERE ALONG RIVER POINT DRIVE, AND A UTILITY EASEMENT WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY TO BASICALLY ENVELOP THAT LIFT STATION. ALONG WITH THAT, THERE'S A RECONSTRUCTION OF SOME SANITARY SEWER GRAVITY MAIN, AS WELL AS 3 OR 4 MANHOLES THAT GO IN BASICALLY PICKING UP THAT, THAT WASTEWATER AT THE OLD LOCATION OF THE PUMP STATION AND, AND GARNERING IT BACK TOWARDS THIS NEW SANITARY LIFT STATION LOCATION.

AND THE, THE POTABLE WATER IS JUST CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING CITY WATER MAIN WITHIN RIVER POINT DRIVE.

LET'S SEE. AND I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT WITH UTILITIES.

I THINK AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO PASS IT ALONG TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WHO'S GOING TO DISCUSS THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT.

THAT'S NORM TREBILCOCK. THANK YOU. I WANT TO BRING YOU BACK TO THE SITE PLAN.

THAT'S FINE. THERE YOU GO. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF. MY NAME IS NORMAN TREBILCOCK.

I'M. AND I'M A CERTIFIED PLANNER, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEER WITH OVER 36 YEARS OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE.

I'VE TESTIFIED IN THE PAST BEFORE YOU ALL, AND MY RESUME IS PROVIDED AS WELL.

WE PREPARED THE TRAFFIC STUDY OR TIS FOR THIS PROJECT WHEN THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED BACK IN 2016, AND WE PREPARED THE TIS FOR THE CURRENT PROJECT, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE COPIES OF FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS INTENSE.

AS AN EXAMPLE, DURING THE PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING TRAFFIC, THE VOLUME IS REDUCED FROM 175 TO 23 ENTERING VEHICLES, WHICH IS OVER AN 86% REDUCTION. THE EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANES ON US 41 THAT MR. SAUNDERS HAD DISCUSSED AND WAS PREVIOUSLY WARRANTED BY THE PROJECT IS NO LONGER WARRANTED BY THE PROJECT.

ALSO, THE FDOT GUIDANCE FROM THE MULTI-MODAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK, OCTOBER 2023 DOES NOT RECOMMEND AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE DUE TO THE BUILT OUT CONDITIONS.

CONTEXT CLASSIFICATION AND POTENTIAL NEGATIVE PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE IMPACTS.

WE WOULD ASK THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION SECTION TWO, PARAGRAPH SIX.

THE FIRST SENTENCE JUST BE REVISED TO STATE FACTUALLY THAT THE TIS INDICATES THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT TRIGGER AN EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE. SEPARATELY, WE DO CONCUR WITH THE SIDEWALK PAYMENT IN LIEU OF RECOMMENDATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,572.69, AS WELL AS PROVIDING EASEMENT PROVISIONS TO INCREASE THE EXISTING SIDEWALK WIDTH FROM 6FT TO 8FT IN WIDTH IN THE FUTURE.

WE HAVE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY'S SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON TRAFFIC, ALLISON BICKETT, ON THE CURRENT PROJECT PROPOSAL, REDUCTION IN INTENSITY AND SIDEWALK NEEDS AS WELL.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT AN ADVERSE TRAFFIC GENERATOR FOR THE SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK.

THERE IS ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT ROADWAY CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROJECT.

TIS. AND WITH THAT. I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO MIKE VALENTINE TO DISCUSS THE UNDERGROUND PARKING.

[01:10:11]

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MIKE VALENTINE. I'M WITH KAREN'S ENGINEERING.

I'M A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN APPROXIMATELY A DOZEN STATES, INCLUDING FLORIDA.

I WORK AS THE DESIGN MANAGER IN OUR SARASOTA OFFICE, AND I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND PARKING ON THIS PROJECT.

WE'VE SEEN THE LAYOUT OF THE OF THE PROJECT WITH THE SURFACE PARKING AND THE BELOW GRADE PARKING.

SO I TYPICALLY JUMP RIGHT TO THIS SCREEN. I THINK PETER HAD ALREADY SHOWN THE SHOWN EVERYBODY.

THIS IS KIND OF WHERE I LIVE AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BECAUSE I'M, I'M INTERESTED MORE IN THE SKELETON OF THE STRUCTURE OR THE BONES OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO THIS HELPS US VISUALIZE THE LOAD PATH DOWN TO TO GROUND.

AND IN THIS CASE, WE DEAL WITH ALL LOADS THAT WE DO WITH ALL TYPICAL BUILDINGS FROM DEAD LOADS, THE SELF-WEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE TO LIVE LOADS, WHICH ARE THE PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING THAT'S MOVING AROUND AND EVEN FURNITURE THAT GETS MOVED. BUT OUR MAIN CONCERN, ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IS LATERAL LOADS, WIND, NOT SO MUCH SEISMIC, BUT WE HAD A HAD A NICE LITTLE FEEL THE OTHER DAY FROM CUBA.

BUT WE WE DEAL MOSTLY WITH THE WIND LOAD AND OF COURSE, THE FLOOD LOADS ARE BIG.

OUR BIG ISSUE. SO WITH THIS PROJECT, AS PETER HAD MENTIONED, OUR DESIGN ELEVATION IS AT 11FT ABOVE GRADE, WHICH PUTS US RIGHT AT THE SURFACE LEVEL. THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE AN UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED WITH.

AND EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, AT FIRST IS LIKE, OKAY, WELL, UNDERGROUND BELOW FLOODPLAIN, THAT'S THAT'S THAT SEEMS YOU KNOW, THAT SEEMS SOMETHING TO BE WORRIED ABOUT, BUT IT IS A CHALLENGE, BUT IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT'S BEEN MET MANY, MANY TIMES. IF YOU'VE EVER TRAVELED TO NEW YORK OR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY, YOU SEE TUNNELS UNDERGROUND UNDER THE WATER ALL THE TIME.

MOST OF MOST OF MANHATTAN IS AN ISLAND. SO JUST AS A, AS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE TO USE THERE, BUT WE ALSO DO THAT HERE IN FLORIDA AS WELL, EVEN WITH THE HURRICANES AND THE FLOODING. SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THOUGH, WE DO HAVE TO DO SOME, SOME AMAZING THINGS AND THINGS THAT IS DONE ALL THE TIME AND VERY FEASIBLE, VERY CONSTRUCTIBLE, BUT WE MAY SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF HARRY'S MONEY TO, TO DO IT JUST WITH ALL THE CONCRETE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO.

WE MAKE THIS CONCRETE THICKER, WE MAKE IT STRONGER.

AS FAR AS THE, THE STRENGTH OF THE CONCRETE. WE ADD ADMIXTURES FOR WATERPROOFING.

WE DO AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD PROBABLY BORE EVERYBODY TO TEARS HERE.

BUT YOU KNOW, NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ESPECIALLY THE DEPTH OF THIS IS NOT VERY DEEP.

I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE PAST PROJECT WAS TWO STORIES OF PARKING.

THIS IS ONLY ONE. OF COURSE, THE DEEPER YOU GO, THE MORE PRESSURES YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITH THE PRESSURES YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER.

A LOT OF A LOT OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST THE SOIL AND THE WATER THAT PUTS INTENSE PRESSURE BEHIND THE WALL, BOTH THE VERTICAL WALLS, BUT ALSO FROM UNDERNEATH, THERE'S A THERE'S A TERM CALLED BUOYANCY.

EVERYBODY WHO'S PROBABLY BEEN IN A BOAT OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONCEPT OF BUOYANCY, BUT WE RUN INTO THAT WITH A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE WE DO PUT AN UNDERGROUND LEVEL UNDER, UNDER THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION NOT SHOWN ON THE PICTURE ARE THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS THAT THIS BUILDING WILL BE FOUND ON.

THESE ARE GOING TO BE MOST LIKELY BE AUGER DRIVEN PILES THAT ARE SCREWED INTO THE INTO THE GROUND.

AND AND THEY EXTEND DOWN 40 TO 50FT. BASED ON THE LATEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THAT I'VE REVIEWED.

THAT'S ABOUT THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT FOR THIS FOR THIS AREA.

SO WITH THAT SAID WE'RE IN A, WE'RE IN A DESIGN FLOOD ZONE OF A E SO BUT ALSO CONFIRMING WITH THE FEMA MAPS, WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH DYNAMIC WAVE LOAD.

DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE SITE, WE STILL HAVE THAT FLOOD LOAD THAT WILL RISE AND FALL, AND THAT WILL CREATE THAT STATIC PRESSURE BOTH ON THE WALLS AND FROM UNDERNEATH WITH THE BUOYANCY. BUT WE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT DYNAMIC WAVE THAT WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DESIGN FOR, WE STILL HAVE TO DESIGN FOR IMPACT LOAD. SO THOSE LOADS ARE ALWAYS ACCOUNTED FOR.

AND THE DESIGN OF THESE STRUCTURES. AND IT FOLLOWS THE CURRENT CODES, BOTH LOCAL AND STATE AS WELL AS THE CITY.

AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THE UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE.

AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DONE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

I THINK IT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN. THERE, THERE IS A CODE REQUIREMENT WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS WHERE IF THERE, YOU ALWAYS ACCOUNT FOR SOME SEEPAGE. WE, WE TRY TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY DRY PROOF AS WE CANNOT MAKE THIS A WET PROOF CODE DOES NOT ALLOW US TO WET PROOF,

[01:15:07]

MEANING I MEAN WET PROOF BY PROVIDING VENTS AND BREAKAWAY WALLS AND ALLOW THE WATER TO COME IN AND EQUALIZE THE PRESSURE.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS. THIS HAS TO BE HARDENED. SO THIS WILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCRETE, A LOT OF REBAR, A LOT OF STRENGTH, AND MAYBE EVEN WE MAY REMAIN WITH THE SHEET PILING THAT THEY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTING THIS UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE.

SO I WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT, BUT I THINK I HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THAT POINT WAS.

BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF ANYBODY HAS ANY.

I WANT TO FINISH THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE'RE OVER 20 MINUTES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CHRISTIAN ANDRE, A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN. I WILL BE QUICK.

THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE AS IT EXISTED. I DON'T KNOW, A FEW MONTHS BACK, I THINK THE ROYAL PALMS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41 OR FIFTH AVENUE.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY'VE BEEN DEEMED CITY TREES.

AND DUE TO THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE GRADES, WE DON'T HAVE THEM ON THAT.

ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE. OKAY. THEY'RE JUST NOT ON THE OTHER SCREENS.

SORRY. SORRY. PHONES PINGING. SO THE SITE IS GOING TO HAVE IMPACTS TO THESE TREES AS FAR AS THE GRADE.

IT'S GOING TO ALTER THEM. SO THE TREES ARE BEING REPLACED WITH NEW 20 FOOT GRAY WOOD TO CONTINUE THE THE STREETSCAPE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

THIS IS MORE OF A TECHNICAL SHEET THAT JUST IDENTIFIES MATERIALS AND PAVERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I'LL FOCUS ON THE LANDSCAPE. WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THIS IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS IN PARTICULAR. AGAIN THE, THE ROYAL PALMS ALONG 41 THIS, THIS STRIP HERE.

AND THEN WE DO TURN THE CORNER WITH TWO MORE ROYAL PALMS. WE HAVE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE.

THAT IMPACTS THE TYPE OF TREES WE CAN USE. SO WE HAVE TO USE SMALLER TREES THAT ARE TYPICALLY BELOW 14 FOOT AS FAR AS ULTIMATE HEIGHT.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING FLOWERING YELLOW YELLOW FLOWERING TREES CALLED VERA WOOD HERE.

ONCE WE GET A LITTLE MORE SPACE WE'VE INCORPORATED SOME VERTICAL TREES, MULTI TRUNK MONTGOMERY PALMS, WHICH ARE A PRETTY COMMON TREE THAT WE USE AND OR FOXTAIL IN THIS LOCATION.

LET ME GO BACK TO 41 I FORGOT TO BRING UP. IN ADDITION TO THE ROYAL PALMS, WE'VE CREATED A KIND OF A NICKNAME.

THIS A HEDGE ON A STICK WHERE WE PUT A BUNCH OF TREES VERY CLOSE TOGETHER TO CREATE A DENSE PRIVATE SCREEN THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE 14FT AT MAINTAIN LEVELS THAT BASICALLY HAVE TREES 5 TO 6FT ON CENTER THAT RUN THE ENTIRE STRETCH HERE.

AND THEN UNDERNEATH THAT, WE PLANT A SHRUB THAT FILLS IN THE GAP UNDERNEATH THAT.

IN THIS CASE, WE'RE PROPOSING A VARIEGATED YELLOW GREEN SHRUB CALLED VARIEGATED SCHEFFLERA. AND THEN BETWEEN THAT AND THE SIDEWALK, WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE TURF TO HELP REDUCE MAINTENANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT FROM, YOU KNOW, JUST A BUNCH OF REASONS. SO WE'RE PROPOSING TWO LAYERS OF GROUND COVERS.

ONE IS GRASSY PLANT CALLED LIRIOPE. IT'S ABOUT 18IN TALL, AND THE OTHER IS A GROUND COVER CALLED ASIAN JASMINE.

SO WE ALTERNATE THAT AS WE GO ALONG THE PAVEMENT DECK HERE, WE'VE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER.

SO THIS IS A GROUPING OF CLUSIA THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY ALL FAMILIAR WITH PROBABLY MAINTAINED IN THAT 5 TO 6 FOOT RANGE.

AND THEN IN BETWEEN IT, WE ALTERNATE A COLORFUL FLOWERING PLANT, IN THIS CASE MEXICAN PETUNIA.

SO IT ALTERNATES BETWEEN A HEDGE, SOME COLOR AND THEN A HEDGE.

AND THEN IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO AREAS IS A LAWN AREA THAT'S ABOVE THE WATER MANAGEMENT AREA THAT ANDREW MENTIONED.

ON THE CORNER WE'VE ADDED, AS WE TYPICALLY DO, A FOCAL POINT OF SOME ANNUALS, SOME COLOR LAYERS OF GROUND COVER COMING BACK, A BIG BED OF BOUGAINVILLE AGAIN FOR SOME COLOR.

AND THEN BEHIND THAT, THE CONTINUATION OF THE HEDGE TO HELP SCREEN THE PARKING FROM THE STREET. INTERNAL TO THE SITE.

THESE ARE SMALL PLANTERS THAT ARE BASICALLY ON DECK LEVEL.

SO WE HAVE LIMITED HEIGHT THERE. SO OCCASIONALLY WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO GET A VERTICAL ELEMENT.

SO THOSE ARE THE PALM TREES, THOSE MONTGOMERY'S THAT I MENTIONED.

AND THEN UNDERNEATH THAT ARE BETWEEN THEM ARE LOWER GROUND COVERS THAT ARE KIND OF KNEE HEIGHT OR LESS ALONG THE REAR OF THE OR SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

WE HAVE KIND OF PRIVATIZED LITTLE COURTYARD AREAS.

AND THESE ARE HEDGES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO SCREEN AND CREATE PRIVACY BETWEEN THE UNITS.

THIS IS A PLANT CALLED PODOCARPUS, WHICH IS A TRIMMED NARROW HEDGE THAT WE FREQUENTLY USE ON THE CORNERS.

AGAIN, SOME MORE OF THE PALM TREES. AND THEN AS A KIND OF AN ACCENT OR FOCAL FEATURE, WE'VE INCORPORATED SOME SYLVESTER PALMS AND RAISED PLANTERS ALONG THE AREA BACK THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN ALONG THE DECK.

WE'VE DONE A KIND OF THREE QUARTER MASS OF CLUSIA.

AND THEN WE'VE BROUGHT IN SOME OTHER PLANT MATERIALS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. BOUGAINVILLE ON THE CORNER FOR SOME COLOR AND THEN SOME BROMELIAD TYPE PLANTS ON THE CORNERS HERE.

AND THEN THIS IS A RAISED PLANTER HERE. SO THAT HAS A MEDIUM LEVEL SHRUB CALLED WAX JASMINE, WHICH IS A KIND OF A TWO FOOT TALL PLANT, SOME NATIVE GRASSES RUNNING ALONG THE EDGE HERE, AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL BUFFERING TREES TO THE SOUTH ON THE ROOF DECK, THERE ARE SOME PRIVATE POOLS THAT ARE PROBABLY NICKNAMED SPOOLS OR THE COMBINATION SPA POOLS. SO THEY'RE ON THE DECK ELEVATION EACH, EACH PRIVATE TERRACE HAS THAT.

AND THEN ALSO SCREENING BETWEEN THESE, I BELIEVE WE DID PODOCARPUS THERE AS WELL.

OOPS. YEAH. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL PODOCARPUS.

[01:20:02]

THEN THE NARROW PLANTERS, THEY WORK BEST. AND THEN THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE PLANT PALETTE IS.

AND THEN THIS IS MORE OF A TECHNICAL SHEET THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT GRADES AND SECTIONS, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FOCUS ON THIS, BUT THESE COMPLIMENT WHAT ANDREW HAD SHARED WITH YOU PREVIOUSLY.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. JUST TO BE REAL QUICK, IN CONCLUSION, THIS PROJECT MEETS ALL OF THE CITY CODES. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

AND SO WE'RE ASKING TODAY FOR A POSITIVE VOTE ON THIS PETITION ALONG WITH THE BELOW GRADE PARKING.

AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE PETITIONERS AGENTS? I HAVE COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. MAYOR, SORRY. SORRY TO INTERRUPT JUST ONE THING LEGALLY, JUST TO SET THE STAGE THAT I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH WITH ON MR. SAUNDERS THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. YES, PLEASE.

I THINK FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEFORE COUNCIL IS THE TRANSIENT LODGING USE AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SO THE CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING IS BASED ON THAT CONDITIONAL USE WAS WHICH IS THE TRANSIENT LODGING.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR AS TO WHAT COUNCIL IS, WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF COUNCIL TODAY VIA THIS PETITION, WHICH IS STRICTLY REVIEWING THE CRITERIA BASED ON THE TRANSIENT LODGING USE AS A CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHTS OVER TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE AND THE LANDSCAPING? NO. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ALL OF THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE CRITERIA AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

CORRECT. BECAUSE OF THE TRANSIENT LODGING USE. BUT MR. SAUNDERS KEEPS SAYING WE'RE HERE TO APPROVE UNDERGROUND PARKING. THAT'S NOT PART OF THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU. WELL, I'LL I'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON UNDERGROUND PARKING AFTER STAFF MAKES THEIR COMMENTS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A CODE FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING FOR THE CITY, BUT THERE IS A FLORIDA STATE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR WHICH WE HAVE USED FOR THIS PROJECT AND I NIGHT, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. BUT WE DO HAVE A PAUSE ON FURTHER BELOW GRADE PARKING.

PRIOR TO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT, BUT WE DO HAVE A PAUSE UNTIL WE HAVE BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND DEFINITIONS FOR THAT.

AND I WANT TO JUST ADD THAT CLEARLY TO THE RECORD LATER, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT.

TO CLARIFY, THE PAUSE STATED THAT COUNCIL HAD TO APPROVE UNDERGROUND PARKING IN THE INTERIM UNTIL REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED.

RIGHT. SO STAFF WASN'T ALLOWED. I'M LOOKING AT ERICA.

YEAH. THANK YOU. WE'RE AHEAD OF HER. SO I'LL JUST JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE FACTS ON THE RECORD.

SO THE MOTION WAS MADE SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2023. AND DIRECT WORDING WAS TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A THOROUGH CODE REGARDING UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGES AND IN THE MOTION WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SUGGEST THAT UNTIL SUCH TIME, WE PAUSE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS RELATED TO UNDERGROUND AND BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGES, AND THAT PASSED 5 TO 2.

THANK YOU. NOT THANK YOU. SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE.

THEY CAN HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING, BUT THEY COULD HAVE COUNCIL APPROVAL.

CORRECT. AND THIS WAS PRIOR TO ME AND WITH THE PRIOR COUNCIL, I OPINED MULTIPLE TIMES AND I HAVEN'T DONE SO WITH THE NEW COUNCIL THAT THAT MOTION WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT. AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A QUASI MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING.

AND WHILE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO ISSUE THOSE HAS TO BE IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE WITH TWO READINGS, AND THERE'S A CERTAIN LEGAL PROCEDURE YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW. OKAY.

STAFF REPORT. OH, NO. I'M SORRY, MR. SCHULZ. WE LOST YOU.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I THINK I'D PROBABLY BENEFIT MORE FROM THE STAFF AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS AFTER I HEAR FROM THE STAFF.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AND YES. YES, OF COURSE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CARL, A COUPLE THINGS HERE. IS THERE ANY PLANNED FUEL SALES? BOAT STORAGE? NO. HOW MANY BOATS AVAILABLE FOR MARINE USAGE? NO. IF SOMEONE WANTS SOME REPAIR TO THEIR BOAT OR AN ENGINE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY PULL UP TO THE ONE OF THE TWO PARKING SPACES.

THEY CAN GO INTO THE MARINE STORE AND MAKE SOME ARRANGEMENTS, AND THEN SOMEONE WILL PICK THAT VEHICLE UP THAT BOAT UP AND MOVE IT TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION. THERE'LL BE NO FUEL SALES, NO BOAT REPAIRS AT THIS LOCATION.

I'VE BEEN A BOATER ALL MY LIFE. I'VE VISITED LOTS OF MARINAS, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS A MARINA.

[01:25:04]

SO I'M TRYING TO BECAUSE THAT'S CRITICAL WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK WAIVER, YOU KNOW, BY HAVING A MARINA.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T. YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK WAIVER WAIVER, BUT WE'RE ABLE TO INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE BY ABOUT 1% BECAUSE OF THE MARINE SHIP STORE, THE CALCULATION THAT STAFF USED.

AND THEY ADVISE US AS TO WHAT THE CALCULATION WOULD BE.

AND SO THAT, THAT PART OF IT WITH THE BOAT DOCKS, MARINE IS A MARINE.

THAT'S NOT A MARINA, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE STORE IS NOT A MARINA NECESSARILY.

SO IF I MAY WE RELY ON THE CITY CODE AND NOT ON OUR OPINION OF A MARINA.

AND SO IF YOU RESEARCH THE CITY CODE, IT'S CLEAR WHAT A MARINA IS.

AND WE'VE SPENT FOUR YEARS DETERMINING WHAT A MARINA WAS BASED UPON.

THE CITY CODE STAFF FINALLY GAVE THE APPROVAL THAT IT IS QUALIFIED UNDER THE CITY CODE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WE CAN'T FORECAST WHAT OPINIONS ARE, BUT WE CAN STICK TO THE CODE AND BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE CODE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. OKAY. I GUESS TALK TO STAFF ABOUT THAT.

THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERN I HAD THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOU IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

I MEAN, I'M TRAVEL IN THAT AREA DAILY AND IN SEASON IT'S BACKED UP TO SANDPIPER GETTING IN DOWN TO DOWNTOWN.

AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDING ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN DAVIS TRIANGLE, WHICH IS MASSIVE.

I MEAN, WHEN THAT TRAFFIC HITS, IT COULD BE BACKED UP ANOTHER MILE, IN MY OPINION.

BUT BUT BUT BUT IT'S A IT'S A CONCERN. AND WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WE CAN HAVE A TURNING LANE, WHICH CAN MAYBE PAUSE TRAFFIC OR BACKUP TRAFFIC.

MORE ON THAT GOING, GOING OUT AS WELL. I, I JUST IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THEY LOOK AT FUTURE DATA THAT'S COMING ONLINE HERE OR BECAUSE IT'S TO ME, IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE FOR THE COMMUNITY WITH TRANSIENT LODGING.

SURE. HI, NORM TREBILCOCK. IN OUR. IN OUR STUDY, WE DID LOOK AT WHEN THE BUILD OUT WOULD OCCUR.

AND WE DO. WE DO USE THE TRAFFIC, THE BACKGROUND DATA PROVIDED FROM THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING PEAK TRAFFIC AND DO GROW THE TRAFFIC.

AND I'M REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AS WELL AS I DRIVE THROUGH IT MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY AS WELL.

AND SO REALLY, THIS LESS INTENSIVE PROJECT IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT I THINK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE HERE IN TERMS OF ACCOMMODATING THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC FOR THAT.

AND I THINK YOUR STAFF CAN SPEAK TO IT AS WELL.

BUT AGAIN, WE DID USE THE TRAFFIC DATA PROVIDED FROM THE CITY AS WELL AND LOOKED AT PEAK TRAFFIC DATA AS WELL.

AND THAT'S IN THE STUDY. THE TABLES. WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT VEHICLES? IS THE PARKING WAS THAT RESOLVED WITH THE INSUFFICIENT DEPTH FOR VEHICLES THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT? WAS THAT THE DEPTH OF THE PARKING SPACES. YEAH.

PARDON ME PETER MAY BE MAY BE ABLE TO SHED A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT ON THAT.

BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE PARKING SPACES ACTUALLY MEET THE CODE.

AND THERE'S SOME COMMUNICATION THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE ON THAT. BUT AS I SAID DURING MY COMMENTS THAT THESE LITTLE TECHNICAL ISSUES WILL BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, AND STAFF HAS HAS THAT IN THEIR REPORTS TO THIS THIS COUNCIL.

SO IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION. YEAH. PETER, FOR THE RECORD, YES, WE BELIEVE THE EXISTING SPACES DO MEET YOUR CODE.

HOWEVER, IF FOR SOME REASON WE DETERMINE THAT THEY DO NOT, WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.

OR OTHER THING IS SENSITIVITY WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE AIRPORTS THERE AND IT'S TRANSIENT LODGING.

DO YOU SEE ANY IMPACT FROM YOUR, YOU KNOW, WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENT? WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS COMPLAINTS COMING, YOU KNOW, KNOWING IT'S THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO HERE. SO ABSOLUTELY, THERE'LL BE NOTICE TO ALL OF THE OWNERS AND RENTERS AND ANYONE THAT'S USING THAT FACILITY, THERE'LL BE NOTICE OF THAT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY HAD.

AND WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYONE THAT RENTS ONE OF THOSE UNITS, ANYONE THAT BUYS ONE OF THOSE UNITS FOR RENTAL PURPOSES, THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE AIRPORT AND, AND AS PETER HAD INDICATED, WE'RE DOING ALL THE THINGS NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE THE SOUND IMPACTS OF OF THAT.

OKAY. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE BECAUSE WE HAVE A TEMPLATE, THE HOTEL,

[01:30:04]

WHICH WAS APPROVED AND HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR TEN YEARS AND WE'VE LEARNED A LOT FROM FROM THAT ON HOW THEY MANAGE THAT ISSUE.

AND SO WE WILL BE INCORPORATING IN THE DEEDS WHEN, WHEN PURCHASED AND WHEN SOMEBODY LEASES OR RENTS A UNIT, IT'LL ACTUALLY BE INCORPORATED. IT'LL BE A SEPARATE WAIVER THAT THEY HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE LOCATION OF THAT.

IT'LL ALSO BE POSTED IN, IN THE ROOMS YOU KNOW, ON THE BACK OF THE DOORS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE HOTEL DID.

AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE FORTUNATE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT THAT EXPERIENCE AND THAT TEMPLATE TO FOLLOW.

SO THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. OKAY, GREAT. WELL THANK YOU.

JUST ON THAT. SO WILL THERE BE IN YOUR CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS, THAT STATEMENT WITHIN THAT? YES. AND IT WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A OF A WRITER A WAIVER.

AND I'M MY SON'S HERE AS AN ATTORNEY, LOCAL NAPLES PRODUCT.

AND THE ATTORNEY SHOULD SPEAK TO THAT BETTER THAN I CAN, BUT IT WILL BE NOT HIDDEN.

SO IT WILL BE WHEN YOU SIGN, WHEN YOU GET YOUR CONDOMINIUM DOCS, THAT WILL BE A SEPARATE SIGNATURE REQUIRED THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT IT'S IN THE AIRPORT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE. THANK YOU. AND I DID SEE THE LETTER FROM THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY WITHIN OUR INFORMATION.

SO AND I HAVE MR. ROSANSKY HERE AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER.

ARE YOU COMPLETE COUNCIL MEMBER? YEAH. FOR NOW.

OKAY. COUNCIL VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP, THANK YOU.

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE DETAILS.

SO FOLLOWING UP ON THE BEING IN THE AIRPORT NOISE CONTOUR, I THINK THE AIRPORT REQUESTED A NAVIGATION EASEMENT.

AND HAVE YOU GUYS AGREED TO DO THAT? YEAH. THIS IS ONE YOU DON'T WANT TO REALLY STEP INTO, BUT THIS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE DURING THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO AUTHORIZE OR APPROVE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES CODE IS AND WHAT THE THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THE LAST TIME WE WERE ASKED TO PUT IN THAT, THEY COULD HAVE UP TO LIKE A 737 PLANE FLYING IN AND THAT WE WOULD SIGN OFF ON THAT.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S OUR POSITION TO DO THAT.

SO WE WOULD WE WOULD FOLLOW WHATEVER THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY CODE IS AND WHATEVER REFERENCES WE WOULD HAVE WOULD BE TO THAT THAT LIMITED AMOUNT OF SIGN OFF. SO WE'D ACCOMMODATE WHAT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY WISHES US TO DO, BUT WE WOULD NOT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, WE WOULD NOT GIVE A BLANKET NAVIGATION APPROVAL TO BRING IN JUMBO JETS OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. YEAH. I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT JUMBO JETS.

SORRY, JUST SOME RANDOM QUESTIONS THEN. UNDERGROUND PARKING.

WILL IT BE WATERPROOF? SO LIKE, IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN TO STAY AND A STORM'S COMING IN, WILL THE, IS THERE LIKE A WATERPROOF DOOR OR DOES EVERYBODY HAVE TO MOVE THEIR CARS OUT? ONE OF THE EXPERTS GIVE YOU A BETTER ANSWER. YES, THE UNDERGROUND PARKING WOULD BE DRY FLOOD PROOFED, SO WATER WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO GO INTO THE SPACE OTHER THAN THE CODE ALLOWED SEEPAGE THAT WE WOULD THEN PUMP OUT.

THERE WOULD BE A MEANS AT THE MAIN GARAGE ENTRY OF CONTROLLING WATER.

WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT BARRIER ACTUALLY IS, HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED.

THEY'LL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, BUT THERE WILL BE A BARRIER THERE THAT GOES UP TO THE LEVEL OF DESIGN, FLOOD ELEVATION THAT STOPS WATER FROM FLOWING INTO THE GARAGE.

OKAY. AND REGARDING THE DESIGN, FLOOD ELEVATION.

I THINK IT'S 11FT. DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW THAT COMPARES TO THE STORM SURGE WE HAD DURING HURRICANE IAN? SO JUST ANECDOTALLY, I THINK THE OLD FEMA MAPS WERE VERY CLOSE TO ROUGHLY WHAT THE STORM SURGE ENDED UP BEING WITH IAN OR JUST IAN WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT BELOW THE OLD FEMA FLOOD MAPS.

THE FLOOD ELEVATION ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE, I BELIEVE, WENT UP TWO FEET WITH THE NEWER MAPS.

SO WE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE IN THE 2 TO 3FT ABOVE IAN RANGE AT THIS POINT.

AND OBVIOUSLY NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS, BUT THERE'S NO RESIDENTS ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

RIGHT? THE FIRST FLOOR, THEY'RE ONLY ON SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR. CORRECT.

SO THEY'RE FURTHER REMOVED FROM POTENTIAL FLOODING.

YEAH. THEY WOULD BE YOU KNOW, TEN, 12FT AT THAT POINT ABOVE FEMA.

OKAY. I THINK SOMEBODY MENTIONED SOME ROOFTOP AMENITIES.

AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THOSE ARE, BUT ARE THEY ALL BELOW THE 42 FOOT CHARTER HEIGHT LIMIT? YES. AND STAFF HAS MADE THAT DETERMINATION AS WELL.

OKAY, GREAT. AND I THINK MR. RATH MENTIONED PAVERS FOR

[01:35:09]

PARKING. ARE THOSE PERMEABLE TO HELP DEAL WITH THE STORMWATER ISSUES? ANDREW DAVIDSON ENGINEERING THE, THE MAIN VEHICULAR USE AREA YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE WITH THE PAVERS, THEY'RE NOT PERMEABLE PAVERS AS WE HAVE A STRUCTURED PARKING BENEATH THAT.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS FOR THAT MAIN SURFACE PARKING AREA THERE, IT'S, IT'S SIMPLY SHEET FLOWING OFF TOWARDS THE NORTH TOWARDS 41 WHERE IT HAS THAT PRETREATMENT AREA, WHICH IS A GRASSY SWALE TO PROVIDE THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

AFTER WE REACH THAT VOLUME, THEN IT SPILLS DOWN INTO THE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER CHAMBERS.

SO NOT PERMEABLE PAVERS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A PARKING GARAGE BENEATH IT.

SO YOU STILL MEET THE STORMWATER CODE JUST IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

YEAH. JUST DIFFERENT METHODS AND. OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

THANKS. GOOD. THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTIONS. COUNCIL.

I JUST WHAT WASN'T COVERED WAS SO WHEN ARE WE DISCUSSING SIGNAGE OR MAYBE THE POSSIBILITY OF BUFFERING FOR THE LANDSCAPING.

SIGNAGE I WON'T SPEAK TO. I'LL LET WHICH I CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF I COULD.

AND THEN BUFFERING AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY.

THIS HAS GONE TO DRB FOR PRELIMINARY. SO YOU'LL GO TO SECOND FOR THE CORRECT.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ROUND TO GO THROUGH FOR FINAL FOR WHATEVER FOR LIGHTING.

LIGHTING WOULD BE PART OF THAT. PAVING COLORS, MATERIALS FINISHES LANDSCAPE FINAL LANDSCAPE AS WELL.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES YOU DID. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED.

THANK YOU. FOLLOW UP ON THAT. THE BUFFERING. IT IS FINANCIALLY IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO PUT AS MUCH BUFFERING IN VEGETATION AS POSSIBLE. THE OTHER THE OTHER ITEM WHICH IS IMPORTANT IS A LOT OF PROJECTS PUT A LOT OF LANDSCAPING IN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY AFTER TIME IT GOES. IT DOESN'T STAY WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO.

FOR WHATEVER REASONS, WE'RE TOUGH CLIMATE. THIS SITUATION.

WE HAVE TO SPEND AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY MAINTAINING THAT BUFFER.

IT IS THE. IT IS. IT IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF KEEPING THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, VALUABLE.

RIGHT? PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO SEE CARS AND HEAR NOISE.

WE WANT TO MITIGATE THAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. OKAY. WELL, WE CAN COME BACK TO THE PETITIONER FOR ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD MORNING. ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. YOU HAVE FOR YOU TODAY A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION.

THIS IS PETITION 26-Q1. AND THIS IS FOR A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW TRANSIENT LODGING AS PART OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICEROY.

THIS IS A 599 RIVER POINT DRIVE IN THE C TWO, A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

THIS PROPERTY IS AN UNDEVELOPED LOT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, WHICH IS US 41 AND RIVERPOINT DRIVE. THIS PROJECT DATES BACK TO 2022.

PROBABLY SUBMITTED IN 2021. BUT FIRST HEARING ON THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW HEARING IN 2022.

AND THEN FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW HEARING WAS SITE PLAN AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.

THAT SITE PLAN HAD A NUMBER OF ROUNDS, BUT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED A MINUTE AGO THAT WHAT WHILE THEY WERE IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, THE MOTION THAT I READ FROM SEPTEMBER OF 2023, COUNSEL MADE THE MOTION ADDRESSING UNDERGROUND PARKING.

SO THIS PROJECT HAD ALWAYS INCLUDED THE ONE LEVEL OF UNDERGROUND PARKING.

SO THAT KIND OF PUT A, PUT A HOLD ON THIS PROJECT.

WE DID CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER. AS YOU KNOW, IN SPITE OF THAT MOTION, WE DID CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER.

ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS THE, THE MARINA USE. SO IN THE CEQA DISTRICT, THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO NON MARINA USES.

AND THEN THERE ARE SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MARINA USES. AND SO WHAT I MEAN ARE SETBACKS LOT COVERAGE SUCH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO IT WAS A PROCESS OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEVELOPER TO REFINE THIS PROJECT TO BETTER MEET THAT DEFINITION OF MARINA.

SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO A MARINA.

SO YOU'LL SEE TODAY THE SIZE OF THE MARINA SHIP STORE HAS INCREASED.

YOU HAVE 4200FT² OF MARINA SHIP STORE. SO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE OVERALL MAKE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS TWO LEVELS OF TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS.

SO 12 TOTAL UNITS, ONE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL AND 4200FT² OF THAT COMMERCIAL LEVEL IS THE MARINA SHIP STORE.

[01:40:05]

AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE ONE LEVEL OF UNDERGROUND PARKING.

SO YOU HAVE A 14 BOAT SLIPS THAT ARE PROVIDED.

14 THE DOCKS AND THE BOAT SLIPS. 12 OF THOSE ARE DEDICATED TO THE TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS.

AND THEN THERE ARE TWO THAT ARE PUBLIC BOAT SLIPS THAT ARE TIED TO THE MARINA USE.

SO I THINK THE DEVELOPER AND HIS AGENT MENTIONED THAT THIS IS IT'S A MARINA SHIP STORE.

THERE'S NO FUELING FACILITIES, NO REPAIR WORK.

IT'S DIAGNOSTIC. SO IF YOU WERE OUT ON THE WATER AND HAD AN ISSUE WITH YOUR BOAT, YOU COULD PULL INTO THIS PRIVATE SLIP, HAVE SOMEONE COME DOWN, DIAGNOSE THE ISSUE, AND THEN THEY WOULD CALL AND HAVE THAT BOAT TOWED SOMEWHERE ELSE TO BE REPAIRED.

SO THEY WON'T BE PERFORMING THE MAINTENANCE AT THIS LOCATION.

AND SO THAT'S THE MARINA USE. THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THE QUALIFYING FOR THAT MARINA USE, THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE ONLY OF A 1% INCREASE IN THE LOT COVERAGE. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT DIRECT CONTRIBUTION, WHAT WE LOOKED AT IS THE NON MARINA PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY OF THIS PROJECT COMPLY WITH THE NON MARINA LOT COVERAGE STANDARD IN THE C2A.

AND ONLY THE MARINA PORTION IS WHAT BUMPS IT UP ABOVE THAT 40%.

AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE ABOUT 41% TOTAL. SO IT'S THAT THE ADDITION OF MARINA USE THAT INCREASES TO THAT STANDARD.

WE SUBSEQUENT TO OR WHILE WE WERE IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, WE'VE BEEN IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS SINCE 2022.

AT THE END OF 2025. THE PETITIONER DID FILE AN APPEAL.

THEY APPEALED TWO OF THE ISSUES. TWO. SO THE ISSUES MEANING WHEN WE ISSUE THE RAISE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT, TWO OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

ONE WAS THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AND JUST STATING THAT STAFF WAS UNABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE UNDERGROUND PARKING AT THIS TIME AS A RESULT OF THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL.

AND THEN THE SECOND WAS THE MARINA USE. SO THE APPEAL DID GO BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

IT WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS.

IT DID GO BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. AT THE TIME IT WAS DETERMINED BOTH BY STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY, I THINK AN AGREEMENT THAT THAT MOTION WAS A MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL.

SO THAT WAS NOT A PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ISSUE TO TAKE UP ON THE UNDERGROUND PARKING.

THAT WAS A CITY COUNCIL ISSUE TO TAKE UP, NOT PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. SO THEY DID NOT HEAR THAT. THEY WE DID DISCUSS WE HAD A FULL PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSING THE MARINA USE AT THAT TIME STAFF IDENTIFIED. I THINK THERE ARE SOME SMALL CHANGES WE CAN MAKE HERE TO TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES.

THE PETITIONER AGREED THE APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN.

WE WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER. THEY DID MODIFY THE PLANS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH THE MARINA USAGE AND TO STAFF'S COMFORT.

SO THEN WE WERE ABLE TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN OR FIND IT SUFFICIENT.

WE DON'T APPROVE THE SITE PLANS, BUT FIND THE SITE PLAN SUFFICIENT CONTINGENT UPON A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS.

SO THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU SEE IN THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE MOST OF THEM COME OUT OF THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC AND A BUNCH A LOT OF THE OTHER ONES COME OUT OF THAT SITE PLAN.

THERE ARE A COUPLE LITTLE DIMENSIONAL ISSUES ON THE PLAN, BUT I AM COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THE PETITIONER TO ADDRESS THOSE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. I THINK WE HAVE MAYBE A DISAGREEMENT ON THE MEASUREMENT OF THE PARKING SPACES, BUT THAT'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN'T WORK OUT PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.

THERE ARE SOME HEIGHTS OF SOME ELEMENTS WITHIN THAT SETBACK.

I THINK THAT'S ALL. NONE OF THOSE WOULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE USE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

BECAUSE WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE TRANSIENT LODGING USE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONDITIONAL IN THE C TO A DISTRICT.

SO THIS IS THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT.

THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT DOWNTOWN MIXED USE DESIGNATION.

THERE ARE TWO. THE TWO THINGS SPECIFIC TO THIS IS THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION LIMITS DENSITY TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE AND REQUIRES ONE SPACE PER PARKING SPACE PER TRANSIENT LODGING.

THE C TO A DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE IN THAT SENSE THAT C TO A DISTRICT LIMITS RESIDENTIAL TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

AND 1.25 PARKING SPACES FOR TRANSIENT LODGING.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR RESIDENTIAL. I JUST, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS WITH SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A TRANSIENT LODGING? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? HOW LONG ARE THEY ALLOWED TO STAY THERE? SO TRANSIENT LODGING DOESN'T PUT A MAXIMUM ON THE TIME THAT SOMEONE CAN STAY IN A UNIT.

IT'S ACTUALLY A MINIMUM. SO TRANSIENT LODGING, THE TRANSIENT LODGING APPROVAL AND THE DEFINITION OF YOUR CODE ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO RENT IT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS.

THEY CAN RENT IT FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS, SIX MONTHS, WHATNOT.

BUT THEY CAN. THIS ALLOWS THEM TO RENT IT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS.

BUT THE ISSUE IS IF THEY WERE, I KNOW THESE ARE FOR SALE TO THEN BE PUT INTO A RENTAL POOL.

IF WE DID FIND THAT THEY WERE NOT OPERATED AS TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITIES, THE ISSUE WE WOULD HAVE,

[01:45:03]

THEY WOULD STILL BE COMPLIANT WITH DENSITY. I THINK WE'D HAVE A PARKING ISSUE, THOUGH, BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS REQUIRE A HIGHER PARKING PROVISION.

SO IF THEY WERE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THEY'D BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT PLUS VISITOR PARKING.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ISSUE, BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE CONSISTENT WITH DENSITY. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD THEY ARE ASKING FOR TRANSIENT USE. SO THIS WAS FOUND SUFFICIENT AT THE SITE PLAN LEVEL.

THEY DID GO THROUGH ONTO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERED THIS ITEM AT THE MAY 13TH, 2026 MEETING AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE TEN CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION.

THEY ARE THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. THEY ARE ALSO WITHIN THE NOISE CONTOURS FOR THE AIRPORT.

AND SO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH A SEPARATE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

IT'S NOT THIS SAME CONDITIONAL USE. IT'S A SEPARATE SET OF CRITERIA, BUT IT'S A SET OF CRITERIA SPECIFIC TO THE AIRPORT.

THEY WERE REQUIRED TO GO BEFORE THE FAA AND OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FROM THE N A.

SO THEY DID THAT AT THE MAY 21ST N AA MEETING.

AND I'M GOING TO READ WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT MEETING WAS.

BY UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS, THEY VOTED TO GRANT APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE VICEROY PURSUANT TO SECTION 58-1078 OF THE CODE, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS DISCUSSED, INCLUDING.

AND THERE WERE FOUR. THE FIRST WAS A NAVIGATION EASEMENT EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF AND IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE AUTHORITY.

THE EASEMENT MUST INCLUDE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, OVERFLIGHT PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NOISE DISCLOSURE TO FUTURE OCCUPANTS, INCLUDING INITIAL BUYERS, SUBSEQUENT BUYERS, RENTERS AND LEASEHOLDERS, AND MARINA USERS, IF APPLICABLE.

THE SECOND, THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES. CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 58 ZONING SECTION 58-1078.

AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT ZONE. LAND USE REGULATIONS NUMBER THREE.

UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL HAVE ITS QUALIFIED ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT CERTIFY TO THE AUTHORITY THAT THE TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY MEETS A SOUND LEVEL REQUIREMENT OF 45 FOR INTERIOR SPACES AND FOR POST-CONSTRUCTION ACOUSTICAL TESTING TO VERIFY INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WILL BE VERIFIED BY AN INDEPENDENT QUALIFIED ENGINEER.

THE ANY FURTHER STATED THAT AUTHORITY STAFF WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER REGARDING THIS PROJECT.

COORDINATION WOULD ALSO BE NECESSARY THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AS IT RELATES TO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CRANES, ETC.. I DID INCLUDE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE NEA FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, AND I BELIEVE CHRIS RODZINSKI. I SAW HIM IS HERE.

IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE, BUT I'M SURE CHRIS.

CHRIS WOULD. I WILL ALSO MENTION WE DID NOTICE THIS AT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ALSO DESIGN REVIEW.

SO THIS WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED. ALL CORRESPONDENCE IS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA FOR THIS ITEM.

AND STAFF DID FIND THAT THIS THEY SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA SUBJECT TO SOME REVISIONS BETWEEN NOW AND AND BUILDING PERMIT. WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND SOME OF THE HEIGHTS ARE CLEARED UP FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.

ADDITIONALLY, ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR RESOLUTION RELATED TO TRAFFIC, I DO WANT TO SPECIFICALLY MENTION TO YOU THAT STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN DID NOT INCLUDE A REVIEW OF THE DOCKS THAT ARE DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS, NOR THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE SURROUNDING WATER WATERFRONT PROPERTIES.

THE DOCKS WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE MARINA SITING CRITERIA IN CHAPTER 52 OF YOUR CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF NAPLES CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER APPLICABLE OUTSIDE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.

THE LOCATION OF THESE DOCKS AND THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE BRIDGE WILL WILL BE REVIEWED BY OTHER OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RELIANCE UPON THE USE OF BOAT SLIPS FOR THE MARINA USE, IF THAT SHOULD BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS. WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THAT.

SO WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT THIS IS NOT AN APPROVAL OF THOSE DOCKS.

THEY ARE SIMPLY SHOWN TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THERE WILL BE DOCKS ASSIGNED TO THE TRANSIENT LODGING SLIPS AND THAT THERE WILL BE TWO PUBLIC SLIPS.

THE DIMENSION, THE LOCATION OF THOSE SLIPS ARE, ARE NOT APPROVED THROUGH THIS PETITION TODAY.

WE JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE. THERE ARE TEN CONDITIONS IN YOUR RESOLUTION.

I CAN READ THEM IF YOU'D LIKE. THEY'RE ABOUT TWO PAGES.

OR. OR I DON'T HAVE TO. I WILL SAY, I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT MARINA AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A MARINA.

THERE IS A DEFINITION IN YOUR CODE IN CHAPTER 44, SECTION EIGHT, WHICH IS MARINA MEANS AN ESTABLISHMENT WITH A WATERFRONT LOCATION DESIGNED TO SERVICE WATERCRAFT. A MARINA MAY INCLUDE SUCH ACTIVITIES AS MAY INCLUDE SUCH ACTIVITIES AS REFUELING AND LUBRICATION OF WATERCRAFT, COVERED OR UNCOVERED BOAT SLIPS OR DOCK SPACE, DRY STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT, CHARTER AND SIGHTSEEING BOAT DOCKAGE BOAT AND BOAT MOTOR SALES

[01:50:02]

OR RENTALS. OUTFITTING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR INCLUDING HAULOUT FACILITIES, BOAT LAUNCHING, RETAIL SALE OF BOATING OR FISHING SUPPLIES AND ACCESSORIES, RESTAURANTS OR REFRESHMENT FACILITIES, LAUNDRY FACILITIES OR OTHER CUSTOMARY ACCESSORY FACILITIES.

NO BOAT MANUFACTURING OR MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION IS PERMITTED.

SO THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF MARINA IN YOUR CODE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE PETITIONER WAS RELYING ON IN DESIGNING THIS.

SO YOU HAVE THE MARINA SHIP STORE AND THE TWO BOAT SLIPS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR DIAGNOSTICS FOR FOR THE PUBLIC, FOR BOATERS. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

AND IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO READ THE CONDITIONS I CAN. I WANT YOU TO READ AS FAST AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

YOU GOT IT. THOSE CONDITIONS ARE THREE PAGES OF IT.

AND I ALSO JUST A LOT OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE TRAFFIC RELATED.

WE DO HAVE ALLISON RADKE HERE TO ANSWER. THESE WERE CONDITIONS THAT CAME OUT OF HER REVIEW. AND I DID SPEAK WITH ALLISON.

I THINK THE PETITIONER HAD MENTIONED THAT IN ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS, I BELIEVE IT WAS NUMBER SIX THAT THE NUMBER SIX SAYS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY INDICATES THE REDEVELOPMENT TRIGGERS AN EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE.

I THINK THEY HAD MENTIONED THAT FURTHER WORKING OF THIS PROJECT AND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

IT DOES NOT TRIGGER. THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT DOES NOT TRIGGER.

AND ALLISON AGREES WITH THAT BASED ON SOME ONGOING DISCUSSIONS AND WORK WITH THE PETITIONER.

SO THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THIS. WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE IN THERE, BUT. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR STAFF REPORT, COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, FOLKS FOR PUTTING ON A GOOD PRESENTATION.

SECOND TIME I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THE CONVERSATIONS YOU MENTIONED WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

WHAT KIND OF COMMUNICATION DID YOU HAVE WITH THEM? NOT WITH NO NAMING NAMES, JUST THE GENERAL TENOR.

I'M SORRY. WITH THE NEIGHBORS, WITH THE AIRPORT.

SORRY. NO. NO COMMUNICATION. OH, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS JUST. I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF SURGERY. SORRY.

WE WERE PROACTIVE IN MAKING SURE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORS, SO WE HAVE ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS, NOT REALLY NEGOTIATIONS TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM PROVIDING ALL OF THE RELIEF THAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR.

THERE IS IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE, WE'LL SHOW THERE'S SOME SHARED PARKING SPACES AS PART OF THAT RIVER POINT PARKING AGREEMENT. THAT'S BEEN ON, BEEN IN THE CITY FOR 30, 40 YEARS.

AND WE HAVE ACCOMMODATED THAT. THERE'S TEN COVERAGE SPACES NOW FOR THEM.

THEY ONLY HAD SIX BEFORE. WE'RE ACTUALLY ADDING FOUR MORE SPACES FOR THE MARINA.

WE'RE ALSO TAKING CARE OF THE SEAWALL. AND THERE WAS A LIST OF ABOUT 5 OR 6 THINGS THAT THEIR PRESIDENT OF THE MARINA HAD MR. STEELE HAD REQUESTED, AND WE'VE AGREED TO ALL OF THEM.

SO WE ARE, WE ARE IN GOOD SHAPE WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBOR.

THANK YOU. WITH RAY STEELE. I SPOKE WITH HIM, AND I WAS AUTHORIZED TO SAY THAT THE RIVER POINT MARINA SUPPORTS THIS PROJECT.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE THIS MORNING. BUT THEY SUPPORT THIS.

THEY DO. HE WAS AT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AND AND SUPPORTED THE PROJECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AS YOU TALK ABOUT THE RENTALS AND THE THE PROCESS FOR HOW MANY UNITS, WHAT DO YOU SEE? HOW IS THAT DEVELOPING FOR THE TRANSIENT LODGING? WHAT, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE UNITS ARE YOU ENVISIONING FOR THAT? WELL, ALL, ALL OF THEM, ALL 12 OF THEM HAVE TO BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC UNDER THE CODE WITH THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 30 DAYS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGHER END.

I HATE TO USE THAT TERM, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE TO BE THERE.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING ARE NOT GOING TO BE FOR EVEN 30 DAYS.

THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO RENT THEM FOR THE SEASON, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHAT WE ANTICIPATE.

AND THEN THERE WILL BE SOME OFF SEASON RENTALS AS WELL, BUT PREDOMINANTLY WE THINK WHOEVER BUYS THEM WILL WILL USE SOME OF IT FOR THEIR VACATION TIME. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY OFFSET THE EXPENSE BY HAVING THE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE AN OFFICE, AS DIRECTOR SAID, WE HAVE TO HAVE AN OFFICE THAT'S MAINTAINED THAT SERVICES, YOU KNOW, THE RENTERS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR NEEDS ARE ACCOMMODATED.

SO THIS IS A FUNCTIONING TRANSIENT LODGING UNIT.

SO IT'S YOUR BELIEF THEN THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYBODY FULL TIME BUYING.

THIS IS JUST INVESTMENT PROPERTY FOR SOMEONE TO LIKE VRBO OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME? IT'S THE TARGET MARKET RIGHT NOW IS SOMEBODY THAT WOULD BE INVESTING IN, IN A UNIT TO GET A FOOTHOLD IN NAPLES. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT COMPARABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY,

[01:55:06]

I HAVE TO GET SOME WATER TO EVEN SAY THIS. I'M SORRY.

WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, I THINK STAFF HAD POINTED OUT THAT IF THESE UNITS ARE USED AS RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THEN STAFF IS GOING TO LET US KNOW THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION.

AND SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THEIR TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS, PURSUANT TO YOUR DEFINITION OF TRANSIENT LODGING.

IF WE DON'T COMPLY, THEN WE HAVE A WE HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM.

AND SPEAKING TO THE TARGET MARKET. SO COMPARABLE PROBLEM LIKE THIS OF THIS LEVEL HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN THE CITY OF NAPLES ON OTHER LOCATIONS FOR UPWARDS OF $30 MILLION. SO OUR PRICE POINT IS HALF OF THAT OR A LITTLE BIT IN THAT RANGE.

SO YOU COULD HAVE THE SAME EXPERIENCE, BE ON FIFTH AVENUE, HAVE A BOAT IN YOUR BACKYARD, AND BE ABLE TO ALSO OFFSET YOUR EXPENSE, JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH THE ROSEWOOD OR THE RITZ OR AT THE OLEANA DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COME UP.

THIS IS REALLY KIND OF THE, AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR SO LONG THAT OUR PRICE POINT ON THE LAND ALLOWS US TO GIVE A BETTER VALUE.

SO I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF MOSTLY FOLKS THAT BUY THEM AND HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF NAPLES, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE BUYING IT. AND THEY'LL ALSO BE OFFSETTING IT WITH WITH THE RENTALS.

THANK YOU. WITH THE RENTAL TIME FRAME, WHICH YOU JUST ADDRESSED, IT'S GOING TO BE UNDER 30 DAYS FOR THE MOST PART.

CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA WHAT WILL THE PROPERTY TAX GENERATION BE FROM THIS PROJECT AS IT SITS THERE VACANT NOW GENERATING NOTHING.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT VALUE OF TAXES WOULD BE TO THE CITY? LET ME ASK. HE'S GETTING READY TO ANSWER THAT.

THESE ARE THIS IS COMMERCIAL. SO NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER IN TERMS OF THE AD VALOREM TAX REFERENDUM, THERE WILL BE TAXES ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S COMMERCIAL.

THAT'S RIGHT. BUT I'M NOT SURE WE CAN DO THE CALCULATION.

IT WILL DEPEND ON THE BALLPARK. IT'S ABOUT TWO OVER $2 MILLION A YEAR IN TAXABLE REVENUE TO THE CITY, AS OPPOSED TO, I THINK IT'S A 65,000 NOW. AND IT'S BEEN 11 YEARS THAT WE WISH WE HAD THE WISH WE HAD THE TAX BILL OF 2 MILLION. AND ABOUT HOW MANY JOBS ARE YOU? I'M SORRY, HOW MANY JOBS DO YOU THINK THIS WILL GENERATE IN CONSTRUCTION? AND THEN POST-CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A TOTAL GUESS, BUT I THINK IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT ABOUT 100 JOBS ALL IN ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LABOR FORCE IN OUR AREA IS VERY, VERY STRAINED.

SO I THINK AT LEAST 100 AND PROBABLY PEOPLE COMING FROM OTHER AREAS TO FILL THOSE JOBS.

BUT ALSO I THINK IT'S GOING TO CREATE PROBABLY ABOUT 40 JOBS PERMANENTLY THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE IN WHICH THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP EARLIER TO MAINTAIN THE SERVICES FOR THE. FOR THE GUESTS TO MAINTAIN THE MARINA.

YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING ABOUT 40 PERMANENT JOBS AS WELL. JUST ON THAT ISSUE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET IN IN NAPLES AND IN COLLIER COUNTY HAS SLOWED DOWN QUITE A BIT.

AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CONTRACTORS. YEAH, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT IN THE CITY, BUT I KNOW IN THE COUNTY THEY HAVE.

AND SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR LOCAL CONTRACTORS.

THANK YOU. AND ONE FINAL QUESTION. DO YOU BELIEVE YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PROCESS FROM SOUP TO NUTS WITH THIS? IS THERE A THIRD RAIL I'M SUPPOSED TO STEP ON RIGHT NOW? I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN THIS BUSINESS, YOU HAVE TO PICK AND CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTS.

AND I THINK AT THIS POINT WHERE I'M AT AND, YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY, WE LOOK I MY CHILDREN WERE RAISED IN NAPLES, WENT TO NAPLES SCHOOLS. HAVE BEEN POSITIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

MY WIFE AND I HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS RIGHT.

WE DON'T GO AND SHAKE HANDS. WE DON'T GO AND DO ALL THE PHOTO OPS FOR WHAT WE DO AND CHARITABLE WORK, ETC. AND, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IF IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET A FREE RIDE OR, YOU KNOW, A NICE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO APPROVAL, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN US, RIGHT? BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ADMINISTRATIONS THAT CHANGE.

I THINK THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT HELPFUL TO US.

I THINK THAT'S PUBLIC RECORD. I THINK THAT THE THE PROBLEM THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS FACED IS TRYING TO CLEAN UP THAT REPUTATION, THAT MESS, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, GET THINGS APPROVED FOR WHATEVER REASON AND OTHER PEOPLE GET DENIED CONSTANTLY.

I MEAN, I'VE GOT A PROJECT THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. THAT WAS MY PROJECT, WHICH I'M THE DEVELOPER OF RECORD, BUT NOBODY KNOWS IT. RIGHT. WE HAD TO I HAD TO SELL INTEREST IN THE PROJECT.

[02:00:01]

SO THIS PART HERE I AM VERY, VERY COMFORTABLE WITH WITH WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

AS FAR AS THE THE WAY THAT WE'RE TREATED, I FEEL WE'RE BEING TREATED FAIRLY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO. I DIDN'T I COULD GO ON, BUT I'M SURE YOU COULD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COUNCIL VICE MAYOR? THANKS. I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH STAFF.

SO THE CRITERIA TO BE A MARINA, IT'S THE MARINA STORE AND THE TWO PUBLIC SLIPS IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.

INTERESTINGLY, THERE THERE REALLY IS NO CRITERIA.

IT'S JUST THE DEFINITION THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE CODE.

BUT YES, THE, THE, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE TO COMPLY WITH THAT IS THEY COULD HAVE DONE OTHER THINGS.

BUT THAT'S WHAT'S IT'S HERE LONG LIST OF, OF THINGS THAT YOU COULD UNDER THE CODE.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THOSE USES DISCONTINUE. LIKE IF FOR SOME REASON THEY DON'T CAN'T GET THE DOCKS BUILT, THEY CAN'T THEY WOULD BE OVER. BUT IF THE PROJECT'S ALREADY BUILT AND OPERATING, AND THEN THE MARINE STORE CLOSES AND BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE, WHAT HAPPENS? THEY WOULD BE NONCOMPLIANT. THEY COULD. THEY COULD NOT. IT HAS TO.

IT HAS TO MAINTAIN A MARINA USE. IT COULD BE SOME OTHER MARINA USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS DEFINITION.

OKAY. BUT THEY THEY THEY'RE BUILT, THEY'RE BUILT, YOU KNOW, UTILIZING THIS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.

OKAY. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.

I WOULD SUGGEST ADDING A CONDITION IN THERE BECAUSE THEN IF ANY CONDITIONS ARE ARE VIOLATED, IT CAN COME BACK TO YOU FOR, FOR REVIEW. OKAY. YEAH. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHEN YOU RELY ON SOMETHING THAT'S IN EXISTENCE ON DAY ONE, BUT, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW, IT ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY. PARDON ME? WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED.

AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR. THIS PREVIOUS PROJECT WAS APPROVED WITH DOCKS AT THAT LOCATION.

OKAY. BY ALL CONCERNED PARTIES. SO WE WERE SUBMITTING.

WE WERE ACTUALLY SUBMITTING FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.

SO WE WERE ALREADY THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS. SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO MEET.

WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF ALL OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS AND INTERPRETATION BY THE BUILDING OFFICIALS HERE IN NAPLES.

THAT'S WE THAT'S GIVEN. WE HAVE TO THAT'S OUR MASTER, IF YOU WILL.

WE HAVE TO SERVICE WHATEVER THEY REQUEST US TO DO.

AND TO BE CLEAR, THE DOCS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY.

SO IF THEY DID HAVE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DOCS THAT THEY PROVIDE, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE BOAT SLIP PER TRANSIENT LODGING.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY BOAT SLIPS FOR TRANSIENT LODGING UNIT. I'M SURE THEY WOULD LOVE TO BECAUSE I'M SURE IT HELPS THEM. BUT IF THEY DID NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SLIPS, THEY COULD STILL, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN THE SLIPS PROVIDED TO THE MARINA, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THEIR PROJECT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE TO TO REDUCE THE SLIPS DEDICATED TO THE TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS.

OKAY, I HEAR YOU. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TEN CRITERIA FOR BEING CONDITIONAL USE MEETING.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW. BUT I'M JUST SAYING A BOAT SLIP IS NOT A REQUIRED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A TRANSIENT LODGING UNIT IN C TO A IT'S A, IT'S A BONUS THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING. OKAY.

AND THEN YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE N A, A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

AND THEY ISSUED A MEMO WITH THEIR REQUEST OR REQUIREMENTS.

YES. WHO, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT HAPPENS? IS THAT THE CITY OR N A WHO, WHO MAKES SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED? I WOULD ASK MATTHEW. AND IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

SO THE NAA AS A BOARD REVIEWED IT BASED ON CERTAIN CRITERIA.

I UNDERSTAND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS HERE. THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. HOWEVER, MY OPINION AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS THE CITY RETAINS LAND USE AND ZONING AUTHORITY OVER PROPERTIES WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE THE FINAL SAY MAKER WHEN IT COMES TO APPROVING THIS CONDITIONAL USE.

I KNOW FOR THE AC MARRIOTT, I BELIEVE THEY INCORPORATED SOME OF THE REQUEST INTO THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT'S POSITION IS ON ANY OBJECTIONS TO WHAT WAS REQUESTED.

BUT I THINK THE CODE IS PRETTY CLEAR ON TRANSIENT LODGING REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE IF IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN NOISE CONTOUR, WHICH THIS IS, IF I MAY, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT THE EXACT LANGUAGE BE PART OF YOUR APPROVAL.

SO THAT'S FOR I THINK THERE WERE FOUR CRITERIA.

WHATEVER THE CRITERIA IS VERBATIM, THOSE IN. OKAY.

OKAY. WE WOULD AGREE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE THAT? YOU'RE KEEPING TRACK, RIGHT? NO, ERICA'S KEEPING TRACK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK EVERYONE'S COVERED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS EXCEPT FOR THE

[02:05:08]

FDOT PIECE WITH THE EASEMENT PORTION. THAT 50,000 FOR POTENTIAL 41 EXPANSION. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? MISS MARTIN I'M NOT SURE I CAN EXPLAIN THAT. OH, GOOD.

OH, SORRY. THANK YOU. SHE'S COMING TO THE PODIUM.

WE AGREED TO THE PAYMENT. I AGREE, WHATEVER ALLISON SAYS.

I MIGHT ADD A FEW THINGS. I'M JUST JOKING. I HAVE TO.

I'M SORRY. I WAS IN A LITTLE LATE, SO I HAVE TO BE SWORN IN.

THANK YOU. OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH? I DO, OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, AN INQUIRY REGARDING THE PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR THE SIDEWALK.

THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT AND INTEREST WITH THE WITHIN THE BIKE AND PED MASTER PLAN AND OUR COOPERATION AND COORDINATION WITH FDOT ON EXPANDING THE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK IN THAT VICINITY.

SO IN FORESIGHT, IN TRYING TO WORK WITH OUR PARTNERSHIP AS THESE DEVELOPMENTS COME IN FOR US, REQUESTED A PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THAT.

AND ALSO A AN EASEMENT TO BE GRANTED ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.

SO WE HAVE THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITHIN THAT AREA AND PROVIDE THOSE ADEQUATE FACILITIES IN THE FUTURE.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY $50,000 FOR A PROJECT THAT FDOT ALREADY HAS ON THE BOOKS FOR EXPANSION.

FOR THAT, IT IS NOT. WELL, IT'S NOT ENTIRELY.

IT'S WE HAVE THERE'S A P, D AND E RIGHT AT THIS TIME.

BUT. OUR CODE REQUIRES TYPICALLY AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK.

SO THEY AREN'T ABLE TO. INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK IN THIS VICINITY.

SO THIS IS THE. THEY'RE ABLE TO. INSTALL BETWEEN 5 TO 6FT, I BELIEVE, PER THEIR PLAN.

THIS. THIS IS FOR THE ADJACENT TWO FEET OR SO TO MAKE THAT.

OR 2 TO 3FT TO MAKE THAT EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK.

SIDEWALK ALONG THAT SECTION AND THAT SECTION IS EXACTLY THAT'S THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROJECT ON US 41.

AND WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW BUILDINGS IN THE SIDEWALK SIDE WITH 36? IT'S WITHIN OUR CODE. 36, I'M SORRY, FIVE FEET, EIGHT FEET.

OH, WITHIN FOUR. IT'S EIGHT FEET. SORRY. YES.

FOR COMMERCIAL, IT'S EIGHT FEET. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SURE. AND WE AGREE WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE PAYMENT IN LIEU AND THE EASEMENT ISSUE WITH THE REVISION TO NUMBER SIX.

YES. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. I HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER.

MR. ROZANSKI. AND YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN. THANK YOU.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE YOU THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH? I DO.

GOOD MORNING, AND THANK YOU. CHRIS ROZANSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

I APPRECIATE THE THE DIALOG THE VERY WELL WRITTEN AND SUCCINCTLY SUMMARIZED STAFF REPORT.

MISS MARTIN, YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. DIDN'T GIVE YOURSELF ENOUGH CREDIT THERE.

AND PARTICULARLY THE COMMENTS I JUST HEARD BY THE PETITIONER.

AND THAT'S PRIMARILY WHY I APPEARED THIS MORNING, THAT I APPRECIATE WORKING WITH PETITIONER AND HIS COUNSEL THROUGH THE NA BOARD PROCESS AND CULMINATING IN THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AT OUR MAY MEETING.

JUST VERY HIGH LEVEL. AND WHEN WE DID THE ANALYSIS LAST YEAR, THIS PROPERTY EXPERIENCED ABOUT 11,000 OVERFLIGHTS BY JET AIRCRAFT. THE ARRIVALS ARE AT APPROXIMATELY 250FT OVERHEAD.

THE DEPARTURES ARE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO 1000FT IN GENERAL.

SO CERTAINLY I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE THE PROACTIVE THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION INTO THE DESIGN AND THE DOCUMENTATION.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BENEFIT ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND HELP ENSURE THAT THE OWNER'S GUEST VISITORS WILL ENJOY THEIR EXPERIENCE WHILE THEY'RE HERE. IT WORKED VERY WELL WITH THE HYATT HOUSE TEN YEARS AGO.

PREDATES MY TIME. I'M NOT AS CLEAR WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE AC MARRIOTT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED.

I DON'T RECALL, HONESTLY. I KNOW THAT WAS MORE RECENT.

[02:10:03]

WE WERE INVOLVED IN THAT TO SOME DEGREE. BUT OUR PRIMARY REQUEST, WHICH I THINK I'VE ALREADY HEARD IT DISCUSSED AND WAS PLEASED TO HEAR, IS THAT THOSE FOUR VERBATIM CONDITIONS BE INCLUDED IN YOUR, YOUR RESOLUTION.

AND THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT WE WERE HERE TO REQUEST.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, I APPRECIATE THAT. WAS THAT 4 OR 3? IT WAS THE FOUR CONDITIONS THAT MISS MARTIN READ OFF AND ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF.

HER STAFF REPORT TO YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MR. MCCONNELL. I ONLY SEE THREE. YEAH, THERE'S THREE IN THE IN THE LETTER.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR WHAT WE'RE ADDING.

SO. YES. SO A LETTER THAT'S THE MEMO THAT WAS PROVIDED.

I'M SORRY. THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE N A. BUT IN THEIR MOTION IN THE VOTING RECORD THERE WERE FOUR.

AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE FOUR WERE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA MEMORANDUM.

IS IT IN THE RESOLUTION? NO, THEY ARE NOT IN THE RESOLUTION.

BUT THE THE DIRECTION WAS TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE RESOLUTION.

SO THEY WILL BE ADDED TO THE RESOLUTION. SO THE THE FOUR WILL BE ADDED THERE.

YES. AND I'M SORRY, THE THE MOTION, THE MINUTES WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHEN I CREATED AND PUBLISHED THIS AGENDA MEMORANDUM.

SO I DID WATCH THE VIDEO. AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS AN ACTION REPORT THAT I GOT THOSE FROM.

SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE FOUR CONDITIONS TO BE CLEAR.

IT'S THE FOUR CRITERIA ON PAGE FIVE OF THE AGENDA MEMORANDUM.

AND FOR YOUR RECORD, WE AGREE TO ALL OF THAT.

THE INCLUSION OF THOSE IN THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION AS WELL.

THANK YOU. NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNSEL FOR STAFF WILL MOVE ONE STEP FOR STAFF.

THE STORM WATER RETENTION PLAN ON THIS THING.

YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN AN ECO SENSITIVE AREA OF OUR BAY.

ARE YOU FEELING WE'RE IT'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ITS.

YEAH, IT'S GOING TO. YES. THIS DID GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.

AND IT WAS REVIEWED BY OUR STORMWATER REVIEWER AT THE TIME.

AND THEY DID FEEL COMFORTABLE AT THIS POINT. BUT AGAIN, THEY WILL COME BACK THROUGH BUILDING PERMIT WITH MUCH MORE DETAIL. BUT WHAT AT THIS LEVEL OF DESIGN, WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO THE CITY WAS SIGNED OFF ON BY OUR STORMWATER DEPARTMENT.

STORMWATER REVIEWER. OKAY. AND I THINK I DID, I INCLUDE IN THE I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT, I INCLUDED ALL OF THE COMMENTS FROM SITE PLAN.

THAT'S WHY IT WAS SUCH A LENGTHY REPORT AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I JUST WANTED COUNCIL TO BE AWARE OF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS DID GO THROUGH SO MANY ROUNDS OF SITE PLAN. THERE WAS A LOT OF CHANGES AND REVISIONS.

I DID INCLUDE THOSE COMMENTS FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. SO THE STORMWATER REVIEWER COMMENTS SHOULD BE IN THERE SOMEWHERE.

OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REALLY SEE THAT PART.

OKAY. YES. SORRY. THEY ARE ON PAGE 25 OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND IT SAYS THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE LATEST DRAWINGS AND HAS NO FURTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

PLEASE NOTE THAT A SEPARATE STORMWATER PLAN REVIEW WILL BE COMPLETED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.

OKAY, SO THERE'S NO UNDERGROUND WATER STORAGE IN THIS PROJECT.

IT'S ALL BASICALLY UNDERGROUND. THERE WAS A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERGROUND.

I THINK THEY'RE USING A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT METHODS.

YEAH. LET'S JUST GET THE RIGHT ANSWER FROM OUR SIDE.

I HEARD THERE'S SWALES. I LIKE YOUR ANSWER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T SAY SOMETHING.

I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY WATER FILTERING ABILITY. NOT ORGANIC OR WHAT? HOW IT'S DESIGNED. YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY, ANDREW, FOR THE RECORD YES, THERE'S, THERE IS SOME SURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR THE PRETREATMENT. AND THEN BENEATH THAT THERE'S UNDERGROUND STORAGE AS WELL.

SO THE PRETREATMENT OCCURS ON THE SURFACE. AND THEN IT'S GOING INTO THE UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS FOLLOWING THAT.

SO THERE'S MULTIPLE DIFFERENT METHODS BEING EMPLOYED TO ENSURE THAT THE STORMWATER IS PROPERLY TREATED.

OKAY. GREAT. AND STAFF'S OPINION. THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

TOTAL TRAFFIC 72. IN A GIVEN DAY. NOT HAVING THAT TURNING LANE IS DO YOU SEE ISSUES WITH THE TRAFFIC FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? BECAUSE IT'S TRANSIENT LODGING, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE SHORT, SHORT TERM.

WELL, THERE'S A WEEKEND STAYS INTERESTING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE PARKING PROVISIONS, I THINK THE EXPECTATION FOR TRANSIENT LODGING IS THAT YOU MAY HAVE

[02:15:06]

MORE TRIPS BUT LESS VEHICLES. YOU KNOW, THE PROVISION OF PARKING REQUIRED FOR A TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY IS 1.25.

AND THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR A RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF THE SAME SIZE IS TWO PLUS A VISITOR.

SO I THINK, YES, THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THERE WILL BE FEWER VEHICLES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF A FAMILY COMES TO VISIT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RENT THREE CARS, THEY'RE GOING TO RENT ONE CAR OR, YOU KNOW, USE RIDE SHARES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO LESS CARS. BUT IT COULD BE COULD BE MORE TRIPS BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING OUT TO EACH MEAL AND YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, SIGHTSEEING AROUND THE CITY. SO I'LL LET ALLISON. WELL, IT'S IT IS SIMILAR WITH THE I T AS FAR AS THE TRIPS FOR THE TRANSIENT LODGING, WHERE YOU HAVE THAT SAME EFFECT YOU HAVE WHEN YOU HAVE THE, THE SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY LODGING VERSUS THE TRANSIENT LODGING.

YOU HAVE MORE AM AND PM PEAK TRIP GENERATION THAT'S, THAT'S IMPACTING THE SYSTEM OVER WHEN YOU HAVE THE TRANSIENT LODGING, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T SEE THAT AS MUCH ON THE AM PM PEAK HOURS.

THE NUMBERS SEEMED LOW TO ME FOR TRANSIENT LODGING.

I JUST COULDN'T YOUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT, IS THAT KIND OF IN LINE WHAT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT? I MEAN, I THINK SO, I THINK SO, AND I MEAN IT IS YOU KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AS ADJACENT TO THE THE STATE SYSTEM.

I KNOW WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AREA.

WE WILL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. AND THAT IS PART OF THE CONDITIONS THAT I DID PUT IN THE THE DRAFT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TO MAKE TO ASSURE THAT I AM PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND WE'VE HAD SOME INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH FDOT ON THE THE IMPACTS FROM THIS PROJECT.

AND IS IT OF STAFF'S OPINION THAT, I MEAN, I LISTENED TO THE CODE ABOUT THE BEING CLASSIFIED AS A MARINA AND IT MEETS LIKE ONE OF THE CRITERIA MENTIONED. I MEAN, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THAT SO WE DID KIND OF OUTSOURCED REPAIR THING.

WE DID GO BACK AND FORTH. AND IF YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE THE MEMO THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE APPEAL BUT THEY DID INCREASE CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE PLANS, INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE MARINA SHIP STORE AND GAVE A BETTER, A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TYING IT TO TWO PUBLIC SLIPS AND OFFERING A DIAGNOSTIC, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS JUST A RETAIL STORE, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD NOT FEEL AS STRONGLY.

BUT THEY DO HAVE THE TWO PUBLIC SLIPS. IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE YOU KNOW YOU NEED.

I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO PRETEND IT'S DIAGNOSTIC, BUT YOU COULD GO IN AND YOU KNOW, GET A DIAGNOSTIC OR YOU COULD ANYTHING THAT YOU NEEDED FOR THAT DAY OUT ON THE WATER, YOU COULD GO. IT'S NOT GOING TO JUST BE, YOU KNOW, WATER AND CHIPS AND STUFF.

THEY WILL HAVE ACTUAL MARINE RELATED. SO IF I GO DOWN TO MY DOCK AND SOMEONE PULLS THEIR BUTT UP AND THEY HAVE A PROBLEM, I SAY, WELL, YEAH, YOU, YOU GOT TO GO, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO FUEL CLOG OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THAN THAT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, YEAH, IT'S LIKE, I JUST CAN'T GET MY HEAD AROUND THAT PART, BUT SURE. YEAH. JUST TO MAYBE GIVE YOU A COMFORT LEVEL.

THE INTERPRETATION IN THAT WHOLE SECTION OF THE CODE IS ETCHED IN MY NIGHTMARE MEMORY, RIGHT? SO I KNOW IT PRETTY WELL. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, THE BOWMAN MARINA, IT HAS NOTHING.

NOTHING? NOT EVEN BATHROOMS. IT'S A MARINA. IF YOU GO TO THE SEAPORT BUILDING WHERE I USED TO HAVE MY OFFICES, THEY HAVE ONE LITTLE OFFICE AND PROVIDE ONE BATHROOM WITH A SHOWER.

WE HAVE MET THE STANDARD, WHICH IS REALLY NOT EVEN DEFINED.

I AM BEING UPFRONT HERE. STAFF'S GOT A DIFFICULT PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH YOU KNOW, LOOSENESS IN THAT CODE, BUT WE HAVE EXCEEDED ANYBODY'S STANDARD AS FAR AS THE CODE AND THEY'VE APPLIED IT AS, AS THE MOST, THE STRICTEST WAY IT WAS APPLIED PRIOR TO US WAS NAPLES BAY RESORT.

WAS APPLIED THE SAME WAY THEY APPLIED IT TO US.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S BEYOND WHAT THE WORDS ACTUALLY SAY.

BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, THEIR PREROGATIVE TO, TO MAKE THAT INTERPRETATION.

SO THOSE TWO AREAS HAVE A LOT OF BOAT SLIPS. I MEAN, THEY'RE A MARINA BECAUSE THEY OFFER.

BUT BUT HERE'S AGAIN, THE CODE SAYS THE STATE OF FLORIDA SAYS IF YOU HAVE TEN OR MORE.

YOU'RE A MARINA. SO THE ARGUMENT IS NOT REALLY WITH US BECAUSE WE'RE COMPLYING TO WHATEVER THE STAFF INTERPRETED AS WHAT WE NEED TO COMPLY TO. SO WE'RE WE'RE WE'VE MET THAT STANDARD IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.

AND I THINK WHERE WHERE IT DID SHIFT WITH US WAS THE.

AND THEY DID MAKE SOME OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN HERE TODAY IS THAT STAFF AGREES THAT THE PROVISION OF THE SHIP STORE IN THE TWO SPACES DOES NOT MAKE THIS PROJECT A MARINA. THERE IS A MARINA COMPONENT TO THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS A TRANSIENT LODGING AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT.

[02:20:01]

IT DOES HAVE A MARINA COMPONENT AND THAT'S WHY THROUGH THAT DIRECT CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION, THE THE TRANSIENT LODGING AND COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NON MARINA USES.

AND IT'S ONLY THAT SMALL PORTION THAT IS CONSIDERED A MARINA THAT IS AFFORDED THOSE SEPARATE.

OKAY. THAT WAS THE MAJOR SHIFT FOR US BETWEEN THE APPEAL THAT WAS FILED AND WENT TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

AND TODAY, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ELEMENTS REMOVED FROM THIS PLAN THAT OBVIOUSLY YOU AREN'T AWARE OF BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SEEING THEM, BUT THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH THEM SUBSEQUENT TO PAB WAS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THIS WHOLE PROJECT A MARINA JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SHIP STORE AND THE TWO. BUT WE WILL CONSIDER THAT YOU HAVE A MARINA COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THOSE SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

BUT THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, FLEXIBLE RENTAL RIGHT BEHIND IT YOU GOT THE HOTEL THERE AND NOW WE'RE ADDING ON MORE, MORE TRANSIENT LODGING IN THAT AREA. DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A BOTTLENECK FOR TRAFFIC? I MEAN, I MEAN, THIS IS THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF IS IT GOING TO BE IS IT GOING TO BE A NUISANCE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS BY CREATING THAT? I THINK THERE WILL BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA.

I GUESS IT'S REALLY UP TO COUNCIL TO DETERMINE.

DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO TIP THAT OVER OR, YOU KNOW, RESORT LODGING UNITS.

BUT SAME THING SPEAK MORE. THEY AND THEY ARE IT DID TRIGGER SOME IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL.

IN ADDITION TO THAT EASTBOUND TURN LANE THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED.

SO THEY WILL BE MAKING SOME INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PARTICULARLY ALONG RIVER POINT DRIVE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW.

AND WE WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR TEAM AS THEY, THEY MOVE FORWARD.

SHALL THIS BE APPROVED? OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR JUST JUST ONE LAST ONE.

WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE CITY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO INVEST SOMETHING, THE CITY'S PROPERTY WAS INSUFFICIENT. DO YOU HAVE A DOLLAR VALUE ON WHAT THAT IMPROVEMENT YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT ENCOMPASSED THE CITY'S, I GUESS, OF DEFICIENCY OR WHAT? WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM THERE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FDOT? IS THAT THE. NO, IT WAS SOMETHING TO DO.

AS I RECALL THE CONVERSATION EARLIER, THE PRESENTATION WITH THEY WERE DIGGING AND SAW SOMETHING AND THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FOR THE CITY BECAUSE WHATEVER THE CITY HAD IN PLACE, THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS INSUFFICIENT AND THEY WERE GOING TO SPEND MONEY.

SEWER LIFT STATION. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. YES.

YEAH. IT WAS A SANITARY SEWER. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SEWER LIFT STATION ABOUT A DOLLAR VALUE. APPROXIMATELY.

I'M ESTIMATING HERE. I MEAN, PROBABLY BETWEEN 150 TO $200,000 TO REBUILD THAT SANITARY LIFT STATION, INCORPORATING THE MANHOLES AND THE MAIN PROBABLY ADDING ANOTHER 60,000.

AS WELL AS THERE'S A UTILITY EASEMENT WILL BE AROUND THAT AS WELL.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WERE YOU ASKED TO DO THAT OR YOU JUST YOU SAW IT. YOU JUST DECIDED IT WAS IN COORDINATION WORKING WITH THE CITY UTILITY DEPARTMENT OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS GOING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. THEY EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THE EXISTING LIFT STATION THERE.

AND THEN HAD ASKED IF WE WOULD BE WILLING TO RECONSTRUCT A NEW SANITARY LIFT STATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND IN COORDINATION AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER, THEY AGREED TO DO SO.

AND JUST TO TOOT MY OWN HORN, IF YOU WILL, IN ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT I HAVE IN TOWN.

WE HAD A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WE WERE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING, AND WE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED THAT DURING THAT PERIOD THERE HAD BEEN AN UPGRADE TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WE VOLUNTARILY DECIDED TO UPGRADE THE PLAN ACCORDING TO THE NEW STANDARDS.

ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT HAPPEN ARE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? THE, THE BENEFIT IF YOU LIVE IN ANOTHER PART OF NAPLES AND THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON RIVER POINT DRIVE DOESN'T REALLY WORK AS THE WAY IT SHOULD, IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU, BUT IT DOES AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING ON RIVER POINT THAT I'M GOING TO BE SELLING TO.

SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT AS DEVELOPERS THAT LIKE, OKAY, YEAH, YOU'RE BENEFITING YOURSELF.

SO UPGRADING THE STORMWATER IS SOMETHING WE WOULD AGREE TO, EVEN IF IT CHANGES BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME WE START CONSTRUCTION.

BECAUSE YOU GOT TO REMEMBER, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY REALLY A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE SUBJECT TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS EVER CHANGING. RIGHT. AND MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT.

SO AND FEMA IS EVEN WORSE OF A NIGHTMARE FOR DEVELOPERS BECAUSE THAT CHANGES PRETTY RANDOMLY.

AND WE WOULD ACCOMMODATE THOSE CHANGES BECAUSE AGAIN, ULTIMATELY IT WOULD BENEFIT OUR REALITY DAY TO DAY AND OUR MARKETABILITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IF I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, CAN I HAVE CLOSING REMARKS?

[02:25:06]

YEAH, JUST JUST REAL QUICKLY. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE TIME AND DEDICATION TO THIS AND YOUR REVIEW OF ALL THE DETAILS.

IT'S IMPRESSIVE. YOU'VE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME HERE.

I'M HOPING TO GET FIVE POSITIVE VOTES FOR THIS BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, THIS PROJECT MEETS ALL OF THE CODES.

YOUR STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY.

THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PROJECT THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU CONCERN.

IT'S LOW DENSITY. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT IN THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY.

IT'S GOING TO BE BEAUTIFULLY LANDSCAPED, AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'LL BE DISAPPOINTED IF WE DON'T GET FIVE VOTES.

BUT I'LL BE DELIGHTED IF WE DO GET A POSITIVE VOTE ON THIS PROJECT.

YOU'LL BE PROUD OF THIS PROJECT WHEN IT'S COMPLETED.

THANK YOU. IT IS A BEAUTIFUL. I'LL BE GRATEFUL IF WE GET A MAJORITY. YES.

OKAY. WITH THAT? DO I HAVE. IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

THIS RESOLUTION REGARDING PETITION 26-CU1 WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED, THE CONDITIONS ADDED AND THE CONDITION WHICH HAS BEEN AMENDED DURING THIS PRESENTATION AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO WAKE UP, BURN IN THE BACK AS WELL AS PART OF THAT MOTION.

I'LL SECOND THAT. SO TO REITERATE, IT'S THE TEN CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION WITH A REVISION TO NUMBER SIX.

THAT ADDING A CONDITION THAT SHOULD THE MARINA USE CEASE, THE PETITIONER WILL REQUIRE FURTHER COUNCIL APPROVAL.

AND THEN ADDING THE FOUR CONDITIONS INTO THE RESOLUTION.

THAT IS A TOTAL OF 15 CONDITIONS. YEAH. AND JUST MAY I.

YEAH. MAYOR. YES. I WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING NUMBER ONE BECAUSE IT'S REDUNDANT.

IT JUST SAYS IT HAS TO GO TO NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WHICH IT ALREADY DID. AND WE CAN REPLACE THAT WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS THAT THEY OFFERED.

THE MODIFICATION TO NUMBER SIX THAT SHE REFERENCED THE ADDITION OF THE MARINA REQUIREMENT.

AND THEN I WILL SAY TO NUMBER FIVE, THE VERY LAST SENTENCE.

NUMBER FIVE SAYS A PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT SHALL ACCOMMODATE A FULL. I JUST WANT THAT TO AT THE END TO SAY, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT ITSELF HAS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THAT WAS MY ONLY REQUEST. GOT IT. I SECOND. COUNCILMAN KRAMER'S MOTION.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON.

ABSTAINING. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KROLL. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNIMAN WAS ABSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ, I. YES. AND MAYOR HARTMAN.

YES. THANK YOU. IT PASSES 4 TO 1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. FINALLY. MUCH APPRECIATED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT, COUNCIL.

IT'S 11:00. WE ARE IN NEED FOR A BREAK. WE HAVE A TIME.

CERTAIN OF 1230. MY GOAL WOULD BE. AND NOT CUTTING ANY CORNERS ON DELIBERATIONS, BUT THAT WE GET THROUGH ITEM 13 B AND 13 C BEFORE WE GO TO OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO WITH THAT WE'RE TAKING A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

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

[13.B) 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, Inc. and Located at 550 Galleon Drive, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.]

[13.C) 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 to Construct a New Church Sanctuary Building and Two Accessory Buildings Located in the Public Service Zoning District on Property Owned by Trinity-By-The-Cove Episcopal Church, Inc. and Located at 550 Galleon Drive; More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.]

SO YES MAYOR, I WILL READ BOTH RESOLUTIONS. BUT BEFORE I DO, I JUST WANT TO.

WELL, LET ME READ THEM SO THAT WE CAN OPEN THE RECORD. 13 B IS A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION.

26 Q TWO PURSUANT TO SECTION 46-34, 58-8, 33 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 30FT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY OWNED BY TRINITY BY THE COVE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC. AND LOCATED AT 550 GALLEON DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13 C IS A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION.

26-V4 RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 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 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CHURCH SANCTUARY BUILDING AND TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE

[02:30:03]

PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY OWNED BY TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC.

AND LOCATED AT 550 GALLEON DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO, WHILE THE APPLICANT'S AGENT IS THE SAME AND THERE IS ONE PRESENTATION, I WILL CAUTION YOU THAT THERE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SETS OF CRITERIA THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANALYZE WHEN REVIEWING THESE VERY SEPARATE, YET RELATED APPLICATION REQUESTS. OKAY. SO THERE WILL BE TWO MOTIONS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS WILL PROBABLY CONVOLUTE EACH OTHER, BUT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT YOU MUST ABIDE BY WHEN APPROVING THESE.

OKAY. WITH THAT, THE SWEARING IN OF PETITIONER FOR TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN.

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

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL GO TO COUNCIL FOR DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL.

YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, MET WITH LEADERSHIP AT THE CHURCH AND WORKED WITH STAFF ON THIS.

BARTON. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, MET WITH ONE OF THE PETITIONERS AGENTS TO GET SOME MORE CLARITY ON THE PROJECT AND HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF. KRAMER. YEP.

FROM THE SITE MET WITH PETITIONER AND STAFF. AND JUST FOR CLARITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION SCHULTZ, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THE PERSON GENTLEMEN THAT'S AFFILIATED WITH THE CHURCH.

HE'S ON THE BOARD. AND BLANKENSHIP, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

I MET WITH THE PETITIONER TO GET AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, MET WITH STAFF, AND ALSO HAD A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS AND A COUPLE OF EMAILS FROM NEIGHBORS, WHICH I THINK ARE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD NOW.

THANK YOU. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. AND ALL THREE OF MY CHILDREN WERE BAPTIZED HERE. AND THIS IS MY HOME CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.

SO WITH THAT, I NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CONFLICTS.

I DO NOT, MR. MCCONNELL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME? WELL, YES, MAYOR, I DO ACTUALLY, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

THANK YOU. SO PURSUANT TO 112, YOUR VOTE TODAY WILL NOT END YOUR SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS TO A RELATIVE OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATE OF YOUR OF YOU. NO. RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

YOU ARE JUST SIMPLY A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH ITSELF.

CORRECT? NOW, I WILL SAY, SINCE THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL, BOTH OF THEM, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NOT A VOTING CONFLICT PURSUANT TO 112 PURSUANT TO 286.012, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING SHOULD YOU WISH TO AVOID ANY BIAS OR PREJUDICE HEARING, BUT THAT CHOICE IS FULLY UP TO YOU SINCE THERE IS NO ACTUAL VOTING CONFLICT PURSUANT TO 112.

I DO NOT FEEL THAT I WILL BE UNBIASED AT ALL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I MEAN, I WILL NOT BE BIASED.

I WILL NOT BE BIASED TO ANYTHING THAT'S PRESENTED TODAY.

YOU SAID I'M BIASED LAST I LISTENED TO YOU. AND THAT'S FOR THE RECORD.

THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO CLARIFY THAT.

THANK YOU. THE RED'S GOOD, RIGHT? FOR THE RECORD, RICH JOVANOVIC, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

WITH ME TODAY IS THE PROJECT TEAM IS REVEREND GLEASON.

MR. ARNOLD IS OUR PROFESSIONAL PLANNER. RICHARD DUBOIS IS OUR PROJECT ENGINEER, AND WILL WILLIAM WARD IS OUR ARCHITECT.

AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIKE THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL THIS REALLY, IN OUR MIND, IS NOT A BIG DEAL, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO DO IS REPLACE BASICALLY THE CHURCH THAT EXISTS TODAY WITH A NEW CHURCH, BECAUSE THE CHURCH HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY STORMS IN THE PAST, AND WE'RE UNABLE TO SIMPLY RAISE THE CHURCH TO GET ABOVE THE FLOOD ELEVATION.

SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE CHURCH, BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY A NEW CHURCH.

AND WE ALSO HAVE TO SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS TO HAVE THE CHURCH AUTHORIZED BECAUSE IT'LL BE MORE THAN 30FT IN HEIGHT.

[02:35:05]

AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERMITTED USES, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

AND BECAUSE WE'RE THE CHURCH IS LOCATED AND BECAUSE MR. ARNOLD WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WILL NEED VARIANCES TO SETBACKS TO BASICALLY PUT THE CHURCH BACK EXACTLY WHERE IT IS TODAY. WE'RE ONLY IMPACTING WHERE THE CHURCH IS.

WE'RE NOT IMPACTING ANY OF THE OTHER CHURCH FACILITIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GALION.

SO I WILL, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND THE SIZE OF THE CHURCH PARCEL IS 0.64 ACRES.

AND AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, WE ARE WE'RE REALLY NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE USES OTHER THAN TRYING TO PUT THE CHURCH BACK WHERE IT IS TODAY.

THE CHURCH HAS BEEN DAMAGED. THEY'VE SPENT A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS SO FAR REPAIRING IT AND DON'T WANT TO SPEND MORE MONEY.

SHOULD THIS CHURCH BE DAMAGED AGAIN BY THE NEXT STORM? SO THEY'RE BEING PROACTIVE. IT'S A RESILIENCY MOVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHURCH IS TAKEN CARE OF LONG TERM.

THE CHURCH IS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE IT LOOKS TODAY.

MR. ARNOLD IS GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE SITE PLAN OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, BUT I'LL JUST KIND OF FAST FORWARD TO ON THE LEFT IS WHAT THE CHURCH LOOKS LIKE TODAY.

ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT THE CHURCH IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE TOMORROW.

OTHER THAN THE STAIRS THAT YOU BASICALLY SEE IN THE FRONT OF THE CHURCH SO THAT WE GET TO THE RIGHT ELEVATION, THERE REALLY IS EFFECTIVELY NO CHANGE TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE EXPERIENCED FOR SINCE THE EARLY 1950S.

SO I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. ARNOLD TAKE YOU THROUGH QUICKLY THE SITE PLAN AND THE VARIANCES WE'RE REQUESTING.

WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THAT, BUT THE SIMPLE REQUEST IS TO PLEASE ALLOW US TO REVIEW TO REPLACE THE CHURCH WITH BASICALLY THE SAME CHURCH. SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS BECAUSE THE CHURCH WAS BUILT WAY BACK WHEN.

AIR CONDITIONING AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE FACTORS IN A SLIGHT INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND BASICALLY THE ONE FOOT REQUEST FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO GO ABOVE THE 30FT.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO MR. ARNOLD, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING OUR TWO PETITIONS.

AND I KNOW THEY HAVE TO BE SEPARATE. ALL YOUR MATERIALS ARE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE ALL AGAIN, I KNOW YOU'VE READ ALL THE MATERIALS, BUT THAT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD. SO WITH THAT, MR. ARNOLD WILL DO A SUMMARY OF THE TWO PETITIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M WAYNE ARNOLD. I'M A CERTIFIED PLANNER WITH DAWSON AND HERE REPRESENTING TRINITY BY THE COVE CHURCH.

ON THE EXHIBIT BEFORE YOU IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN, AND AS RICH MENTIONED, THE.

THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IS REALLY RAISING THE ELEVATION.

BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE CHURCH STRUCTURE ITSELF, IT COULD NOT BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED IN ITS PLACE.

SO THE BUILDING HAS TO BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED AND THEN RECONSTRUCTED AS A NEW FACILITY.

SO THAT'S GENERATING THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, BECAUSE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PERMITTED USES, BUT YOU DO HAVE CONDITIONAL USES. AND ONE OF THOSE IS A CHURCH.

SO WE'RE HERE FOR THAT USE RELATED TO THE VARIANCE.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT OOPS THE WRONG WAY. THE A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE SETBACKS IN YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT OF 20FT, IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO UTILIZE THE SETBACKS FOR THE MOST RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT ADJACENT TO YOU, WHICH BECOMES THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE MIDDLE IN THIS EXHIBIT.

THE GREEN OUTLINES THE 40 FOOT YARD REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL THREE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY ENCROACHES INTO THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IN SOME AREAS.

BUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS PUT THE STRUCTURE BACK ESSENTIALLY AS IT EXISTS.

AS RICK MENTIONED, THERE'S A SLIGHT INCREASE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE MODERN AIR CONDITIONING AND VENT WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED.

I THINK IT RESULTS IN LESS THAN 200FT² INCREASE TO THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT WILL BE REBUILT IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT.

AND AS RICK MENTIONED, THE BEFORE AND AFTER THIS IMAGE ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH YOU DON'T SEE ARE A COUPLE LITTLE WINGS THAT HAVE THE THE WINDOWS IN THEM TO THE THAT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT, THAT BUILDING DOES EXIST. IT'S JUST THE VEGETATION FROM THAT EXISTING PHOTOGRAPH SHIELDS THOSE.

SO THERE REALLY IS NO FURTHER IMPACT INTO THE COMMUNITY.

ON THE SITE PLAN, THE LABYRINTH WILL BE REBUILT.

THE. THE CHURCH COURTYARDS WILL BE REESTABLISHED.

AND ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOU SEE TODAY.

[02:40:01]

YOUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS TOLD YOU THERE ARE SEPARATE CRITERIA FOR CONDITIONAL USE THAN THERE ARE FOR THE VARIANCE.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE CRITERIA, BUT ESSENTIALLY LOOK AT IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY.

THERE IS NO INGRESS AND EGRESS, FOR INSTANCE TO THIS PARCEL.

IT'S PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLY. THE PARKING OCCURS ACROSS THE STREET NORTH OF GALLEON AND THERE'S PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ACROSS GALLEON DRIVE.

NO REFUSE AREAS SCREENING AND BUFFERING. THERE'S A CONDITION IN YOUR YOUR RESOLUTION THAT REQUIRES THAT WE WOULD REESTABLISH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL BEEN BY THE SITE RECENTLY.

IT'S BEAUTIFULLY MANICURED, LANDSCAPED, AND IT WILL BE REESTABLISHED TO THAT LEVEL.

THE, THE COMPATIBILITY WE THINK IS WITHOUT QUESTION HERE.

AND THIS HAS BEEN SORT OF AN ICONIC LANDMARK IN NAPLES.

I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR ABOUT 32 YEARS, BUT SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE LONGER THAN I.

AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE PLACES THAT YOU COME UPON THIS BEAUTIFUL CHURCH SANCTUARY, AND IT JUST SEEMS TO FIT PERFECTLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TO DO. YOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, AS I MENTIONED.

THE HARDSHIP IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE HARDSHIP HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE STRUCTURE BEING BUILT BEFORE THERE WERE FEMA STANDARDS.

AND THEN JUST THE FACT THAT THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH DAMAGE IN THE MORE RECENT STORMS. THIS WAS A RESILIENCY PROJECT. AND THE CHURCH DECIDED THAT RATHER THAN TO TRY TO DEAL WITH BARRIERS, ETC., THEY COULD BUILD A NEW, RESILIENT, MODERN BUILDING THAT WOULD ADHERE TO NOT ONLY THE FEMA FLOOD ELEVATIONS, BUT TO THE BUILDING CODES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TODAY.

SO THE VARIANCE IN ITSELF ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS US TO JUST REBUILD IN ITS FOOTPRINT.

AND SO THE HARDSHIP IS REALLY NOT SO MUCH THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.

IT IS GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE. THERE ARE, IN OUR OPINION, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS.

AGAIN, IT'S A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST.

YOUR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS AND RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY FOR APPROVAL.

AND WE'RE HERE AS A TEAM TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE OF MY DISCLOSURES I DID NOT ADD THAT I DID SPEAK TO THE PETITIONER DURING BREAK AND JUST ABOUT THE TIME FRAME OF THE TWO ITEMS BEING COMPANION ITEMS AND ALSO TIMING. AND I DID RECEIVE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS FROM THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THAT AREA. THANK YOU. STAFF REPORT.

GOOD MORNING. JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU HAS A PAIR OF PETITIONS ONE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, THE OTHER FOR A VARIANCE. BUT AGAIN, THEY ARE ULTIMATELY FOR THE SAME PROJECT.

THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CHURCH SANCTUARY BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550 GALLEON DRIVE.

THIS IS THE TRINITY BY THE COVE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN PORT ROYAL, AND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED IN THE PS PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PETITIONER PROPOSES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW SANCTUARY IN ITS PLACE.

THE 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, AND THE CHURCH DETERMINED ULTIMATELY THAT THE MOST PRACTICAL STEP WOULD BE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION AT AN INCREASED ELEVATION. ARCHITECTURALLY, THE PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A REPLICA TO ESSENTIALLY MATCH THE HISTORIC BUILDING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES THE SIZE, THE LOCATION, THE MATERIALS, AND THE ORNAMENTATION.

THE IDEAS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTED SITE AND STRUCTURE TO READ THE SAME FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AS THEY DO TODAY.

THE PROPERTY WILL BE LANDSCAPED. THERE WILL ALSO BE ELEVATING TO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN PLACE.

AS PROPOSED, THE PROJECT REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.

THE PROJECT ALSO WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR THE SANCTUARY BUILDING AND THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO ENCROACH IN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.

I'LL TAKE THE CONDITIONAL USE FIRST. PURSUANT TO CODE, THE DISTRICT LIMITS MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS AT 30FT.

THIS IS MEASURED FROM THE FIRST FLOOR FEMA ELEVATION.

THE SANCTUARY WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION IN 1953.

IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AT GRADE. AND HERE IN THIS AREA THAT IS ABOUT FIVE FEET.

[02:45:03]

NAVD. THIS IS ABOUT THREE FEET BELOW THE CURRENT FEMA BASE.

FLOOD REQUIREMENTS AND FOUR FEET BELOW THE CURRENT DESIGN.

FLOOD ELEVATION. THE MAIN SANCTUARY BUILDING WILL BE ABOUT 31FT TALL.

IT'S ONLY THE RIDGE LINE THAT WILL EXCEED THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON THE MAIN BUILDING.

THIS IS TO ACCOMMODATE THICKER WALLS FOR THE UPDATED HVAC EQUIPMENT, SO IT WILL BUMP OUT SLIGHTLY ON THE FOOTPRINT AND THEN ELEVATE IT UP AND MEET JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.

THE STEEPLE AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WILL BE ABOUT 68FT TALL.

AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME HEIGHTS AS WHAT EXISTS TODAY.

IT'LL JUST BE MEASURED FROM A LITTLE HIGHER GRADE.

THE DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A DIVERSE VARIETY OF USES.

BECAUSE OF THAT, THE CODE ALLOWS STRUCTURES TO EXCEED 30FT IN HEIGHT IN CERTAIN CASES.

THE CODE ACTUALLY CITES CHURCHES AND STEEPLES AS AN EXAMPLE OF A POTENTIAL EXCEPTION.

THE THRESHOLD FOR REVIEW BECOMES THAT BUILDINGS CAN BE APPROPRIATE IF THEY DO NOT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE AS PROPOSED.

THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD COMPROMISE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE IN ANY WAY.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, YOU HAVE THE BENEFIT TODAY OF ALREADY KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THERE ON THE SITE.

IT'LL BE THERE. IT'LL JUST BE SLIGHTLY TALLER FROM AN ELEVATED GRADE.

BUT TO DO THIS, THEY ALSO NEED A VARIANCE. AND THE DISTRICT SETBACKS, AS YOU HEARD, ARE REQUIRED TO BE THE SAME AS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUE SHAPE, ALSO HAS THREE FRONTAGES.

THIS PROPERTY ALSO BORDERS THE R1 15, A RESIDENCE DISTRICT THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ACROSS THE STREET AND THE FRONT SETBACKS IN THE R1 15 A ARE 40FT. THEREFORE, THIS PROPERTY HAS THREE FRONT SETBACKS, EACH AT 40FT.

AGAIN, THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT NEARLY 75 YEARS AGO TODAY.

THE SANCTUARY IS LOCATED ABOUT 37FT FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ON TREASURE LANE, ABOUT 25FT FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, ALSO ON TREASURE LANE AND ABOUT 38FT FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE ON GALLEON DRIVE.

AND AGAIN, THE SITE ALSO FEATURES THE TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

ONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS 23FT APPROXIMATELY FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.

THE OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ABOUT 24FT FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.

THE NEW CHURCH AGAIN IS TO BE NEARLY IDENTICAL SIZE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND IT WILL LARGELY MAINTAIN THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT.

AGAIN, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN INTACT.

HOWEVER, THEY WILL BE ELEVATED IN PLACE. THE PROJECT WAS NOTICED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED SOME CORRESPONDENCE, LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND ONE OF OPPOSITION.

THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA PACKET. THE PETITIONS WERE HEARD BY THE PAB IN MAY, AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF BOTH PETITIONS UNANIMOUSLY TO CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.

IT'S THE STANDARD SIGN OFF FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE COMPLIES WITH THE APPROVED PLANS, AND FOR THE VARIANCE, THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS ONE THAT THE VARIANCE IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH SANCTUARY BUILDING AND TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS CONSISTENT WITH THE ATTACHED ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLANS, AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING ADDITIONS, NEW FACILITIES AND OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

AND NUMBER TWO, THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL ABIDE BY THE VARIANCE GRANTED BY THIS RESOLUTION.

ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OR EXPANSION BEYOND THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN THIS VARIANCE SHALL REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEW VARIANCE PETITION THAT CONCLUDES STAFF COMMENTS FOR THE MOMENT WERE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAD ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD, BECAUSE I HAVE RECEIVED A QUESTION THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE BOARD.

IF THIS CHURCH STRUCTURALLY COULD ACCOMMODATE THEM TO LIFT THE EXISTING BUILDING, WE WOULD BE SEEING THIS AS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY INSTEAD OF A VARIANCE.

UNFORTUNATELY IT IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THERE IS A PROCESS IN YOUR CODE THAT YOU COULD TAKE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND THROUGH COUNCIL APPROVAL.

EXPAND IT, YOU KNOW, VERTICALLY. UNFORTUNATELY, STRUCTURALLY, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS COMING TO AS A VARIANCE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REBUILD ESSENTIALLY EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY.

BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DEMOLISH, THEN THAT NONCONFORMITY CEASES AND IT IS CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, THAT'S THE REASON WHY THIS ISN'T COMING TO YOU AS A NONCONFORMITY.

AND THEN I ALSO WANTED TO BE FOR THE RECORD, YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DID CONSIDER THIS ON MARCH OR ON MAY 13TH, AND THEY VOTED 7 TO 0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, BUT THEY WERE VERY SPECIFIC.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE MOTION IS INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION IN THE ON THE RECORD FOR YOU TODAY,

[02:50:02]

IT WAS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION ARE TO ALLOW THE CHURCH STEEPLE TO BE REBUILT AT ITS EXISTING HEIGHT, AND WHICH EXCEEDED THE 30FT TO BEGIN WITH AND TO ALLOW THE RIDGELINE OF THE ROOF TO EXTEND EIGHT INCHES ABOVE THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION, WHICH THEY DETERMINED IS A DE MINIMIS DEVIATION FROM THE 30 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

SO THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC REASONING RATIONALE OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

SO OTHER THAN THAT. OKAY. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MAN I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. MR. ROMANOVICH.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING TO REBUT, SO I WILL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF US, WE'RE HERE.

OTHERWISE, WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL APPROVE BOTH PETITIONS.

HE'S SPEECHLESS. I'M SPEECHLESS. MAYOR, MAY I JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT? YES, SIR. SO WHEN IT COMES TO OBVIOUSLY THE USE OF THE CHURCH ITSELF IS A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S A CONDITIONAL USE IN PS, BUT AS PART OF THE PS DISTRICT SPECIFIC TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF THE 30FT ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO BE PERMITTED THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.

SO THAT'S ALSO PART OF THIS REQUEST. WHEN I'M SETTING THE STAGE OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE APPROVING. BUT I ALSO FEEL OBLIGATED TO TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THINGS COME TO YOU AS A COUNCIL.

AND IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE BECAUSE THE CITY'S BEEN AROUND FOR SO LONG FOR THE FIRST TIME. RIGHT? AND THIS IS THIS IS A FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO INTERPRET THIS SECTION, TO NOT JUST BE ANCILLARY STRUCTURES, BUT TO BE PRIMARY STRUCTURES AS WELL.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE PLANNING BOARD HAD A DE MINIMIS.

STATEMENT. BUT IF YOU ALLOW IT EIGHT INCHES, THEN SOMEONE COULD REQUEST IT FOR TEN FEET, 20FT.

BECAUSE ONCE YOU ALLOW IT ONCE, THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO INTERPRET IT MOVING FORWARD. SO I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT, NOT THAT I'M TRYING TO STEER YOU ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

BUT THIS IS HOW WE WILL BEGIN INTERPRETING IT MOVING FORWARD FOR ANY FURTHER APPLICATION.

AND I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BEFORE AS PART OF THE RECORD.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT RELATES TO ALL FURTHER PETITIONS, BUT EVERY PETITION WILL COME TO YOU ON ITS OWN MERITS AS A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO LIKE WE CANNOT SAY, SORRY, YOU'RE ABOVE THE 30FT.

YOU CAN'T MOVE FORWARD. SO HISTORICALLY, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, AND IF YOU THINK BACK TO THE HOSPITAL DISCUSSIONS, HISTORICALLY, THE SECTION OF THE CODE, AND I'LL READ IT EXACTLY AS IT SAYS, IT'S SECTION 58-838.

MAXIMUM HEIGHT. IT SAYS MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT IS 30FT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS.

PERIOD. NEXT SENTENCE BECAUSE OF THE WIDE DIVERSITY OF USES ALLOWED STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF THIS HEIGHT AND THEN IN PARENTHESES, CHURCH SPIRES, WATER TOWERS, ETC. MAY BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS PROVIDED THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. HISTORICALLY, THAT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO SAY THAT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS LIMITED TO THE 30FT, BUT ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING COULD EXCEED. SO THE CHURCH STEEPLE, FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD GET APPROVAL THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS FOR THAT ELEMENT OF THE BUILDING TO EXCEED THE 30FT. THAT'S HOW THAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY.

WE HAVE NOT GRANTED AN APPROVAL PREVIOUSLY FOR THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING, THE WHOLE BUILDING TO EXCEED 30FT.

NOW, THE WAY THAT'S WORDED IT DOESN'T IT IS IT IS WORDED IN A WAY THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

THE PETITIONER HAS A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE WAY THAT THAT IS WORDED AND IS ASKING FOR APPROVAL.

BECAUSE WHEN THEY LIFT THIS BUILDING UP THAT IT'S A, YOU CAN PICTURE THE CHURCH, IT HAS A PRETTY STEEP RIDGELINE EIGHT INCHES OF THAT RIDGELINE. THE TOP OF THAT PEAKED ROOF WOULD EXCEED THE 30FT.

AND THAT'S THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. THAT'S NOT THE CHURCH STEEPLE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT CHURCH STEEPLE, BUT IT WOULD BE. AND SO THEN WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SAYING IS, THEN WE WOULD BE INTERPRETING THE CODE IN A WAY THAT HAS BEEN DIFFERENTLY APPLIED IN THE PAST.

BUT IS THAT NOT A BEING A AS IT RELATES TO FEMA AND WHERE YOU HAVE TO START YOUR BUILDING? SO YOUR THE THE 30FT IS GOING TO BE MEASURED FROM DESIGN FLOOD REGARDLESS.

SO IF DESIGN FLOOD WAS AT FIVE WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS.

BUT IF IT WAS AT FIVE, THIS WAS BUILT ON GRADE AND YOU WERE.

YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED 30FT FROM THERE. IF NOW IT'S AT 11, YOU'D BE ALLOWED 30FT FROM THAT 11.

SO IT'S 30FT MEASURED FROM DESIGN FLOOD, WHEREVER THAT DESIGN FLOOD FALLS FOR WHEREVER IT IS WITHIN THE MAP, OKAY. WITHIN THE CITY AND THAT POINT IN TIME.

SO YEAH. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE PAB GAVE A, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY GAVE A RATIONALE FOR WHY THEIR INTERPRETATION,

[02:55:05]

THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WAS PREDICATED ON THAT RATIONALE FOR THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.

KRAMER. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. MCCONNELL.

WHEN WE DO APPROVE THIS, THIS WILL CREATE A NEW ENTRY POINT FOR APPLICANTS.

BUT IN NO WAY DOES IT SET PRECEDENT THAT OTHERS WILL BE APPROVED FOLLOWING THIS.

IS THAT THE CASE? CORRECT. BECAUSE EVERY SPECIFIC REQUEST IS BASED ON THE CRITERIA.

HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT JUST FOR CHURCHES. THIS IS FOR EVERY PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT.

BUT YOU ARE CORRECT. THAT'S WHY I SAID IT. YOU STILL HAVE TO. EACH APPLICATION STILL HAS TO MEET THE CRITERIA. SO IT JUST CREATES AN ENTRY POINT FOR OTHERS. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RAISE ANYTHING, MEET WITH SOME OF US IN ADVANCE AND SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO GO FOR YOU.

SO YOU DON'T WASTE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME JUST LIKE THESE FOLKS DID.

HAVING SAID THAT, DO YOU NEED TWO MOTIONS ON THIS 100%? YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 13 B.

WHICH I ALREADY TURNED OVER. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 26.

C YOU TWO WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE JUST DISCUSSED IN THIS PRESENTATION.

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

MADAM CLERK, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KROL. YES. AND MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MAYOR, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST SORRY.

FOR THE RECORD, I ONLY SEE ONE CONDITION IN THE RESOLUTION.

ONE. I THOUGHT YOU REFERENCED SOME FROM PAB. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT'S BEING.

IS IT FOR THE NEXT ONE CONDITION IT'S RELATED TO.

AT THE CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING OF FINAL INSPECTIONS, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL PROVIDE A LETTER OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFYING THE LANDSCAPING.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE IT SAID CONDITIONS, PLURAL.

I ONLY SAW ONE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ALL AGREEING TO THE SAME THING.

THE VARIANCE HAS MULTIPLE CONDITIONS. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I THINK I WAS THINKING OF VARIANCE WITH THAT.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 13 C REGARDING PETITION 26-V4.

WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THIS PRESENTATION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ.

DISCUSSION. JUST SORRY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS.

TWO THE CONSTRUCTION. TRUCKS THERE WAS A CONCERN WITH CONSTRUCTION BEING ON THE NARROW STREETS WITHIN PORT ROYAL.

IS THERE A CONDITION WITHIN THE PERMITTING, OR DO WE NEED TO DO THAT HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND VEHICLES WILL BE ON SITE, OR WE DO NOT HAVE A CONDITION IN THIS RESOLUTION.

WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT IS REVIEWED AND WHEN APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT IS THEN ENFORCED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU KNOW, DRIVING BY THAT SITE DAILY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.

THOSE WERE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION. I SPOKE AND SAID I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT I HAD THAT IN THE RECORD, THAT THERE WOULD BE THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE WITH ON THAT PROPERTY.

THE PLAN IS ALL THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES WILL BE.

I'M SORRY YOU WERE SWORN IN. AND YOU ARE. EDWARD GLEASON, TRINITY BY THE COVE.

ALL THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES WILL BE ON THE PARISH HALL AND THE PARISH HALL PARKING LOT.

NOW, I WILL SAY EVERYBODY IN PORT ROYAL WHO HAVE SEEN THE CONSTRUCTION FOLKS AND WHERE THEY PARK.

IT'S QUITE A MYSTERY TO ME, BUT WE TEND TO KNOCK ON DOORS AND SAY, PLEASE MOVE IF YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE.

SO GREAT. THANK YOU. JUST WANTED THAT ON THE RECORD.

OKAY, SO WITH THAT, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ.

MADAM CLERK, VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

KRAMER. YES. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, A COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENMAN IS ABSENT AND MAYOR. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[03:00:03]

IF I COULD JUST THANK YOU ALL AS PUBLIC LEADERS FOR BEING PART OF THIS JOURNEY FOR US.

OF COURSE, IT BEGAN WITH IAN HIT MIDDLETON, AND IT'S BEEN A PROCESS MANAGING A WHOLE CONGREGATION TO GET ABOUT THE THE WONDER THAT WE ALL HAVE TO FACE HERE IN NAPLES OF RESILIENCE, AND THAT THIS CHURCH WILL NOW MAKE IT 75, 100 YEARS MORE WITHOUT ANY OF THAT STORM WATER, AND HOPEFULLY NONE OF THAT WIND DAMAGE AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU FOR BEING PART OF OUR PROCESS. WE'RE VERY THANKFUL FOR YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY, COUNCIL, THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEXT ITEM.

[13.D) 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 Modernized 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.]

BEING 13 D. SO AND IN NO WAY AM I TRYING TO RUSH COUNCIL AT ALL.

BUT I KNOW WE PAUSED DURING QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

HOWEVER, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE NOT. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE BREAKING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ANYWHERE BETWEEN 60 TO 90 MINUTES AT 1230.

SO IF COUNCIL DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO GET THROUGH 13 D, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE PICK AN ITEM THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN GET TO.

I RESPECT YOUR OPINION. I'M GOING TO TRY AND IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK, THEN WE CAN.

BUT I'D LIKE TO TRY. BEING THAT WE DO HAVE SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO SPEND ON THIS PETITION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. YOU'RE WELCOME. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 26-Q3, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46-34, 58, DASH EIGHT, 33 AND 58-838 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MODERNIZED CLUBHOUSE AND AMENITY CENTER. BUILDINGS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30FT 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., LOCATED AT 1600 SOLANO ROAD. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

SWEARING IN PLEASE. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO TESTIFY WHO ARE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE.

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

THANK YOU. I HAVE COUNCIL DISCLOSURES COUNCIL MEMBER CARL.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND TALK TO STAFF ON IT.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, MET WITH PETITIONER AND PETITIONERS AGENTS TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THE PROJECT AND ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF. THANK YOU.

SCHULTZ FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? VICE MAYOR DISCUSSION WITH THE STAFF.

NO OTHER CONTACT. I MET WITH THE PETITIONER AND THE PETITIONER'S AGENT.

I ALSO HAVE A I'M A MEMBER. SO AS FAR AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I BELIEVE THAT I CAN BE FAIR IN MY DECISION MAKING.

MR. MCCONNELL, DO YOU NEED TO READ A COUPLE QUESTIONS? YES. SO YOU ARE PAYING MEMBER OF ROYAL POINCIANA CLUB, CORRECT? HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A PAYING MEMBER FOR? OVER 25 YEARS.

OKAY. YOU ARE NOT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. I AM NOT.

OKAY. SO I AGAIN, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT PURSUANT TO 112, AS YOUR DECISION TODAY WILL NOT ENDURE TO END THE SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS OF ANY FAMILY OR RELATIVE. CORRECT? CORRECT. BUT ONCE AGAIN, SINCE THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 286.0112, YOU MAY ABSTAIN FROM VOTING. IF THERE'S AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OR YOU FEEL LIKE IT WOULD PREJUDICE THE RECORD, BUT THAT DECISION IS FULLY UP TO YOU. I FEEL THAT I CAN BE FAIR.

OKAY. SO I'LL BE VOTING. THANK YOU. WITH THAT.

KRAMER. KRAMER, I MY DISCLOSURE I MET WITH PETITIONER PETITIONER'S AGENT AND DISCUSSED THIS WITH STAFF.

AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. AND THOSE MEETINGS WERE FOR CLARITY AND BACKGROUND.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

FOR THE RECORD, RICH JOVANOVIC, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DENNIS NALLEY IS HERE FROM ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB.

PATTY KULICK IS OUR PROFESSIONAL PLANNER. MICHAEL HERRERA IS OUR CIVIL ENGINEER.

[03:05:01]

JIM BANKS IS OUR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT, KEN HART WITH PEACOCK, AND LEWIS IS OUR ARCHITECT.

JEFF CURL IS OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND DON GARRETT IS THE PROPOSED CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT.

ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB HAS BEEN AROUND NAPLES FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AND HAS BEEN ON THIS THIS SITE ALL THAT TIME. IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES AND AT THE END OF 19 END OF THE 1990S AND CAME IN AS AN EXISTING GOLF CLUB. ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE HERE FOR, FOR TWO ITEMS, BOTH THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT, WE HAVE NO PERMITTED USES.

IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE. AND WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY DOING IS WE ARE DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING ONE STOREY CLUBHOUSE.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN TO THAT CLUBHOUSE, IT'S IT'S LONG, IT'S SPREAD OUT AND NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT BUILDING.

AND IT'S TIME FOR UPDATING. TO, TO COMPRESS IT A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE IT BE TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 60FT.

AND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURAL PRESENTATION, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S 52FT TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE FOR MOST OF THE BUILDING BUMPS UP FOR A SMALL PORTION TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE TO 60FT, AND THEN COMES BACK DOWN TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE OF 52FT.

ALSO, WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

UNDER YOUR CODE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REDUCE PARKING BY UP TO 20%.

WE WE HAVE PROVIDED A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS THAT BASED UPON THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES WERE OVER PARKED FROM FROM A MEMBERSHIP STANDPOINT. WE ARE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE 98 EXCESS SPACES.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS IS IS APPROVED.

WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY THAT IF SOMEHOW WE'RE WRONG AND MORE PEOPLE COME TO THE CLUB THAN HAVE NOT COME IN THE PAST, WE HAVE PLENTY OF LAND TO ADD PARKING LATER TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.

SHOULD THE REDUCTION PROVE TO BE A MISTAKE, THE PROPERTY FUTURE LAND DESIGNATION IS RECREATION AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. THAT'S NOT CHANGING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND THE ZONING, AS I MENTIONED, IS PUBLIC SERVICE.

OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS ARE PREDOMINANTLY OTHER GOLF CLUBS AND SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

WE WILL SHOW YOU AN EXHIBIT DURING OUR PRESENTATION TO SHOW YOU THAT ESSENTIALLY, HERE'S THE CLUBHOUSE RIGHT HERE.

DAVID, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME. WHAT DO I DO TO POINT? THERE IT IS, I GOT IT, THANK YOU. HERE'S THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE.

THE NEW CLUBHOUSE IS GOING TO BE IN THE SAME LOCATION.

WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU AN EXHIBIT THAT SAYS BASICALLY, THE NEAREST RESIDENCE IS ALMOST 1000FT AWAY WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

SO OUR IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS IS ESSENTIALLY NONEXISTENT AS YOU DRIVE IN OFF OF BURNING TREE, WHICH COMES OFF OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD, YOU COME IN AND YOU DO THIS MOTION RIGHT HERE.

THAT ENTRANCE IS NOT CHANGING. ACCESS IS NOT CHANGING IN THIS PROJECT VISUALLY.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THIS CLUBHOUSE FROM ANY OF OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

AND THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASON WE. WE THINK THAT IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO ASK FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN.

THIS IS IN THIS LOCATION. AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY POINTED OUT, WE CAN ASK FOR ABOVE 30FT, BUT WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHY WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE ABOVE 30FT. AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL.

ADMINISTRATIVELY WE HAVE PRELIMINARY DRB APPROVAL AS WELL.

BUT FROM AN INGRESS AND EGRESS STANDPOINT, NOTHING'S CHANGING.

I BRIEFLY WENT OVER THE PARKING. WE WILL HAVE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT PARKING.

I'M BRIEFLY GOING OVER THE CRITERIA THAT APPLY TO THE CONDITIONAL USE.

OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU WANT A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER THOSE. OUR REFUSE IS PROPERLY SCREENED.

WE HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES. AS I POINTED OUT FROM FROM A BUFFERING FROM OUR NEIGHBORS STANDPOINT, WE ARE WE'RE FAR AWAY. THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF IS THE BUFFER TO WHERE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY NOT GOING TO SEE THIS PROPERTY OR THIS PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE FROM WHERE WE ARE. SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE FINAL DRB APPROVAL, BUT AGAIN, SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING ARE NOT GOING TO BASICALLY SEE THIS STRUCTURE FROM OFF SITE AT ANY POINT.

[03:10:10]

WITH REGARD TO NEARBY DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEARBY DEVELOPMENT.

THE CAMPUS ITSELF OR THE COURSE ITSELF IS 356 ACRES.

WE ARE BASICALLY CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THAT 356 ACRES.

SO FROM A COMPATIBILITY STANDPOINT THERE'S NO NEGATIVE NO NEGATIVE ISSUES WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.

SO ESSENTIALLY ALL THE MATERIALS AND I THINK YOUR STAFF AGREES THAT WE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR YOUR CONDITIONAL USE AND THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF NOT ONLY THE CITY OF NAPLES, BUT FOR RESIDENTS IN SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ADJACENT THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY.

JUST BRIEFLY, AS I MENTIONED, WE WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IN 1999, SO THAT WE ARE NOW ARE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CITY ZONING AND YOUR CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BECAUSE THOSE DESIGNATIONS WERE CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATIONS IN THE COUNTY.

THIS IS THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN AND THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE.

I THINK. PATTY, ARE YOU UP NEXT? I'M GOING TO HAVE PATTY COME UP, TAKE YOU THROUGH THE CHANGES TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN.

BASICALLY WE'RE MAKING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW WELLNESS CENTER.

OOPS, SORRY. IN THE COUNTY, YOU JUST POINT AND THERE'S AN ARROW THAT SHOWS UP.

SORRY. THIS THIS WELLNESS CENTER IS BEING REPLACED WITH A NEW WELLNESS CENTER.

THE CLUBHOUSE IS BEING REPLACED, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMMISSARY OVER HERE AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE NEW SITE PLAN SO YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY HOW EVERYTHING LAYS OUT.

WE'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURE. I WANT TO JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD COMMENTS.

IT WAS A 4 TO 3 VOTE. BUT IF YOU WENT BACK AND YOU REVIEWED IT, ONE OF THE NOSE WAS CONCERNED THAT THEY COULD NOT APPROVE SOMETHING TALLER THAN 30FT.

AND THAT PERSON SAID BUT FOR HIS CONCERN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING ABOVE 30FT, HE LIKED IT AND HE WOULD BE A YES. ONE OF THE OTHER NO'S WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.

IF WE GO TO 60FT, IS THIS SOMEHOW GOING TO NEGATIVELY OR SOMEHOW CREATE AN ABILITY FOR OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN A MILE TO GO ABOVE TO GO TO 60FT THAT DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST? AND HE SAID, SINCE WE DIDN'T. FRANKLY, IT WAS A GREAT QUESTION.

I RARELY HAVE A QUESTION THAT COMES UP THAT I DIDN'T ANTICIPATE, BUT THAT WAS ONE I DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.

SO I DIDN'T HAVE AN EXHIBIT TO SHOW THOSE DISTANCES.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND I THINK THE MOST LIKELY PROJECT WITHIN A MILE AS THE CROW FLIES IS PROBABLY COASTAL AND MALL.

THERE, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE HIGH RISES ALONG THE BEACH, THEY'RE ALL WITHIN A MILE OF COASTAL MALL.

SO THOSE HIGH RISES ARE MUCH TALLER THAN 60FT.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY THIS LIVE LOCAL ACT. WE'RE NOT DOING BY GIVING US 60FT.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO GO TALLER THAN WHAT IT ALREADY CAN DO, BASED UPON ALREADY EXISTING HEIGHTS WITHIN THE CITY.

AND I HAD THAT MAP. THAT GENTLEMAN SAID HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A YES.

SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A 6 TO 1 VOTE AT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

HAD. ONE MEMBER KNEW HE COULD GO ABOVE 30FT. THAT WAS A POLICY DECISION FOR THE COUNCIL AND THE OTHER.

HAD I HAD THAT LIVE LOCAL CONFIRMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN WOULD HAVE BEEN A POSITIVE.

WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO PATTY TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE NEW MASTER PLAN.

WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, AS FAR AS THE BUILDINGS GO. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR ARCHITECT COME UP AND TAKE YOU THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURE. AND THEN WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.

UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF ME AT THIS POINT.

MAYOR, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE THAT MAP? THE THE MAP TO LIVE LOCAL THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING? YEAH. I COULD SHOW YOU JUST BECAUSE. AND I CAN HAND IT OUT TO YOU ALL.

WELL, I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM AN EXPERT TOO, BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, YOU'RE HERE TO PROVIDE LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND NOT TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD. AND I DO WANT TO HEAR IT FROM YOUR SIDE.

I'LL PUT THE MAP IN THAT SHOWS YOU THAT THAT SHOWS THE DISTANCE FROM FOR THE COASTAL MALL.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. 15 COPIES. TAKE A WHOLE PACKET.

SO WHERE'S THE ONE LAST PAGE OF EACH ONE? OKAY.

I'LL HANDLE ALL THIS. AFTER ALL, IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE IT TO THE CLERK.

GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD AND LET HER PRESENTATION COME BACK.

YES, MAYOR. THANK YOU. PATTY KULAK, FOR THE RECORD, AS YOU'LL SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, WE DO HAVE THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN.

[03:15:06]

I'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PROPOSED ONE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT. THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS THAT YOU ARE REVIEWING TODAY THE PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE, THE PROPOSED COMMISSARY BUILDING, AND THE WELLNESS CENTER.

AS I MENTIONED, THOSE THREE BUILDINGS, WE HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGES THAT WERE APPROVED THROUGHOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN PROCESS. WE ALSO HAVE THE REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION IN PARKING TO BE NO MORE THAN 20%. THAT BRINGS OUR REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO FIVE.

88. THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC ROADWAY OR ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY.

THERE IS NO INCREASE TO CLUB MEMBERSHIP AND THERE WILL BE NO EXPANSION TO THE GOLF COURSE.

I'M GOING TO BRING UP KEN HART WITH PEACOCK AND LEWIS AS OUR ARCHITECT, WHO WILL WALK YOU THROUGH EACH ELEVATION OF EACH BUILDING AND THEN PROVIDE YOU THE RENDERINGS OF THOSE. KEN HART, ARCHITECT AND PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR THIS CLUBHOUSE PROJECT. IT'S BEEN A FUN PROJECT TO WORK ON.

I KNOW WE MENTIONED THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT IS A VERY TALLEST PART IN OUR LAST REVIEW.

WE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT THE FULL BUILDING AT 60FT.

IT'S REALLY THE CENTER SECTION TO GIVE SOME SCALE.

SO THE BUILDING DOESN'T HAVE ONE STRAIGHT LINE, WHICH IS WHAT WE OBJECTED TO WHEN WE FIRST CAME ON TO THIS PROJECT.

THE CURRENT CLUBHOUSE IS OVER THREE FOOTBALL FIELD IN LENGTH.

IT'S 1000 LINEAR FEET IN LENGTH. THE DESIGN OBJECTIVE WAS TO TAKE THAT AND PUT IT ON TWO FLOORS, STACK IT UP, PROVIDE MORE REAL ESTATE AROUND THE CLUBHOUSE.

BUT IN DOING THAT, OUR TYPICAL CLUBHOUSES HAVE HIGH VOLUME CEILINGS.

14 FOOT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR A CEILING HEIGHT. WITH THAT, THEN YOU HAVE TWO THREE FEET OF MECHANICAL SPACE.

SO A FLOOR TO FLOOR RATIO OF 16FT IS NOT UNUSUAL.

NOW WHEN YOU SEE ON THIS SLIDE HERE WHERE IT'S MARKED AT ROOF LINE AT THE 45 FOOT LEVEL THAT'S REALLY A MANSARD SPACE. IT'S NOT REALLY THE ROOF LINE.

IT'S WHAT WE SEE VISUALLY AS THE TOP OF THE ROOF, BUT BEHIND THAT IT'S A 7 TO 8 FOOT TALL MANSARD ROOF AND THAT HIDES ALL OF OUR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. SO THE ACTUAL ROOF LINE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THAT.

AND WE TYPICALLY PUT OUR MECHANICAL UNITS IN THOSE ROOF WELLS, SO TO SPEAK TO HIDE THEM SO THEY DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE ASSETS AROUND THE CLUBHOUSE.

SO IT DOESN'T ENCUMBER OUR CLUBHOUSE WITH THE VIEWS OUT TO THE GOLF COURSE OR THE CONNECTION TO RACKETS OR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BY HAVING MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AROUND AS WELL. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS THE WELLNESS CENTER. YOU CAN SEE HERE. THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE CLUBHOUSE.

THE TOP OF THE ROOF LINE HERE IS AT 44. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST PHASE OF THE TWO PHASE PROJECTS.

WE'LL BUILD THIS FIRST. THIS WILL ACT AS A TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE.

ONCE THE CLUBHOUSE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND FINISHED, THEY'LL OCCUPY THIS AS A WELLNESS AND FITNESS CENTER.

SO THAT FALLS UNDER THE THE 44 FOOT. AND AGAIN, THE SAME THING HERE ABOUT SEVEN FEET OF THIS ROOF LINE BELOW THAT IS A MECHANICAL WELL WITH THE ACTUAL ROOF LINE EXIST. AND THIS IS THE COMMISSARY, ONE OF OUR SUPPORT BUILDINGS ON SITE.

AND IT'S A 27 FOOT ROOF LINE TO THIS BUILDING.

AND THIS IS THE BACK ELEVATION SHOWING THE WELLNESS CENTER ON THE VERY FAR RIGHT AS A SEPARATE INDEPENDENT BILLING.

AGAIN, THAT'S THE FIRST PHASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN THE LEFT SIDE WOULD BE THE CLUBHOUSE. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW WE STACKED THAT UP ON TWO DIFFERENT FLOORS.

IN THAT VERY CENTER SECTION IS A 60 FOOT. AND THAT'S REALLY, FOR THE MOST PART, AN ATTIC SPACE FOR A LOT OF STORAGE.

THERE IS A SMALL PORCH ON THAT LEVEL, BUT THE PREDOMINANT ACTIVITIES ARE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR.

SECOND FLOOR IS MOSTLY ALL DINING SPACE. FIRST FLOOR IS MOSTLY ALL GOLF OPERATIONS, LOCKER ROOMS, STAFF ROOMS AND ACCESS. SO IT'S A CLEAR DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT AMENITIES IN THE PROJECT.

AND THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE NORTH SIDE. LOOKING SOUTH, YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE THE PARKING DECK HERE.

PARKING WOULD BE ON TWO FLOORS. YOU'D HAVE SHADED COVERED PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

THEN THE ELEVATED PARKING TO SERVICE MORE. THE DINING FEATURES ON THAT ELEVATED SECOND FLOOR TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SLIDE WOULD SHOW THE WELLNESS CENTER, THE EXISTING PICKLEBALL COURTS AND TENNIS COURTS.

THOSE REMAIN. YOU CAN SEE THE WELLNESS CENTER BUTTS UP RIGHT AGAINST THOSE.

SO AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HOW WE'VE TAKEN THAT LONG LINEAR BUILDING AND STACKED IT UP ON TWO FLOORS.

AND WE SAVED SOME REAL ESTATE IN DOING THAT. OKAY.

FOR THE RECORD, ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE A MAP THAT WAS PRODUCED THAT SHOWS THE PROXIMITY FROM OUR CLUBHOUSE FOOTPRINT TO THE NEAREST RESIDENCES,

[03:20:01]

THE CLOSEST ONE BEING 836FT IN YOUR PACKAGE. YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT YOU DID RECEIVE A LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH WAS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM A RESIDENT WHO WAS ROUGHLY 1000FT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, SAYING THAT THEY LIKE THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, THAT THE CLUB HAS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THEM FOR NUMEROUS YEARS AND THAT THEY DO LIKE THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. THIS APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED AGAINST YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

BEING MINDFUL OF YOUR TIME. I WON'T WALK THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE ITEMS, BUT STAFF DID AGREE IN THEIR STAFF REPORT THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS IT WOULD BE WITH MULTIPLE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTS, ALONG WITH THE LDC CRITERIA THAT RICK INTRODUCED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT FOR THE USE OF THE BUILDING. AS PART OF THAT SECOND PART OF OUR REQUEST IS THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT I'D LIKE TO GIVE SOME ATTENTION TO.

THE CURRENT PARKING AT THE CLUB IS 520 SPACES.

WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT TO 588 SPACES.

THAT DOES ACCOUNT FOR A 20% REDUCTION FROM WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE, AND THAT IS ALLOWED BY CODE FOR THAT 20% REDUCTION.

THERE WAS A PARKING STUDY DONE FOR THE SITE DURING PEAK SEASON THAT SHOWED EVEN AT THE CURRENT CLUB MEMBERSHIP, WITH THE CURRENT PARKING, THEY ALREADY HAVE A SURPLUS OF PARKING.

BUT EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL SPACES THAT WE WILL BE PROVIDING, THERE WILL STILL BE A SURPLUS OF 980 SPACES.

98 SPACES. THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION. AND WITH THAT, IT REVIEWS ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION THAT STAFF REVIEWED IT AGAINST AND THAT WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR OUR TEAM IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. I DID QUESTION THE PARKING, AND I WAS OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT AND COUNT EACH PARKING SPACE, BUT I CHOSE YES, SHE HAD HER CHALK READY.

I CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT. YES. VICE MAYOR, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.

WHAT IS THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE NEW CLUBHOUSE COMPARED TO THE CURRENT CLUBHOUSE AND ALSO FOR THE WELLNESS CENTER? THEN I SEE THE HEIGHTS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WAS APPROVED WITHIN THE.

THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IS. TO PULL UP MY SLIDE.

AND I'M ALSO BRINGING UP KEN HART TO TALK ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDING AS WELL.

CLUBHOUSE IS ABOUT 123,000FT². THE NEW ONE. CORRECT.

AND THE OLD ONE WAS 85 OR 89. MR. BLANKENSHIP WAS ABOUT 85,000FT².

TODAY, GOING TO ABOUT 123,000FT² FOR THE CLUBHOUSE.

AND 123,000 IS JUST THE. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE FLOOR THREE WAS STORAGE ATTIC.

IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE 123 FOR THE ROOF LINE GOES UP.

IT'S A LOT OF STORAGE AND WE HAVE A SMALL SECTION OF.

IT'S A PORCH. SO 123 IS THE USABLE SPACE ON FLOORS ONE AND TWO ONLY.

NO, IT'S ACTUALLY ALL THE SPACE. OH, OKAY. INCLUDES.

OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO MECHANICAL VISUALIZE.

I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE. I'M JUST TRYING TO VISUALIZE THE SIZE AND MASSING.

IT'S IN TOTAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE WELLNESS CENTER.

DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT? IT'S ABOUT 30,000FT².

AND THAT'S 31 TO BE EXACT. BUT THAT'S COMPARED TO WHAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY, WHICH IS ABOUT 500FT².

SO IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. IT'S AN INCREASE IN PROGRAMING WITH SPA SALON SERVICES AND WELLNESS FACILITIES.

SO IT'S A BIG INCREASE. BUT AGAIN, THAT SERVES AS THE TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE IN PHASE ONE WHILE THE CLUBHOUSE IS BEING BUILT.

AND IF I MAY, AND I DON'T THINK I EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH.

WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS. SO THESE ARE JUST MORE SERVICES TO SERVE THE EXISTING MEMBERSHIP.

WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS? IT'S ABOUT A THOUSAND MEMBERS.

THAT INCLUDES GOLF AND SOCIAL THAT USE ALL OF THESE FACILITIES.

COULD IT BE INCREASED IF THE CLUB WANTED TO OR IS IT LIMITED SOMEHOW? WE'VE COMMITTED TO NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS.

THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON.

JEFF BRAMMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM IS A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CLUBHOUSE, WELLNESS BUILDING AND COMMISSARY AT THE ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB.

PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1600 SOLANO ROAD. THIS ALSO IS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT.

AS PROPOSED, THE. 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.

[03:25:03]

THIS IS MEASURED FROM THE FIRST FLOOR OF FEMA ELEVATION.

THE PETITIONER PROPOSES THREE BUILDINGS HERE.

THE NEW CLUBHOUSE, AS YOU HEARD, IS ABOUT 123,000FT².

THAT WILL BE 60FT TALL, 68 WITH THE CHIMNEYS.

THE NEW WELLNESS BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 31,000FT² AND WILL BE 52FT TALL, AND THE NEW COMMISSARY BUILDING WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 5000FT², AND THAT WILL BE 30FT TALL. THE PS ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A DIVERSE VARIETY OF USES.

THEREFORE, THERE IS LANGUAGE ALLOWING STRUCTURES TO EXCEED 30FT IN HEIGHT IN CERTAIN CASES.

THIS IS PROVIDED 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 FROM THE PETITION, ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INTERIOR TO THE PROPERTY.

THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, NOR CAN THE PUBLIC VIEW THESE FACILITIES FROM THE STREET.

HOWEVER, PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION TODAY, THE CODE HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPLIED TO ALLOW A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR AN ENTIRE BUILDING, AND THE PETITIONERS REQUEST IS FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE WELLNESS BUILDING TO EXCEED THIS THRESHOLD.

THE PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING.

CURRENTLY, THE CLUB HAS A PARKING CAPACITY OF 520 SPACES.

REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSES TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER TO 588 SPACES.

HOWEVER, BY CODE, THE TOTALITY OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRE 735 SPACES.

THIS IS 147 SPACES, OR 20% MORE THAN THE CLUB PROPOSES.

PURSUANT TO CODE, THE PETITIONER PREPARED A PUBLIC OR 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 BUILT IN ROOM FOR A 10% GROWTH IN DEMAND AND TEN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES.

WITH THAT, THE STUDY SHOWED A FUTURE PEAK DEMAND OF 490 SPACES.

THIS STILL LEAVES A SURPLUS OF 98 AVAILABLE SPACES COMPARED TO THE 588 PROPOSED.

THE CLUB, AS THEY SAY, WILL KEEP MEMBERSHIP CAPPED WHERE IT IS TODAY.

AND THESE PARKING FACILITIES, LIKE THE BUILDINGS, ARE INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY, THEREFORE THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE EITHER.

LASTLY, THERE'S NO OUTDOOR DINING OR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.

SHOULD THERE BE IN THE FUTURE, THE PETITIONER WILL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL FOR THOSE, THE PROJECT WAS NOTICED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED SOME CORRESPONDENCE, NAMELY LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA PACKET. THE PETITIONS WERE HEARD BY THE PA OR THE PETITION WAS HEARD BY THE PAB IN MAY, AND THE PAB RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL BY A 4 TO 3 VOTE.

THE PETITIONER DOCUMENTED AND PROVIDED SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SOME OF THE NAY VOTES AS WELL.

SHOULD CITY COUNCIL RECOMMEND APPROVAL PA BE RECOMMENDED? THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE INCLUDED. NUMBER ONE, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PLANS PRESENTED AND ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW.

NUMBER TWO, AT THE CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING OF FINAL INSPECTIONS, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL PROVIDE A LETTER OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFYING THE INSTALLATION OF HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS.

I'LL MENTION THE FIRST CONDITION THAT THEY HAVE THERE IS KIND OF ALREADY IN OUR RESOLUTIONS.

WE APPROVE THEM BASED ON PLANS THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

SO IF THERE WERE CHANGES TO THAT, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK TO P, A, B AND CITY COUNCIL.

BUT FOR THE MOMENT THAT CONCLUDES OUR COMMENTS.

WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

YEAH. ARE THERE ANY KNOWN HARDSHIPS OR CONSTRAINTS WHY THEY HAVE TO BUILD UP THAT YOU KNOW OF? AND COULD THEY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE CLUBHOUSE BY GOING WITH THE EXISTING CODE? OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS THERE ANY, ARE WE CREATING A PRECEDENT HERE WHERE OTHER WE COULD HAVE OTHER PETITIONS SINCE THIS IS REALLY NOT A HARDSHIP IN ANY WAY. IS THERE ARE WE KIND OF MAYBE IT'S MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION FOR MR. MCCONNELL? YEAH. THIS COULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR US WITH OTHER ISSUES COMING BEFORE US.

[03:30:07]

SO I THINK TERMINOLOGY IS IMPORTANT. YOU'RE SAYING HARDSHIP, WHICH MAKES ME THINK YOU'RE THINKING OF A VARIANCE. BUT THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE. SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF CRITERIA. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, EVERY APPLICATION IS TREATED ON ITS OWN.

THERE IS NO PRECEDENT SETTING. HOWEVER, THE WAY THE CITY COUNCIL HAS JUST INTERPRETED THIS SECTION, THERE IS NO ESSENTIALLY THERE IS NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN PES BECAUSE ONE COULD APPLY FOR WHATEVER THEY WANT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.

SO PUTTING THAT ASIDE FOR A MINUTE, I DO THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME.

IT'S NOT PART OF THIS RECORD NOW, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. NOT TOTALLY, BUT SO LET ME BE MORE DIRECT.

NO, IT DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT. YEAH. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, AM I ALLOWED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AT THIS TO THAT QUESTION, OR DO I NEED TO WAIT UNTIL. NO.

MR.. KARL, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER KARL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE.

SURE. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY GOT TO THAT, BUT I WANTED I WANTED TO GO BACK TO.

ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR CONDITIONAL USE IS I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE A HARDSHIP.

I HAVE I HAVE TO I HAVE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHER CRITERIA LIKE COMPATIBILITY, THE REFUSE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND I THINK THAT SINCE THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT, ALL THE ALL THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THIS POINT SHOWS THAT WE'VE WE'VE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE. NOW, IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IF I HAD COME IN AND ASKED FOR 100 FOOT TALL BUILDING, BUT. BUT AGAIN, I THINK HARDSHIP. I GOT A LITTLE.

I GOT A LITTLE NERVOUS WHEN YOU WERE ASKING ME TO PROVE A HARDSHIP AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE REASON, RATIONALE BEHIND THIS WHOLE CONCEPT, THE RATIONALE AND SIMPLY WAS, IS INSTEAD OF HAVING A BIG, BIG, LONG BUILDING REQUEST 100FT, ACCORDING TO MR. MCCONNELL, YOU CAN SAY NO. NO, YOU CAN SAY NO BECAUSE IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE. WHERE'S THE WHERE'S THE YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE ONE THING THAT I WAS JUST COUNCIL THAT WE, WE HAVE TO LIVE BY OUR CODES.

OUR CODES ARE OUR CODES. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S 30FT TO THE CODE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE DEVIATE FROM OUR CODES, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC PERSONALLY.

I MEAN, THAT'S MY PERSONAL VIEW OF IT. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

USING THE THIRD FLOOR FOR STORAGE, THE ATTIC, WHATEVER.

IS THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR A FACILITY LIKE THIS? I MEAN, IT COULD BE IN A DIFFERENT BUILDING OR OFF SITE.

SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT REQUIRED. IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

OKAY. YEAH. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK AT THE TEN CRITERIA SIMILAR TO MR. KROLL ON THE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND HOW YOU APPLY IT TO A HEIGHT REQUEST.

AND I'M RIGHT NOW I'M FOCUSING ON ITEM EIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THE LAND AND BUILDINGS WHICH ARE INVOLVED SHALL BE ADEQUATE IN TERMS OF SIZE, SHAPE, TYPE OF BUILDING AND THE LIKE TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE.

SO ONE PERSON COULD SAY, WELL, THAT'S JUST GETTING TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE MINIMUM NECESSARY.

BUT ANOTHER PERSON COULD SAY IT'S MAKING SURE IT'S THE MAXIMUM NECESSARY.

SO DO YOU. THE QUESTION IN MY MIND, DO YOU NEED A CLUBHOUSE THIS BIG FOR THIS PROPOSED USE? THAT'S A QUESTION I'M STRUGGLING WITH IN MY MIND ESPECIALLY, AND I KNOW I'VE HEARD YOU SAY IT'S AN OLD BUILDING.

IT'S TIME FOR RENEWAL NEEDS TO BE REBUILT, BUT THE MEMBERSHIP SIZE ISN'T CHANGING.

WHAT I HEARD. SO YOU KNOW WHY? WHY A, I DON'T KNOW, 50% INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE BUILDING? THAT'S WHAT WHEN I'M STRUGGLING WITH AND UNDERSTAND AND JUST JUST WHEN THIS CLUB CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE 60S, WHAT MEMBERS EXPECT FROM THEIR CLUB AS FAR AS AMENITIES LIKE YOU DIDN'T HAVE SPAS AS PART OF ORIGINAL GOLF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THE COURSES THAT EXISTED BACK WHEN I WAS A YOUNG, YOUNG GOLFER.

YOU WENT AND YOU HAD YOU HAD NICE DINING FACILITIES.

YOU HAD CLUBHOUSE FACILITIES. CLEARLY, WE DIDN'T HAVE CART BARNS BACK THEN.

THEY MADE US WALK ALL OF THOSE THINGS, YOU KNOW, COME INTO PART OF THE THING.

BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOU DIDN'T HAVE WELLNESS CENTERS AS PART OF YOUR GOLF COURSE EXPERIENCE.

AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THAT AS PART OF WHERE THEY ARE NOW.

THAT'S WHAT MEMBERS ARE EXPECTING NOW AS PART OF THE FACILITIES, AS PART OF THE GOLF CLUB.

SO TO GO TO YOUR TO YOUR QUESTION, IS THIS NECESSARY FOR THE MEMBERS? YES. IF YOU GO IF YOU GO AROUND COLLIER COUNTY.

CITY OF NAPLES. THOSE ARE AMENITIES THAT ARE EXPECTED AS PART OF THE GOLF CLUB.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS, DO YOU REALLY DO YOU WANT TO USE UP MORE HORIZONTAL LAND TO INCREASE THE SIZE VERSUS

[03:35:07]

MAKING IT A SMALLER FOOTPRINT AND GOING UP TO PUT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IN, IN PLACE WHERE WE'RE LOCATED IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN ANYWHERE ELSE. IF WE WERE LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. I THINK THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANALYSIS THAN WHERE WE'RE LOCATED, WHERE WE'RE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY, IF YOU WILL.

NOBODY COULD SEE THIS. THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION TO OUR REQUEST TO INCLUDE TO TO UPDATE THE CLUB AND PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT THE MEMBERS ARE EXPECTING. I THINK IF WE WERE INOCULATING SHORES OR WE WERE IN PARK SHORE, I THINK THERE'D BE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE OUT HERE UPSET WITH GOING UP.

BUT WHERE WE'RE WE'RE LOCATED, I THINK IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE TO GO TO A TWO STORY CLUBHOUSE VERSUS A BIG, LONG SPREAD OUT CLUBHOUSE TO GET TO THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE.

YEAH, I COULD SEE A TWO STORY CLUBHOUSE, THREE.

I UNDERSTAND IT, AND THAT'S REALLY I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT. AND CANDIDLY, THAT WAS A BIG DISCUSSION POINT FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BECAUSE HE SAID IF WE HAD GONE TO 60FT FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THAT BUILDING, HE HAD AN ISSUE WITH IT, BUT HE LIKED THAT.

IT WAS JUST THAT SMALLER AREA. AND I GOT TO CORRECT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD.

THERE IS A SMALL, LITTLE, SMALL LITTLE DESSERT ROOM RESTAURANT TUCKED UP IN THAT LITTLE SPACE.

SO IT'S NOT TOTALLY STORAGE. I WANT I, I CAN'T LET THAT, THAT GO BY, BUT THERE IS A SMALL LITTLE RESTAURANT UP THERE FOR, FOR, FOR MEMBERS TO GO TO AFTER KIND OF THEIR MAIN MEAL TO GO UP THERE AND ENJOY DESSERT AND SOME AFTER AFTER DINNER STUFF.

SO IT'S NOT PURELY STORAGE UP IN THAT LITTLE, THAT LITTLE SMALL AREA.

ALL RIGHT. LET SOMEBODY ELSE ASK QUESTIONS NEXT.

I'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS I DON'T HAVE. I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF BARTON.

THE FIRST AND FOREMOST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AGAIN, LET'S FOCUS ON WHAT WE'RE APPROVING HERE.

THAT IS A CONDITIONAL USE. IT'S NOT A VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE. THIS THIS MEETS ALL TEN CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE.

AND THE MOST MY, MY PRIMARY CONCERN WHEN I WAS, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THOSE CRITERIA.

AND THE MOST OBVIOUS CONCERN IS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, BECAUSE HOW IS THE SIZE? AND WE'RE DEALING WITH IT WITH A LARGER BUILDING AND A TALLER BUILDING.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO A, A ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD OR RIGHT ON GOODLETTE, WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT OR IS HOW IT AFFECTS ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS, YOU KNOW, REFUSE AND SERVICE AREAS.

THERE'S NO EFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE CLOSEST ONE IS ALMOST 1000FT AWAY SCREENING AND BUFFERING.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT WAS HOW IS THIS BIGGER BUILDING GOING TO AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES? WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY THE TEN CRITERIA PROPOSED SIGNS AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING, HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES? IT'S NOT, THERE'S GOING TO BE ZERO EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY.

SO AGAIN, IT'S MEETING THAT CRITERIA. AND THEN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE INCREASE IN SIZE, I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

BY THE WAY, THE BUILDING IS BEAUTIFUL AND I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M BIASED FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE.

AND, AND I LOVE THAT THAT OLD, YOU KNOW, 40S AND 50S ARCHITECTURE THAT WE HAD HERE IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, WITH THE EXPOSED BEAMS AND THE HARDWOOD PINES AND, AND THE THE KNOTTY PINE WALLS.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS. THAT'S THE TYPE OF HOME I GREW UP IN.

OVER HERE IN OLD NAPLES. AND IT BROKE MY HEART WHEN MY DAD TORE THAT DOWN TO BUILD SOMETHING MORE NEW AND MODERN AND BIGGER.

SO I WILL SAY THAT I LOVE THE BUILDING. I LOVE THE, THE, THE OLD ARCHITECTURE THAT'S SITTING THERE.

AND IT DOES BREAK MY HEART THAT WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, I ALSO UNDERSTAND AND THAT IS THAT THAT GOLF CLUBS HAVE EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING THAT ARE DIFFERENT TODAY THAN THEY WERE 60 YEARS AGO.

WHEN WAS THAT BUILDING? WHEN WAS THAT GOLF CLUB? YEAH.

SO WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT A DIFFERENT, WE'VE GOT A DIFFERENT ANIMAL HERE FROM A STANDPOINT OF WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOUR GOLF CLUB AND THE AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TO ITS MEMBERS. AND THE REALITY IS, IS EVEN THOUGH A MEMBERSHIP MAY NOT BE GROWING, THE DESIRE FOR OTHER AMENITIES ARE.

AND THAT THAT REQUIRES A LARGER BUILDING. SO AGAIN, ARE WE IS IT BEING USED? IS IT MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR USE. YEAH IT IS.

SO AGAIN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TEN CRITERIA AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS OR NOT APPROVE THIS, IT'S CHECKING OFF THE BOXES ON ALL OF THEM. AND, AND I BELIEVE WHAT I JUST HEARD A SECOND AGO FROM THE PETITIONER,

[03:40:02]

YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION IF IT WAS A 100 FOOT TALL BUILDING. AND WE WOULD BECAUSE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT I WAS JUST MENTIONING THAT ARE THAT ARE AT LEAST ALMOST 1000FT AWAY, THEY'D ALL OF A SUDDEN BE ABLE TO SEE THAT 100 FOOT BUILDING AND IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THEM. THE ADJACENT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE. THE REALITY IS, IS THAT THE WAY IT'S THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED RIGHT NOW, IS THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AREN'T BEING AFFECTED.

AND AGAIN, THE MOST OBVIOUS CONCERN HERE WAS THAT WE WERE PUTTING IN A BIGGER BUILDING AND THE CONCERN WAS HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT THE, THE CONSTITUENTS AND RESIDENTS SURROUNDING IT? SO MY OPINION IS THAT THE, THE LARGER BUILDING IS WARRANTED BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH FOR THEIR FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP.

AND, AND THEY'VE, THEY'VE MET ALL, ALL THE TEN CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON, I WILL SAY I HAD A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE HEIGHT ALSO.

BUT WHEN YOU PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, THE WAY THAT YOU DID IN THIS AREA THAT'S THE EXCEPTION FOR ME IS THAT IT'S, IT IS GOING TO BE BUFFERED. WELL, THAT BY THE WAY, FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY IS GORGEOUS. IT'S, IT'S EXTREMELY MATURE VEGETATION.

THE BUFFERING IS FAR EXCEEDS ANYTHING THAT WE COULD EVER, EVER REQUIRE BASED ON, ON, ON CODE.

BUT SOMETHING I JUST I TOSS IN THERE IS WHILE I WAS DRIVING OVER THERE THE OTHER DAY, I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE VERY LONG DRIVEWAY THAT IT TAKES TO GET TO YOUR ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THE DRIVEWAY IS A QUARTER MILE LONG, IF NOT LONGER.

OF BOBCAT AND HER FIVE KITTENS WENT TROTTING OUT IN FRONT OF ME.

OH, YOU SAW THEM? YEAH. SO IT'S JUST VERY, VERY COOL TO SEE THAT.

AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST IT'S A COMMENT ON THE PROPERTY AND THE TYPE OF PROPERTY IT IS.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL. AND IT'S THIS, THIS WILL BE A NICE BUILDING TO, TO ADD TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO MISS THE, THE OLD CLUBHOUSE, ASSUMING THIS GETS APPROVED, BUT NONETHELESS, IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. I JUST WANT TO FOR THE RECORD, SO COUNCIL WILL NOT BE LOOKING AT LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE. CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE RECEIVED A POWERPOINT WHICH WAS REFERENCED IN HERE.

BUT AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL AND CIVIL DRAWINGS REFERENCED THE SITE PLAN THAT IS LISTED, IS THAT A 101? SO YOU HAVE A SERIES OF DRAWINGS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN YOUR RESOLUTION.

SO IT'S IN SECTION TWO. IT SAYS THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PETITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 4634 RELIES UPON THE CONSISTENCY WITH AND ACCURACY OF THE BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY PENINSULA ENGINEERING AND THE DATE, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PREPARED BY PEACOCK.

LEWIS, AIA. UNDATED. THE CIVIL PLANS PREPARED BY BLUESHORE ENGINEERING DATED FEBRUARY 19TH.

THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PREPARED BY EMERGE DESIGN DATED JANUARY 20TH.

THOSE ARE THE PLANS THAT WILL BE REFERENCED BY RESOLUTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT THAT POWERPOINT BECAUSE I WAS QUESTIONING YESTERDAY.

IT'S NOT THE POWERPOINT. OKAY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ.

QUESTION AND I HAVE A COMMENT. YOU'RE SEEKING TO CONSOLIDATE TO TWO FLOORS WHEN YOU'VE GOT ALL THE SPACE IN THE WORLD, PLUS ALMOST 100 EXTRA PARKING PLACES. THE LOGIC BESIDES THE DATE OF THE BUILDING AND WANTING TO PROVIDE A NEWER AMENITY, I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING MY ARMS AROUND THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT, I GUESS YOU'VE NOT BEEN TO THE CURRENT CLUBHOUSE, I HAVE NOT.

OKAY. IT'S 1000FT LONG. IF WE WERE TO ADD ANOTHER 35,000FT², WELL, WE HAVE TO ADD 50,000FT² TO IT.

YOU HAD ANOTHER 50,000FT² TO THAT BUILDING. I SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE ARCHITECT TELL YOU HOW MUCH LONGER THAT THOUSAND FOOT BUILDING GETS THE SPACE, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S AN INEFFICIENT USE OF THE SPACE.

IT'S MORE IT'S MORE LOT COVERAGE. YEAH. DO WE HAVE THE SPACE? SURE. IT'S AN INEFFICIENT USE OF THE BUILDING.

IT'S A MUCH BETTER USE OF THE BUILDING. IT'S MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE MEMBERSHIP TO HAVE IT IN A MORE CONSOLIDATED TWO STOREY BUILDING THAN A LARGE, WIDE, LONG FOOTPRINT OF A BUILDING. IT'S A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE, AND THERE'S NO DETRIMENTAL HARM TO ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS.

THAT'S. THAT TO ME IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS WHAT WE WANT CAN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE.

AND WHAT OUR MEMBERSHIP WOULD PREFER IS A TWO STORY, SMALLER FOOTPRINT BUILDING TO ACCESS THE AMENITIES THAT THEY WANT VERSUS A SINGLE STORY SPREAD OUT BUILDING THAT IS INEFFICIENT FROM A USE PERSPECTIVE, BUT IT DOESN'T HARM OUR NEIGHBORS.

AND IN FACT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY RESPECTFUL TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

[03:45:02]

AND WE'VE BEEN NOTHING. BUT SINCE 1965, 61 YEARS, IF I DO MY MATH RIGHT, A GREAT NEIGHBOR, PEOPLE HAVE GROWN UP AROUND THIS. ALL THESE COMMUNITIES THAT YOU SEE IN THE COUNTY HAVE GROWN UP AROUND THIS GOLF COURSE.

SO WE'RE NOT HURTING ANYBODY BY DOING THIS AND ASKING FOR THIS, FOR THIS REQUEST TO CHANGE, TO GO TO TWO STORIES. THANK YOU. AND. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW AS A PAYING MEMBER OF THIS CLUB THAT YOU COULD, IF YOU VOTED. NO, I DON'T SEE IT. I JUST THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT.

I JUST ALL DUE RESPECT, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD BE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU COULD VOTE NO WHEN YOU'RE A PAYING MEMBER OF THE CLUB.

I'M LESS THAN 1%. I'VE WATCHED IT GROW. I HAVEN'T BEEN A PART OF ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS GROWTH INTENTIONALLY.

I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO ANYONE, REALLY ABOUT WHAT THE DETAILS WERE GOING TO BE.

I HAVEN'T SHARED MY OPINIONS. I AM NOT QUESTIONING YOUR INTEGRITY.

I JUST THE APPEARANCE OF IT. ON THE FACE OF IT, I SIMPLY CAN'T GET MY ARMS AROUND.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND ALL THAT.

I GET IT, BUT ITS APPEARANCE IS SOMETIMES AS WELL, SO THANK YOU.

AND ARE YOU COMPLETE? YES, MA'AM. MAY I ADD TO THE PREVIOUS COMMENT? AND I KNOW THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY IS WE'RE ACTUALLY POSITIVELY IMPACTING STORMWATER BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING RID OF IMPERVIOUS AREA AND GOING TO A SMALLER, IMPERVIOUS FOOTPRINT BY GOING TO A TWO STORY BUILDING VERSUS THE LONGER SPREAD OUT, MORE PERVIOUS AREA, IMPERVIOUS AREA. SORRY. SO I THINK THERE'S A POSITIVE IMPACT ON STORMWATER BY BY GOING TO A SMALLER FOOTPRINT BUILDING.

OKAY. I HAVE KRAMER, SO I WILL TELL YOU, HAVING BEEN THERE MANY TIMES FOR GOLF, FOR DINNER FOR I'M NOT A MEMBER, DARN IT. FOR BIBLE STUDY. IF I TOOK MY FRIEND MR. SCHULTZ THERE AND WE PARKED ON THE WEST SIDE, AND WE'RE GOING TO WALK DOWN TO THE MEN'S MEETING ROOM, YOU WOULD STRUGGLE BECAUSE YOU GOT A BUM LEG.

THAT'S TRUE. I STRUGGLE WALKING TO THE PARKING LOT RIGHT NOW, I STRUGGLE WALKING.

I'M TELLING YOU, AND I'M SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT, QUITE HONESTLY.

AND YOU DIDN'T MENTION IT TO ME EITHER. I'VE GOT FRIENDS THERE. I MEAN, I WON'T ASK THE MEDIAN AGE OF THE MEMBERSHIP.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU, I'M THE YOUNG GUY IN THE ROOM.

I'M NOT ALL THE TIME. ALMOST ALL THE TIME. SO HAVING SAID AND AND I'VE BEEN IN THAT SITUATION, LIKE THAT'S THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT OF WHEN, WHEN YOU GUYS WERE DOING THIS. I DIDN'T EVEN MENTION IT WHEN I WAS TALKING TO Y'ALL. BUT THIS IS OF COURSE YOU WOULD DO THIS. OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO GO UP BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU TEN PEOPLE I KNOW THAT ARE MEMBERS THERE, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A DAY PACK AND A WALKER TO GET THE LENGTH OF IT.

THAT'S THERE'S JUST NO WAY. AND I ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY TO KIND OF MAKE ME LAUGH THAT TALKING ABOUT THE AMENITIES, WHAT? IT'S A PRIVATE CLUB, PRIVATE PEOPLE AND PRIVATE. WHAT DO YOU CARE ABOUT THEIR AMENITIES? WHAT'S THAT? WHAT'S FUNNY TO ME IS I'M A MEMBER OF FOXFIRE, WHICH ON THE FOOD CHAIN OF GOLF COURSES SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN THE FOOD CHAIN FROM RP.

AND OUR FITNESS CENTER IS IS FOUR TIMES BIGGER AND A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT YOU GUYS GOT GOING, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A POINT OF PRIDE FOR ME.

BUT I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY, THIS IS SUCH A COMMON SENSE ISSUE.

IT'S MY I HAVEN'T ALSO, MY MOTHER IN LAW HAPPENS TO LIVE AT PERHAPS THE CLOSEST ON PINEWOOD CIRCLE IN PINE WOODS, ON THE APEX OF THAT ROAD THAT'S CLOSEST TO OUR P.

YOU WON'T. YOU CAN'T. YOU WOULDN'T KNOW OUR P WAS THERE UNLESS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU.

YOU JUST. THERE'S NO. YOU'RE THREE FOOTBALL LENGTHS AWAY FROM ANYTHING.

SO THE REALITY IS IT'S NOT WHY WHY WHY IT'S WHY NOT.

OKAY. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? LIKE WHY NOT? WHAT? WHAT? NO. NOT YET. OKAY. WE DON'T SET PRECEDENT.

EVERYBODY HAS COME BEFORE US HAS TO COME BEFORE US.

THIS FITS THE SCALE FOR SURE. AND THE DESIGN AND IT MAKES IT'S COMMON SENSE.

IT'S A COMMON SENSE ISSUE. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO THE PROPERTY, IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN ANY OF THE SURROUNDING STUFF, THIS IS, IN MY VIEW, IT DOESN'T GET MUCH EASIER AND I HAVE NO. AGAIN, I'VE SAID IT BEFORE.

VARIANT. THIS ISN'T A VARIANT. IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.

EITHER WAY, IT DOESN'T SET PRECEDENT. EVER. THEY GOT TO COME BEFORE US, AND I CAN THINK OF ALL KINDS OF THINGS THEY COULD DO THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY NO TO.

LOOKING AT THE CRITERION, THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. DO WE HAVE A HARD STOP AT 12? THANK YOU. WITH THAT, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

CARL. YEAH. ABOVE THE 30 FOOT THING THAT I STRUGGLED WITH INITIALLY.

I ALSO STRUGGLED WITH THE SOME OF THE LOGIC THAT OKAY, NO ONE CAN SEE IT, SO IT'S OKAY, BUT IF IT WAS 100 YARDS HERE,

[03:50:01]

WE'D HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I MEAN, SO WHERE'S THE FAIRNESS HAPPENED WITH OTHER PEOPLE? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S OKAY IF IT'S HIDDEN, BUT IF IT WAS EXPOSED.

OH, NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE FEELS THAT WAY. MAYOR REAL QUICK BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WAITING AS WELL IN THE ROOM.

I'VE ONLY SCHEDULED IT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

THERE'S IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS TO HAPPEN. IF YOU WANT THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO HAPPEN, THEN WE NEED TO PAUSE. THANK YOU.

I WILL READ THE ROOM. THANK YOU. I JUST COUNCILMAN A REAL QUICK COMMENT.

AND I WANT TO SAY, HOW OFTEN ARE WE UP HERE PREACHING TO PETITIONERS ABOUT GREEN SPACE? I MEAN, OH MY GOD, WE NEED MORE GREEN SPACE. YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS THIS FOOTPRINT SMALLER. I MEAN, WE, WE LITERALLY SIT UP HERE AND GET ON OUR SOAPBOX AND TALK ABOUT GREEN SPACE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE. THEY'RE ACTUALLY MAKING A SMALLER FOOTPRINT. THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE US WITH MORE GREEN SPACE AT THIS LOCATION. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A, THIS IS A, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE NO NEIGHBOR IS BEING AFFECTED.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE. IN MY OPINION, IF THERE'S A NEIGHBOR BEING AFFECTED, THEN THE LINES THERE AND YOU'VE CROSSED IT, NO NEIGHBOR IS BEING AFFECTED HERE BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION.

AND WE ARE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE FOOTPRINT AND WE'RE IMPROVING THE STORMWATER.

I MEAN, THIS IS THIS SEEMS LIKE A NO BRAINER.

AND IF IF WE CAN'T COME TO A CONCLUSION AND WE NEED MORE DELIBERATION THAN WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A PAUSE.

BUT BLANKENSHIP YEAH, WE MAY NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT FURTHER, BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING, BUT I DISAGREE. I THINK THEY CAN ACHIEVE THE SAME GOALS OF RENEWING THE BUILDING, MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT, MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, EASIER TO USE FOR OLDER GUESTS WITH TWO FLOORS WITHIN THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, THE THIRD FLOOR THAT TAKES YOU UP TO 60FT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE NECESSARY.

YOU CAN STILL ACHIEVE MAINTAINING OR PRESERVING GREEN SPACE, PRESERVING STORMWATER, ALL THOSE THINGS MENTIONED WITH A SMALLER OR SHORTER BUILDING. THE STORAGE, IF IT'S NEEDED, COULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO THIS IS CAN I? YEAH. KRAMER. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE NOTION THAT IF IF YOU CONCEDE OR NOT SEE IT, THAT IS ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

IF YOU COULDN'T SEE IT, NOBODY WOULD CARE FOR ANY OF THESE.

IF IT'S IN THIS CASE, IT AFFECTS NO ONE. YOU'RE GOING TO DRIVE HALF A MILE DOWN A PRIVATE ROAD LIKE IT AFFECTS.

THERE'S. IT AFFECTS NO ONE. WHEREAS THE PEOPLE FUSS ABOUT THE GARAGE THING ON GULF SHORES.

YEAH. EVERYBODY DRIVES BY AND SEES IT. NO ONE'S.

YOU GOT TO BE A MEMBER TO GO OUT THERE AND IT'S A. IT'S JUST COMPLETELY CONCEALED.

I JUST DON'T SEE WHY. SINCE IF IT AFFECTS NO ONE, WHAT WHAT WOULD YOU CARE? I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD CARE. I JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

AND AGAIN, I THINK IT MEETS THE CRITERIA. MADAM MAYOR, EITHER VOTE OR PAUSE AND GO AND HANDLE THE OTHER ITEM.

OKAY. CAN I JUST MAKE IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION ON WHAT I HEARD? BECAUSE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, YOU SAID THAT EVERYONE AGREES.

SO DID YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP? AND IF YOU COULD, COULD YOU COULD YOU PROVIDE THAT VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP FOR THE RECORD ON THE CLUBHOUSE? I ASKED THE SAME THING OF PORT ROYAL CLUB AS WELL. THE ACTUAL VOTE NUMBER OR LIKE MEETING MINUTES OF THE MEETING.

I CAN GET YOU THE NUMBER. I'LL GIVE YOU A NUMBER OF WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE WAS.

I'D ACTUALLY PREFER THE MEETING MINUTES. THE MEETING MINUTES.

I'M ASSUMING THERE WAS A MEETING OF THE MEMBERSHIP. LET'S DO THIS.

LET'S DO THIS. I DON'T WANT I DON'T WANT TO BE PINNED IN THE CORNER RIGHT NOW.

I WANT TO GET YOU THE INFORMATION YOU WANT. WHY DON'T WHY DON'T WE TABLE THIS? GO TO YOUR NEXT MEETING, AND THEN I CAN COME BACK.

NOT. I MEAN YOUR NEXT ITEM, AND THEN I CAN. I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO MR. BLANKENSHIP'S COMMENTS ABOUT LIVING AT TWO STORIES, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU THE DATA.

YOU MAY WANT, AS FAR AS THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE. I JUST WANTED IT FOR THE RECORD.

I DON'T NEED IT PROVIDED TO ME NOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

BUT I COULD SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD. YEAH. OKAY.

AS LONG AS I JUST WANTED SO THAT ONE OF THESE MEMBERS CAN'T COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, BLAME THE CITY, WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE TIME FOR WHY DID YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, WRONG JURISDICTION. GO TO YOUR BOARD. AND THEN I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GET READY FOR A VOTE OR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. MAYOR. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE A PAUSE AND COME BACK AFTER OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY, WELL, REAL QUICK.

SO THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. CORRECT? THERE IS NO.

SO WE ARE CLOSING THE PUBLIC COMMENT ASPECT. WE ARE FULLY IN DELIBERATIONS.

WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC RECORD.

I MEAN, PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. AND WE ARE ONLY IN DELIBERATIONS WHEN WE COME BACK.

AND IF I READ THE ANNOUNCEMENT, I'M ANTICIPATING ROUGHLY 90 MINUTES, BUT MAY END EARLIER.

OKAY. SO AT THE JUNE 15TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 286 POINT.

[03:55:03]

I'M SORRY, DID YOU I DIDN'T I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

ARE WE CONTINUING THAT? THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING CLOSE THE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. COME BACK INTO DELIBERATION. I HEARD THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. NO. NO WORRIES.

SO I'LL START FROM THE BEGINNING. AT THE JUNE 15TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.011,

[15.D) Executive Session regarding City of Naples v. City of Naples Airport Authority, et al; Case No. 2026-CA-001094, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida (12:30pm Time Certain).]

SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN CASE CITY OF NAPLES VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES.

AIRPORT AUTHORITY CASE NUMBER 2026CA001094. AND IN FORT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL AGREED TO MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION DURING ITS COUNCIL MEETING TODAY, JUNE 17TH, AT APPROXIMATELY 1230 IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, AND A PUBLIC NOTICE WAS POSTED ON JUNE 15TH. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 90 MINUTES BUT MAY END EARLIER DURING DISCUSSION.

EXECUTIVE SESSION IS LIMITED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES. NO DECISIONS ARE MADE. ANY DECISIONS OF COUNCIL WILL HAPPEN EITHER WHEN WE RECONVENE OR AT A FUTURE MEETING, AND NO PORTION OF THE SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD.

FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS, BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENNIMAN, BURN SCRATCH THAT.

MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN. COUNCIL MEMBERS BILL KRAMER, BURN BARTON, TED BLANKENSHIP, JOHN KRULL, SCOTT SCHULTZ, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY JAMIE COLE, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DINES COURT REPORTING. OKAY, WITH THAT, WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY.

WE'RE BACK IN FROM OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION AND MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. NO ACTION IS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. SO WE ARE RESUMING WITH 13 D AND WE ARE IN DELIBERATIONS.

THANK YOU SIR. 13 TEEN E. D AS IN DOG. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. OKAY. YES. MAY I MAKE A FEW COMMENTS WHILE YOU'RE DOING YOUR DELIBERATION? THANK YOU. HAVE THE FLOOR, MR. YOVANOVITCH? THANK YOU.

WE SPENT SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT THE COMMENTS WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL.

WE WANTED TO RESPOND TO A FEW OF THEM AND FOCUS IN A LITTLE BIT ON ON SOME OF THE OTHERS.

JUST BY WAY OF. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE CLUBHOUSE ACTUALLY IS IN RELATION TO OTHER, OTHER FACILITIES. AND ALSO FOR PURPOSES OF TALKING ABOUT, COULD WE DO THIS IN ONE STORY AT 30FT? AND WHAT WOULD IT TAKE IN ORDER TO DO ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN ONE STORY IN 30FT WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF THREE GOLF HOLES, WHICH IF YOU'RE NOT A GOLFER, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

WHAT IT REALLY MEANS IS YOU LOSE NINE HOLES BECAUSE YOU DON'T BUILD SIX HOLE NINES, AT LEAST THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH.

SO. SO WE WOULD LOSE THREE. WE WOULD LOSE NINE GOLF HOLES IN ORDER TO DO ALL OF THIS AT ONE ONE STORY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE MEMBERS.

SO THE MEMBERS SAID, WE WANT THESE SERVICES. WE'D LIKE TO DO THESE IN PRIMARILY A TWO STORY BUILDING.

SO DESIGN IS VERY IMPORTANT, AS I THINK WE TOLD YOU EARLIER, THE LENGTH OF THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE, WHICH THE NOW THE CURSOR IS NOT SHOWING UP, BUT THE MAIN CLUBHOUSE BUILDING THAT'S 700FT IN LENGTH VERSUS THE 1000 PLUS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF WE DID THIS ALL IN ONE STORY. THANK YOU DAVID. AND AND SO TO BREAK UP THAT ROOF LINE, WE ADDED ROUGHLY BETWEEN THE TWO CHIMNEYS IN THE MIDDLE, A 50 FOOT AREA THAT WENT FROM 52FT TO 60FT AS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.

THAT WAS THE INITIAL PURPOSE OF GOING FROM 52 TO 60FT WAS AS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.

AND THEN SOMEONE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THIS AREA IN THE CENTER WHERE THE FLOOR LEVELS ARE A LITTLE BIT LOWER.

WE COULD FIT IN A NICE AFTER DINNER, SMALL LITTLE AREA, PIANO BAR.

SOMEONE SAW THAT AT A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT FEATURE.

PEOPLE GET DONE WITH DINNER. THEY GO UP TO THIS SMALL INTIMATE SPACE FOR A PIANO BAR.

SO THEY WERE ABLE TO FIT IN A ROUGHLY A 5 TO 6000 SQUARE FOOT AREA AND THE AREAS TO SERVE IT WITHIN A 50 FOOT AREA.

THAT WHOLE AREA THAT GOES FROM 52 TO 60FT IS ONLY 50FT WIDE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. THEY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE CAN WE CAN FIT IN A NICE LITTLE INTIMATE AFTER DINNER PIANO BAR.

[04:00:02]

MEMBERS LOVED IT. THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE UNIFORM 700 FOOT.

LOOK AT THE BUILDING. THEY LOVE THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN THE MIDDLE.

AND THEY SAID, AND THEY REALLY LIKE THE PIANO BAR.

SO THAT'S THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE DESIGN. THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE UTILIZATION.

SO I KNOW THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT, DO WE REALLY NEED THREE STORIES? IT'S REALLY NOT A THREE STORY BUILDING FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THAT AREA.

A PORTION OF IT IS THREE STORIES FOR 50FT OUT OF 700FT IN LENGTH.

SO IT'S A VERY SMALL AREA THAT IS THREE FEET.

THAT IS THREE STORIES OF USABLE AREA. SO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE REGARDING THIS AND THIS, AND THIS IS JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN AUDUBON GOLF COURSE.

I MEAN IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE LESS FOOTPRINT.

ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN SAYING TO DEVELOPERS, BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, BE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, LESS IMPERVIOUS AREA.

WE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING A GREAT PROJECT IN AN AREA THAT HAS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT TO ANYBODY.

SO, SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, AND THIS IS I HATE TO I HATE TO PUT MR. BLANKENSHIP ON THE SPOT, BUT HE AND I GO BACK A WHILE.

SO SOMETIMES HE'S DONE IT TO ME. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS YOU WERE STRUGGLING WITH THE THREE STORIES.

IS IT BECAUSE WE'RE AT 60FT FOR THAT SMALL PORTION, OR IS IT BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T WANT US TO BE ABOVE 52FT? BECAUSE THE TWO STORY PORTION IS 52FT. SO WHAT WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU IS TO GIVE US A SMALL AREA THAT'S EIGHT FEET TALLER, EIGHT FEET TALLER, 60FT, EITHER AS AN ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENT, WHICH.

BUT IF THAT'S. WE'LL GO BACK AND TALK TO OUR MEMBERS ABOUT IT OR TO UTILIZE IT AS THAT SMALL, INTIMATE PIANO BAR AREA WITH THE RESIDENTS, THE RESIDENTS THAT THE MEMBERS, THE MEMBERS REALLY LIKE AND VOTED FOR IT JUST SO BY WAY OF THE VOTE, AND I'LL GET YOU THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION. WE HAVE ROUGHLY A THOUSAND MEMBERS.

WE HAD 94% OF THE MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE, AND WE HAD 64% OF THOSE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS, WHAT, $115 MILLION BASICALLY ASSESS THEMSELVES, $115 MILLION, OF WHICH 250 OF THOSE MEMBERS ARE OVER 80.

YOU KNOW, THEY MUST REALLY, REALLY LOVE THIS PROJECT FOR PEOPLE OF THAT AGE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ASSESSING THEMSELVES FOR THIS TYPE OF PROJECT.

SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH REGARD TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING, AND WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME MORE RATIONALE AS TO HOW WE GOT TO THE DESIGN THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN TODAY.

AND AND WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE. OH, SURE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DENNIS NALLY.

I'M PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL POINCIANA CLUB. AND AS RICH SAID, JUST MAYBE SOME CONTEXT, JUST TO HELP YOU THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ALL OF THIS.

YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN A THREE YEAR PROJECT WITH THE MEMBERSHIP.

AND WE LOOKED AT THIS INCREDIBLY EXHAUSTIVE IN TERMS OF A NEW CLUBHOUSE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE.

I MEAN, IT WAS A VERY THOROUGH THOUGHT PROCESS.

WE HAD ACTUALLY FOUR ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS INVOLVED WITH THE CREATION OF POTENTIAL DESIGNS FOR THE CLUBHOUSE.

WE SELECTED PEACOCK AND LEWIS BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN THAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE TODAY.

THE, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THAT DESIGN IS WHAT REALLY SOLD THE MEMBERSHIP ON THE PROJECT.

AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, ASKING OLDER MEMBERS OF THE CLUB TO REALLY APPROVE A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, OF WHICH MANY OF THOSE WILL NOT REALLY PARTICIPATE IN OR GET THE USE OF WAS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING.

AND THEREFORE, YOU KNOW HOW WE LOOK AT THAT BUILDING AND HOW WE SOLD IT TO THE MEMBERSHIP IS REALLY PRETTY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ULTIMATELY DELIVER HERE. SO I GUESS MY ASK WOULD BE, AS YOU AS YOU THINK THROUGH THE DELIBERATION THERE'S A LOT THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS PROCESS OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU GIVE IT THE APPROPRIATE DUE CONSIDERATION, WHICH I KNOW YOU WILL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE PROMISED AND COMMITTED TO OUR MEMBERSHIP.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. SCHULTZ. THANK YOU.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I NEED TO. I AM IN A PAIN SCORE OF TEN, SO I WITH THE KNEE SURGERY COMING UP WEDNESDAY, SO I'M A BIT ON EDGE JUST BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT IN REGARDS TO ASKING THE VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP, WHAT HE WOULD DO. WOULDN'T DO.

[04:05:05]

THIS ISN'T. LET'S MAKE A DEAL. THIS IS YOU PRESENT YOUR PACKAGE TO US FOR APPROVAL OR NOT.

AND YOU'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT. YOU'VE CLEARED THE A, B BY A FOUR THREE, AND NOW YOU'RE PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE VICE MAYOR TO TELL YOU WHAT HE SHOULD CHANGE HIS MIND ON TO SUIT YOUR QUESTION TO HIM.

NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS YOU GO BACK, I HAVEN'T BEEN TO THE COURSE.

I'M NOT A MEMBER. I'M THE OUTSIDE OBSERVER HERE, JUST WATCHING THE DYNAMIC.

AND I'M SAYING, YOU YOU'VE HAD THREE YEARS OR 15 YEARS, WHATEVER.

YOU'VE HAD THIS MUCH TIME TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR PACKAGE AND YOU'RE SUBMITTING IT FOR APPROVAL.

AND WE WILL DECIDE WHAT OUR POSITIONS ARE BASED ON THAT.

BUT THE BACK AND FORTH, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT JUST FROM AN ETIQUETTE POINT OF VIEW.

ETIQUETTE. YES, SIR. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT HERE TO DEBATE WITH YOU.

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE. I'M JUST POINTING OUT OBSERVATIONS AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND YOU MADE YOUR CASE. AND SO TO KEEP GOING, I THINK, AND THEN TRYING TO PUT THE ONUS ON THE VICE MAYOR, I THINK, IS YOU HAVE YOUR OPINIONS. I HAVE MINE, AND THAT'S FAIR.

WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU HAVE YOUR PITCH AND IT'S HERE AND WE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN MOCK ME AND LOOK ASKANCE. I'VE SAID WHAT I NEED TO SAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. AND I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO MR. BLANKENSHIP SAID, WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THREE STORIES? I WAS JUST TRYING TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL I WAS DOING.

COUNCIL. OTHER QUESTIONS. NO.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION. YEAH. WHY DON'T WE HAVE A MOTION WITH THAT? WITH THAT? SO QUESTION BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION.

YES. JUST STATEMENT BECAUSE I, I HEARD, WHICH WAS SHOCKING COMMITMENT, BUT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN ANY ADDITIONAL MEMBERS MEMBERS EVER.

OUR MEMBERSHIP IS CAPPED. OKAY. SO THEN WE CAN JUST PUT A CONDITION IN HERE THAT SAYS THERE WILL BE NO MEMBERS ADDED, NO, NO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS, NO LIMITS THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

YEAH, NO, NO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. SHOCKING BUT OKAY.

I JUST THINK IF THEY'RE GOING TO COMMIT TO IT BECAUSE OF THE PARKING, THEN I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN THE RESOLUTION. SO CAN WE BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE WORDING THOUGH? I WOULDN'T SAY NO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS. I WOULD SAY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER BECAUSE I DON'T WANT LIKE IF SOMEONE DROPS OFF AND SOMEONE WANTS TO REPLACE THAT.

OH, RIGHT. RIGHT, RIGHT. DON'T MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT FOR THEM.

SORRY. OUR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER IS 101,022 MEMBERS.

SO LET'S PUT A NUMBER IN. OKAY? OKAY. THAT WAY WE'RE NOT FIGHTING ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.

IF YOU GUYS AREN'T ALL IN. EVERYBODY ACTIVE. JUNIOR.

PROVISIONAL SOCIAL. THAT'S EVERYBODY. THAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER.

THAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER. JUST A THOUGHT FOR PARKING. BUT IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE IT.

SHOULD I MOVE FORWARD? NO FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES. I DON'T NEED IT TO BE A CONDITION, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'D LIKE ADDED? I THINK IT'S GOOD. 1022. WELL, WE COMMITTED TO IT AND THERE YOU GO.

WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BACK DOWN FROM THAT AS A CONDITION.

1022 MEMBERS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 26-CU3.

DO WE HAVE WITH THE OTHER CONDITION ALL THE CONDITIONS TWO IN THE RESOLUTION. 2 IN 2 RESOLUTIONS IN THE IN THE TWO CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION THAT EXISTS, PLUS THE RESOLUTION. THE CONDITION CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER PENNIMAN IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

SCHULTZ. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. CROWELL. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. WELL, THE TIME.

THAT IS A THREE THREE VOTE. SINCE THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL, WE NEED A MOTION EITHER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WHETHER IT'S MOTION TO APPROVE, MOTION TO DENY.

OBVIOUSLY, AS WE CAN SEE, WE HAVE AN ABSENT CHAIR TODAY, WHICH IS WHY WE NORMALLY HAVE AN ODD NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, SO THAT THERE IS A BREAK VOTE. SO IT'S A LITTLE AWKWARD TO REVOTE BECAUSE EVERYONE'S JUST.

[04:10:06]

YES. I'M SORRY. DOES HE HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? BECAUSE I'M GIVING LEGAL ADVICE TO THE COUNCIL.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, MATTHEW. I WASN'T TRYING TO HELP YOU. IT WAS ME.

NO WORRIES. SO I THINK, I MEAN, THE ONLY LOGICAL CHOICE IS TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL COUNCIL.

I MEAN, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY REQUEST. YEAH.

THANK YOU. I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW WE REVOTE WHEN EVERYONE'S MADE THEIR POSITION CLEAR.

DO YOU NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE? WHEN IS THE NEXT MEETING? AUGUST 2019, I BELIEVE. 19. GARY IS. ARE WE ABLE TO.

AUGUST 19TH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE.

AUGUST 19TH. SECOND. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO AUGUST 19TH BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CROWELL. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. SCHULTZ.

NO. VICE. MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

PENMAN IS ABSENT. AND MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. IT PASSES 5 TO 1.

THANK YOU. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO

[13.E) 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 Relating to the Elevation of an Existing Single-Family Home in the R1-10 Zoning District, for the Property Owned by Susan Pearson and Douglas Pearson, Trustees of the Susan Pearson Revocable Trust, and Located at 2170 Sheepshead Drive, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing An Effective Date.]

ITEM 13 E, MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 26 V THREE 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 7.5FT INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FOR A MEANS OF EGRESS RELATING TO THE ELEVATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1 TEN ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY SUSAN PEARSON AND DOUGLAS PEARSON, TRUSTEES OF THE SUSAN PEARSON. REVOCABLE TRUST AND LOCATED AT 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN, JUST PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. IF YOU SWEAR OR DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. YES. SHIT.

OH. SHE'S NOT. OH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE THAT.

THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO DISCLOSURES COUNCIL MEMBER.

PEARL. FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION AND TALK TO STAFF.

BURTON. HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THE AGENDA ITEM.

I TOO SPOKE WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO GET BACKGROUND AND CLARITY.

SCHULTZ JUST FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. I HAD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF TO GET CLARITY ON THE REQUEST AND NO OTHER CONTACT. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO CONTACT.

SO WITH THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. I AM SUSAN PEARSON AND I'M HERE WITH MY HUSBAND, DOUG.

WE'RE THE OWNERS OF 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE, AND WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR FRONT ENTRY STAIRS THAT ENCROACH 7.5FT INTO THE SETBACK DUE TO A HOUSE ELEVATION. IT'S THIS FULL STORY ELEVATION THAT CREATES THE NEED FOR A NEW SET OF STAIRS TO ACCESS THE FRONT ENTRANCE. TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE ARRIVED AT OUR NEED FOR THIS VARIANCE, I WANT TO SHARE SOME BACKGROUND ON OUR PROPERTY'S HISTORY AND PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT ON OUR PROJECT GOALS.

THIS IS OUR HOME. THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1969.

THE LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION IS SIX FEET AND THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION IS CURRENTLY AT TEN FEET.

WE FLOODED IN IAN WITH OVER THREE FEET OF WATER.

WE WOULD HAVE FLOODED IN MILTON WITH OVER A FOOT OF WATER, EXCEPT WE HAD FLOOD PANELS THAT WORKED.

HOWEVER, THEY'RE NOT A VIABLE LONG TERM SOLUTION.

THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT GIVES A PERSPECTIVE OF HOW OUR HOUSE IS CURRENTLY POSITIONED COMPARED TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE A SINGLE STORY AND SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE HOUSES AROUND US.

[04:15:03]

AFTER THE PROPOSED FULL STORY ELEVATION OF 10.5FT, WE WILL BE AT A HEIGHT OF 22.5FT, WHICH PUTS US 7.5FT BELOW THE CITY. THE CITY'S 30 FOOT MAXIMUM AND TWO OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE ALSO AT 30FT.

OUR FRONT ENTRANCE IS OVER 52FT FROM THE STREET, AND THE PROPOSED STAIR VARIANTS WILL HAVE THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE STAIRS OVER 40FT FROM THE STREET. THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS OUR HOUSE DURING HURRICANE IAN.

NOT EVEN AT FULL WATER HEIGHT. HAVING ALREADY EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT FLOODING, WE ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF LOSING OUR HOME IN FLOODING AGAIN. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE REQUESTED A BUILDING PERMIT TO ELEVATE OUR HOUSE AND ARE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE.

WE LOVE NAPLES AND OUR HOME OF TEN YEARS AND WE WANT TO STAY.

WE'RE DESPERATELY TRYING TO PREVENT THE NEXT FLOOD FROM CAUSING DAMAGE LIKE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

FOR US, THIS JOURNEY STARTED WITH A FEMA REVIEW OF HURRICANE IAN, THEN AGAIN IN MILTON, AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE CONTACT THE ELEVATE FLORIDA PROGRAM ABOUT ELEVATING OUR HOUSE.

SO OUR FOCUS BECAME LEARNING ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE LONG TERM FLOOD PROTECTION THROUGH ELEVATION.

WE STARTED BY DOING OUR HOMEWORK. WE CONSULTED WITH ELEVATION EXPERTS.

DAVIE SHORING IS LISTED OVER HAS LIFTED OVER 5000 HOUSES.

JSJAS BUILDERS OVER 40. CONSTRUCTION FINISHES HOUSES AFTER THE ELEVATION.

RDA CONSULTING DELIVERS CUSTOMIZED SUPPORT WITH CITY OF NAPLES SPECIFIC ENGINEERING AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.

RYAN ARCHITECTURE PROVIDE PROVIDED EXPERTISE ON THE DESIGN, BUILD OF WATERFRONT AND SUSTAINABLE PROPERTIES, AND GANDY FIRE AND SAFETY BRINGS SOLUTIONS TO DESIGN SAFETY FEATURES INTO ELEVATED HOUSES.

WE VISITED OVER 15 HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE ALREADY RAISED THEIR HOMES.

WE STUDIED PUBLISHED FLOOD DATA WHICH SAID IF YOU NEED TO RAISE YOUR HOUSE OVER FOUR FEET TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

ELEVATE A FULL STORY TO AVOID LONG TERM PROBLEMS AND RETAIN GARAGE AND STORAGE SPACE.

NFIP PROJECTED RATES ON OUR HOUSE SHOW AN ELEVATION OF TEN FEET CARRIES A 50% HIGHER RISK THAN ONE AT 17FT. THE OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS A FULL STORY LIFT IS THE BEST WAY FOR US TO GO FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, AND IT ACCOMMODATES GARAGE AND STORAGE SPACE AT THE BOTTOM.

THIS IS WHY WE CHOSE A FULL STORY LIFT, AND WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE STAIR VARIANCE FOR THAT HEIGHT.

AS WE LEARNED, THIS ISN'T A TYPICAL HOME REMODEL OR AN ARCHITECTURAL REDESIGN.

IT'S A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PROJECT THAT ENSURES THE HOME'S FOUNDATION IS ROCK SOLID ONCE LIFTED.

IT IS BUILT AROUND DETAILED PILING, ANCHOR AND STEEL BEAM SUPPORT SPECIFICATIONS TO LIFT OUR EXISTING HOUSE, WITH THE SLAB AND FOOTERS INTACT. THE PICTURE HERE IS A SAMPLE FINISHED HOME.

NOT THE FINAL DESIGN, BUT IT HELPS US VISUALIZE THE PROJECT'S SCOPE.

WE PLAN TO ELEVATE THE HOUSE 10.5FT ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

NO ADDITIONS, HORIZONTAL MOVEMENTS OR SITE PLAN ALTERATIONS ARE PLANNED.

NEW PILING SUPPORTS AND STEEL BEAMS WILL BE BUILT UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE EQUIPMENT WILL BE RAISED WITH THE HOUSE.

IF YOU REMEMBER THE PICTURE OF OUR CURRENT HOUSE FROM BEFORE, YOU NOW SEE IT ON THE UPPER LEVEL.

THE TWO WINDOWS ON THE LEFT ARE WHERE THE PREVIOUS GARAGE DOOR WAS LOCATED.

AS THE OLD GARAGE WILL BE CONVERTED INTO A STORAGE ROOM AND SPACE FOR A FUTURE ELEVATOR.

NOW LOOK AT THE NEW LOWER LEVEL. THE FRONT IS FINISHED WITH BLOCK WALLS, GARAGE DOORS, AND GARAGE ENTRY DOOR.

[04:20:02]

FRONT AND BACK STAIRS ARE ADDED TO PROVIDE EGRESS.

PANELS ALONG THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE WILL PROVIDE FOR SAFETY AND VISUAL CONTINUITY, AND THEN ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES AND LANDSCAPING WILL COMPLETE THE DESIGN.

WHEN THE GARAGE DOORS ARE OPEN, THE FLOOD WATERS WILL BE ABLE TO FLOW THROUGH THE LOWER LEVEL.

SO WE'RE OFTEN ASKED, WHY DOES A FULL STORY LIFT EQUAL 11FT? HERE'S THE ANSWER. IT'S BECAUSE 11FT IS THE LOWEST LEVEL THAT ALLOWS FOR A GARAGE.

AND WHEN WE LIFT THE HOUSE UP, WE NO LONGER HAVE A GARAGE.

THE FIRST SEVEN FEET IS FOR VEHICLE CLEARANCE.

THE NEXT ONE FOOT IS THE GARAGE DOOR CLEARANCE, AND THE NEXT THREE FEET ARE WHERE THE SLAB AND FOOTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN ELEVATED ARE.

PLUS THE NEW 12 INCH STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS THAT ARE HOLDING IT UP.

IN SUM, A FULL STORY ELEVATION IS THE BEST WAY TO IMPROVE LONG TERM FLOOD PROTECTION AND MAINTAIN GARAGE PARKING.

IT ALLOWS WATER TO PASS UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE.

MINIMIZING STRUCTURAL STRESS HAS LOWER LONG TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS AND PRESERVES EXISTING YARD GRADE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND LANDSCAPING.

A NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SPATIAL PERCEPTION ENCROACHMENT, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS RESOLVED.

WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED AT SPATIAL PERCEPTION WITH THE HOUSE RAISED 11FT, ONE REAR NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ROOF HAD A VERY MINOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION OF ONLY SIX INCHES, AS SEEN ON THE LEFT PICTURE.

IN AN EFFORT TO WORK WITH THE CITY, WE ASKED OUR ENGINEERS TO FIND A WAY TO ELIMINATE THE ISSUE.

WE FOUND THAT BY LOWERING THE HOUSE SIX INCHES AND MAKING SOME STRUCTURAL CHANGES ELIMINATES THAT ENCROACHMENT, AS CAN BE SEEN IN THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT. AND REMEMBER, THE OVERALL ELEVATED HOUSE IS AT 22.5FT ABOVE THE DFA. SO IT'S NOT NEAR THE MAXIMUM.

SO WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE INTO THE FRONT SETBACK FOR EGRESS STAIRS DUE TO THE HOUSE ELEVATION AT 10.5FT.

WE EVALUATED MULTIPLE STAIR DESIGNS STRAIGHT LINE SWITCHBACK AND T-SHAPED FOR MINIMUM VARIANCE, SAFETY AND VISUAL APPEAL.

THE STRAIGHT LINE STAIRS PROVIDE MINIMUM VARIANCE, BUT THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUES THAT COME ALONG WITH THEM, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE. THEY PRESENT A HIGH FALL RISK WITH AN UNINTERRUPTED 11 FOOT DROP IN A FIRE OR FLOOD. OUR FAMILY WOULD COMPETE WITH CITY EMERGENCY WORKERS FOR LIMITED STAIR SPACE, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY ON THE STAIRS AND COSTING VALUABLE TIME.

WITH PEOPLE HAVING A BACKLOG WHILE GOING UP THE STAIRS.

PLUS, IT ELIMINATES THE RIGHT SIZE GARAGE PARKING BECAUSE THE STAIRS ARE IN FRONT OF IT AND IT GIVES THE HOUSE AN UNBALANCED LOOK.

SO THE NEXT I'LL SHOW IS A T SHAPED. STAIR DESIGN.

THIS DESIGN IS THE MINIMAL. WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR SAFETY, WHICH IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN AN ELEVATED HOUSE.

IT ALLOWS FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT DURING EMERGENCIES NEEDING SIMULTANEOUS RESIDENT EXIT AND FIRE MEDICAL ENTRANCE.

IT CREATES REDUNDANCY, IMPORTANT IF ONE SIDE IS COMPROMISED BY THE FLOOD WATERS.

WE STILL HAVE A WAY TO GET OUT. AND IT BREAKS THE FALL POTENTIAL IN HALF.

IT ALSO PRESENTS A BALANCED ENTRANCE WAY, ALLOWS TWO GARAGES, RETAINS THE 16 FOOT HORSESHOE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE

[04:25:05]

SO IT'S ACCESSIBLE BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES, WHICH NEED A 12 FOOT CLEARANCE.

AND IT'S STILL OVER 41FT FROM THE STREET. FURTHER, COASTAL CREEK DESIGN, WHO SPECIALIZES IN HOUSE ELEVATIONS, STATES THAT, QUOTE, WIDE WELCOMING STAIRS WITH A GREAT LANDING MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN ADJUSTING THE ESTHETICS OF AN ELEVATED HOUSE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

SOME OF THEIR BEST ELEVATED HOMES FEATURE GRAND ENTRANCES THAT BECOME SIGNATURE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, AND DRIVING AROUND NAPLES, I CAN SEE SOME OF THE NEW BUILDS ARE STARTING TO SHOW THOSE STAIRWAYS ON THEM.

THIS ENCROACHMENT IS THE 7.5FT ENCROACHMENT. THERE'S ONE MORE TO BRING UP, AND THAT'S AN INSET. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF INSETTING THE STAIRS INTO OUR CURRENT FRONT ENTRY BY THREE FEET, BECAUSE WE HAVE A TEN FOOT ENTRY AND WE ARE PURSUING THIS, BUT OUR ENGINEERS HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY WILL NOT COMMIT TO THE INSET UNTIL THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE UNDERLYING CONCRETE SLAB, AND THEY CANNOT DO THAT UNTIL THE HOUSE IS LIFTED.

SO WE'RE LEAVING IT ON THE TABLE. SO OUR ASK IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT SETBACK OF AN ADDITIONAL 7.5FT FOR STAIRS AS A MEANS OF EGRESS.

AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH ALL OF OUR DIRECT NEIGHBORS.

AND WE'RE PROUD TO SAY THAT ALL FIVE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING BOTH THE VARIANTS AND THE BUILDING PLANS, PLUS UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION CAME FROM PAB.

AS A FINAL NOTE. THIS REQUEST IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST OUR HOME AFTER FLOODING TWICE.

WE CHOSE TO INVEST IN A LONG TERM SOLUTION RATHER THAN SIMPLY REPAIR THE DAMAGE AND HOPE FOR A DIFFERENT OUTCOME NEXT TIME.

WE KNOW MANY OTHER NAPLES FAMILIES FACE THE SAME CHOICE.

IF APPROVED, THIS PROJECT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS A PRACTICAL AND AFFORDABLE PATH TOWARD GREATER FLOOD RESISTANCE ONE THAT PROTECTS HOMES, PRESERVES NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GIVES RESIDENTS HOPE THAT THEY CAN ADAPT TO OUR INCREASING STORM SURGES AND STAY IN THE COMMUNITY THEY LOVE.

FOR NAPLES, THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW TERRITORY.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR HELP IN CREATING A BETTER PATH AND STREAMLINED PROCESS FORWARD NOT JUST FOR US, BUT FOR THE MANY HOMEOWNERS TO FOLLOW. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER.

YES, MR. PIERCE. I LIVE IN YOUR AREA, SO I UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF WHAT WE ALL WENT THROUGH IN THAT PERIOD.

AND I JUST WANT TO APPLAUD YOUR STRENGTH, YOUR RESILIENCY AND INCREDIBLE PLANNING TO MAKE THIS WORK AND CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THIS GREAT TOWN. AND WE LOVE IT HERE. I APPLAUD THAT. WE'VE SPENT OVER A YEAR DOING THIS.

SCHULTZ THANK YOU. I TOTALLY RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I WAS IN MY PRIOR LIVES. I WAS ON THE PAB AND I WAS GENERALLY NO ON MOST VARIANCES, BUT ON SITUATIONS WHERE FOLKS ARE DOING JUST EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, LIFT IT AND DIDN'T GET THE STEPS. AND THEN PRIOR TO THAT, I SERVED IN THE CAPACITY AS APPOINTED BY THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT GROUP AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE ARMY CORPS AND FEMA.

AND AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE SUGGESTING THAT WE GO TO 11FT UP AND BUT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS IT WAS A NINE FOOT FEMA LEVEL.

THEN IT WAS. 11 AND HAD YOU CONSIDERED MAKING IT 12 OR 13? IT'S NOT MY AFFAIR, BUT IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S RISING WATER LEVELS.

IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE AN EXTRA FOOT AHEAD.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO REVISIT THIS IN THE CASE OF SOMETHING MAJOR.

BUT I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT. I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT ADVICE TO DO OR NOT, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

[04:30:01]

AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR WANTING TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, AND I TO FULLY SUPPORT THAT.

BOTH DAVY SHORING AND J.S. BUILDERS DEFINE A FULL STORY LIFT AS BETWEEN 11 AND 15FT.

THANK YOU KRAMER. WHEN I WAS TALKING TO STAFF ABOUT THIS ERICA MENTIONED WHAT A GREAT JOB YOU DID IN THE PRESENTATION AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING YOURSELF. I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT.

IT'S EXCEEDINGLY RARE IN THIS ROOM. AND SO KUDOS TO YOU FOR THAT.

I WOULD ALSO, I THINK THIS IS ADMIRABLE AND, AND IS A WAY FORWARD FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SAY, HOWEVER THIS GOES, IT'S IT DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT FOR THIS BEING SOMETHING EVERYONE CAN DO. IT'S FOR US UNIQUELY. BUT THANKS AGAIN IS FANTASTIC.

THANKS. THANK YOU. AND I AGREE. YOUR PRESENTATION WAS DETAILED AND ACCURATE, AND I APPLAUD ANYONE TRYING TO PRESERVE THEIR HOME AND PUT THE ENERGY AND TIME INTO THIS.

SO THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO THE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.

TASHIMA LEWIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BEFORE YOU IS THE VARIANCE PETITION 26 V THREE.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE 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 RELATING TO THE ELEVATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1 TEN ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 56, 54 AND 58-176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE, BUILT IN 1969, THE PROPERTY AT 2170 SHEEPSHEAD DRIVE 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 A BUILDING PERMIT PRAD2506786, TO ELEVATE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THE PERMIT FAILED PLANNING REVIEW, FINDING THAT THE PLANS DID NOT SATISFY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN SECTIONS 56, SACHSE 54 AND 58, 176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 56-54 REGULATES ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS, AND SECTION 58-176 REGULATES OR ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R 110 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT.

THE ORIGINAL ENGINEERING PLANS, PREPARED BY DAVID SHAUN AND DATED MARCH 12TH, 2026, INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION WILL BE AT 17.1FT AND ADD FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 8TH, 2024.

ADOPTED THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION BFE AT NINE FEET.

THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ALLOWS FOR FREE BUILDING ELEVATIONS TO BE A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT ABOVE BFA.

THEREFORE, THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION FOR THIS PROPERTY IS TEN FEET AND.

THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED 17.1FT ELEVATION WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN.

THE ROOF STRUCTURE EXTENDED BEYOND THE 1212 SLOPE INTO THE INITIAL SETBACK.

SIDE SETBACK. THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION AT THE MAY 13TH MEETING ALERTED STAFF THAT THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 1212 SLOPE, OR SPATIAL PERCEPTION WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED DUE TO THEIR DECISION TO LOWER THE DF APPROXIMATELY BY SIX INCHES.

THE FRONT ENTRY STAIRWAY SYSTEM WAS PROPOSED AT 19.4FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, AND WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS INDICATED IN THE REVISED PLANS, WITH THE PERMITTED THREE FOOT ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT FOR MEANS OF EGRESS, THE TOTAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD IS 10.5FT.

ON APRIL 13TH, 2026, A TOTAL OF 154 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS OF TODAY, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED 11 EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE, BOTH IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TO THIS PETITION.

STAFF ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT BY THE APPLICANT WITH FIVE SIGNATURES FROM NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE CORRESPONDENCE IS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET DURING THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW.

IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY HAS AN OPEN CODE VIOLATION FOR INSTALLING FLOOD PLAIN PANELS WITHOUT A PERMIT.

NO OTHER NOTEWORTHY CONCERNS DERIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4637 C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FOUND THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET EXCEPT FOR A THRESHOLD CRITERION THREE. AN ADDITIONAL CRITERION ONE AND ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOUR AND FIVE ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED IN POLICY ONE THREE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEST SUMS UP THE VARIANCE CRITERIA.

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 EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

[04:35:08]

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. THIS IS WHY THIS IS NOT A DRB PETITION.

SOME OF THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE SPEAK TO COMPATIBILITY AND CHARACTER, AND SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

CONSISTENCY AND HARMONY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ABOVE ALL, THE VARIANCE CRITERIA TESTS WHETHER THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WOULD CAUSE UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP, AND IF GRANTED, IT IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY AND MOST PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY POSSIBLE.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD VARIANCE PETITION 26 V THREE ON MAY 13TH, 2026.

THE PETITIONER TESTIFIED TO LOWERING THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED DESIGN FROM 17.1FT TO 16.6FT, AND THIS ELIMINATED ONCE AGAIN THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE REQUEST PETITION THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL 7.5FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED YARD FOR MEANS OF EGRESS REMAINS THE SAME. AFTER BOARD DISCUSSION, THE BOARD VOTED 7 TO 0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL AND REQUIRED THE PETITIONERS TO PROVIDE STAFF WITH AN UPDATED, CONSISTENT SET OF PLANS PRIOR TO YOUR REVIEW.

SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE VARIANCE PETITION 26 V THREE.

STAFF RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE INCLUDED.

ONE SHOULD THE ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ALTER THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SCREEN ENCLOSURE, AS APPROVED VIA ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT OF VARIANCE PETITION 16-AV3.

THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME.

TWO. SHOULD THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BE DEMOLISHED, THE VARIANCE IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE AND ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS. THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME.

AND THREE, THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL ABIDE BY THE VARIANCE GRANTED IN PETITION 26 V THREE.

ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OR EXPANSION BEYOND THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN THIS VARIANCE SHALL REQUIRE A NEW CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DETAILED PRESENTATION. COULD YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE, WHERE THAT LOCATION IS AND WHAT THE DETERMINATION WAS? YES. SO THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SCREEN ENCLOSURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

AND SO IN THE ELEVATING OF THE HOUSE, IF THAT DEVIATES FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, THEN IT WOULD NEED TO COME BACK FOR APPROVAL OR THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE TODAY. SO YEAH, THAT APPROVAL WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE THAT'S THERE TODAY.

SO WHEN THEY LIFT THE HOUSE UP, UNLESS THAT SCREEN ENCLOSURE STAYS EXACTLY WHERE IT IS, WHICH I DON'T KNOW, IT CAN'T I DON'T KNOW. THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE APPROVAL FOR THAT SCREEN ENCLOSURE.

THE VARIANCE IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO THAT STRUCTURE.

OH. SO WE COULDN'T DO THEM AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SCREEN ENCLOSURE.

THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE ANY DRAWINGS DEPICTING WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE FOR YOU TO APPROVE TODAY.

OKAY, I KNOW THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS NEW, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION.

SO WE COULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR THAT OR THEY JUST CHOSE NOT TO.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS TO THAT LEVEL NOW.

I MEAN, I KNOW TOSHIBA HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE PETITIONER AND THAT'S BEEN A CONDITION ALL ALONG, IS THAT THAT ENCLOSURE CURRENTLY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE THE SETBACKS IN THAT DISTRICT AND ANY MODIFICATIONS TO IT WOULD REQUIRE.

AND SO WHAT WAS THAT ENCROACHMENT? NOT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT.

I'M JUST CURIOUS. NO NO WORRIES. I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU.

IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT. YES. ON UNDER THE BACKGROUND SECTION.

THE. IT WAS APPROVED AT 14.77. SO IT'S A SMALL IT'S A VERY SMALL ENCROACHMENT.

SO YOU HAVE A 15 FOOT ACCESSORY SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND IT'S ENCROACHING 14.77.

SO IT'S VERY SMALL, BUT THAT WAS THE VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN OCTOBER 3RD OF 2016.

YEAH. I JUST I'M ASKING BECAUSE WELL, OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. WHAT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

[04:40:04]

CAN I MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. I HAVE A I HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER AND THEN WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

LILY. LILIAN LOTY FISHER. SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON.

YOU CAN COME RIGHT HERE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON. IS THIS WORKING? YES. YEAH. I'M A NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, AND WE'VE LIVED ACROSS FROM THE PEARSONS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS.

WHEN THEY HAD THE FLOOD DURING IAN, WE HARBORED THEM FOR ALMOST SIX MONTHS WHILE THEY WERE REBUILDING THE HOUSE.

SO WE KNOW WHAT THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH AND I'M SURE THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT AGAIN.

WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE ELEVATION, AND SUSAN SAID IT SO WELL FOR WHATEVER I HAVE TO SAY IS PROBABLY TOTALLY REDUNDANT.

BUT I THINK WE ADDRESS REALLY, THE ONLY STUMBLING BLOCK AT THIS POINT IS THE STAIRCASE.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A RAISED RANCH FROM THE 1950S.

AND WE DON'T WANT THAT. SO THE DESIGN THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH IS IN LINE WITH WHAT NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THEIR FAIRLY HIGH PRICED NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LOOKED AT THE ENCROACHMENT, WHICH DOESN'T EVEN REACH THEIR CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY.

SO IT WOULD BE REALLY ALMOST INVISIBLE TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO OBJECT TO IT.

I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD. SO THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY, WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT.

I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN AT IT FOR EIGHT MONTHS, AND IF THEY COULD GET ON WITH IT BEFORE WE HAVE THE NEXT HURRICANE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TO SUPPORT THEM WITH THAT.

THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE RIGHT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL.

I KNOW YOU JUST HAD SURGERY. IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAY SEATED.

OH, YES. FOR APPROVAL. YES. OKAY. OKAY, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION IF YOU WANT A SECOND.

IF YOU WANT. I HAVEN'T DONE ONE YET. OKAY. POP MY CHERRY.

OKAY. MOTION FOR RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 26-V3.

RELATING TO THE VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 56-54 AND 58-176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 7.5FT INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FOR A MEANS OF ZONING THE ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONS, WITH THE CONDITIONS, WITH THE CONDITIONS SET BY PLANNING STAFF.

YES. I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRULL.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL.

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

SCHULTZ. AYE. AND MAYOR HEITMAN. YES. THANK YOU.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. AND YOU HAVE A JOB IF YOU NEED ONE.

RIGHT. I'D BE GLAD TO ATTEND ANY OF YOUR IF YOU WANT SOME.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. YES. MR. YOUNG, WE HAVE A 3:00 TIME.

THAT'S OKAY. WHAT? WHAT? I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW IS I LEFT MESSAGE WITH THE CONSULTANT.

WE HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND LAND USE ITEM TO GET THROUGH BEFORE THAT.

SO THEY WILL STAY ON HOLD AND ESTIMATE THIS 30 MINUTES.

WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS AND KEEP THEM ON HOLD AND ACCOMPLISH THIS ITEM.

SO THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE MOVING TO ITEM 13.

[13.F) A Resolution Determining Public Art Petition 26-PA1 for the Placement of Public Art in the Windows of the South Facade of a New Church Building for Naples Community Church Located on Private Property Owned by Naples Community Church, Inc., at 849 7th Avenue South, More Fully Described Herein; and for the Reimbursement of the Public Art Fee Pursuant to Section 46-42 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.]

F. MR. MCCONNELL. SORRY, MY IPAD IS TIRED. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PUBLIC ART PETITION 26-P1 FOR THE PLACEMENT OF PUBLIC ART IN THE WINDOWS OF THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE NEW CHURCH BUILDING AT FOR NAPLES COMMUNITY CHURCH, LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNED BY NAPLES COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC. AT 809 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE PUBLIC ART FEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 46-42 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. SWEARING IN. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

[04:45:06]

THANK YOU. COUNSEL. DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WELL, I'M FAMILIAR WITH LOCATION. JUST DROVE BY IT TODAY THIS MORNING.

AND TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT IT. THANK YOU. BURTON.

SAME LOCATION, SPOKE WITH STAFF, SAME LOCATION AND SPOKE WITH STAFF AND SCHULTZ.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION, AND I HAVE A CONVERSATION, A RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR BOARD, MR. LISTER. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT MY DECISION ONE BIT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION AND HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH STAFF.

GREAT. AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION AND NO FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ALL DAY.

THANK YOU. WELL, WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.

I AM JOHN BOATWRIGHT. I'M A NAPLES COMMUNITY CHURCH MEMBER.

I DO SERVE ON THE BOARD WITH MIKE LISTER AS PRESIDENT AND FALCONER JONES AS A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER.

WE ALSO MAKE UP THE BUILDING COMMITTEE AND WE'LL BE ASSISTED BY KIRSTEN PEREZ.

SHE IS WITH DAVID CORBIN ARCHITECTS. SHE'S THE PROJECT ARCHITECT ON OUR PROJECT.

AND THEN ALSO KEN CASOLA CONSOLE, A STAINED GLASS.

THEY ARE A 50 YEAR COMPANY BASED UP IN FORT MYERS.

WE DID GO THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO FIND THEM AS WE MOVE THROUGH.

FOR THE STAINED GLASS. AND SO WE SELECTED CASOLA.

CERTAINLY BECAUSE OF THEIR BACKGROUND, THEIR EXPERIENCE, THEIR WORK IN THE AREA, BUT ALSO THE PRESENTATION SHOWING US WHAT IT COULD BE.

WE'D LIKE TO JUST RUN THROUGH THE SLIDES QUICKLY.

AND THIS IS WHAT THE FINAL PRESENTATION OR THE FINAL STAINED GLASS WILL LOOK LIKE AS YOU LOOK AT THIS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, WHAT, WHAT YOU HAVE THIS IS TELLING THE STORY OF THE BIBLE FROM CREATION THROUGH THE EXODUS AND THEN THE CROSSING OF THE SEA AND THEN INTO THE PROMISED LAND. AND THEN AS YOU GET TO THE RIGHT SIDE, THE NEW TESTAMENT, IT'S THE BIRTH OF JESUS. IT GOES INTO HIS LIFE AS A TEACHER AND THE YEARS IN THE BIBLE THERE, THEN THE CRUCIFIXION, THE RESURRECTION, AND THEN IT ENDS ON THIS LARGE STAINED GLASS WINDOW WITH A LARGE CROSS.

AND THAT REPRESENTS THE TRINITY OF GOD THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

WITH THAT THIS IS THE ELEVATION OF WHAT THE CHURCH WILL LOOK LIKE FINISHED.

AND THEN I WANT TO RUN ON TO THE THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE AT NIGHT WHEN YOU COME BY THE CHURCH.

WE HAVE THIS FRONTLIT AND BACKLIT, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT FROM DUSK INTO THE EVENING HOURS.

CERTAINLY TIMES OF THE YEAR, IF WE MAY WANT TO EXTEND THE LIGHTING.

BUT WE'VE PUT SPECIAL LIGHTING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE TO SHOW THE BEAUTY OF THESE WINDOWS.

WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE. AS WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE STAINED GLASS.

WE STARTED OUT WITH FOUR WINDOWS. WE'VE GONE TO NINE WINDOWS.

WE HAD A VERY GRACIOUS COUPLE IN OUR CHURCH THAT STEPPED FORWARD TO FUND THIS PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.2 MILLION.

THAT GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY TELL THE STORY.

THIS FACES SEVENTH SOUTH. SO IT'S LITERALLY JUST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THAT YOU WILL SEE THIS.

SO IT'S RIGHT HERE IN THE BACKYARD. JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECT.

IT WAS A YEAR AND SIX DAYS AGO THAT WE BROKE GROUND AND WE STARTED WITH DEMOLITION.

TODAY WE'RE ABOUT MAYBE 6 OR 7 WEEKS AWAY FROM OUR TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

WE CURRENTLY MEET IN OUR EXISTING SANCTUARY THAT WAS DESIGNED AS A BEAUTY SALON DRESS SHOP, NOT A SANCTUARY FOR COLUMNS IN THE MIDDLE. SO WE HAD TO BECOME PRACTICAL TO GET THE SEATING IN WE WANTED.

WE HAVE NO COLUMNS IN ANY OF THE FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE BUILT.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY COLUMNS AROUND THE PERIMETER AND IN THE WALLS.

[04:50:05]

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS WE HAVE.

AND SO OUR PLAN, AS PER OUR APPROVAL YESTERDAY WITH OUR BOARD FOR PROCEEDING WITH PHASE TWO, IS TO ROLL RIGHT INTO PHASE TWO IN THE LATER PART OF AUGUST.

ONCE WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE INTO OUR NEW FELLOWSHIP HALL, AND WE'LL HOLD SERVICES THERE IN PHASE ONE UNTIL PHASE TWO COMPLETES.

WHAT YOU SEE HERE, OUR GOAL AND OBJECTIVE IS FOR THIS TO BE REALITY FOR CHRISTMAS 2027.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON HOW THIS PROCESS HAS ROLLED OUT AND WHAT WE'VE DONE.

BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE PUBLIC ART FEE RETURN THAT WAS PAID IN OUR PERMIT FOR THAT TO BE RETURNED, AND TO APPLY THAT TO THE PROJECT, BECAUSE THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND I'LL USE THE WORDS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SAID ICONIC, BUT IT WILL BE GORGEOUS AND IT'LL BE VERY HIGHLY VISIBLE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER? NO, JUST A COMMENT. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST STUNNING THINGS I'VE SEEN.

THANK YOU. IT'S AMAZING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS FORTH.

AND AGAIN, YOU YOU HAVE THE TWO PEOPLE BEHIND US THAT ARE THE FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE IT ALL WORK.

BUT THE THE ARTWORK DID TAKE QUITE A WHILE. AND WE'RE BLESSED BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ART RESTORE IN OUR CHURCH THAT HAS WORKED HAND IN GLOVE WITH KEN COSTOLO, THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER, BUT WITH HIS ARTIST.

TO BE ABLE TO PULL THIS ALL TOGETHER, IS THIS GLASS ALREADY DONE? THEY STILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE THE GLASS. NOW CAN'T.

KEN, IF YOU WANT TO STOP UP, HE CAN EXPLAIN JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, BUT WE'VE JUST ORDERED THE GLASS AND HE CAN TELL YOU WHERE WE GO FROM HERE.

THANK YOU. YEAH. ALL THE ALL THE MATERIALS BEEN ORDERED, BUT WE HAVEN'T STARTED FABRICATION YET.

THE TASK IS AT HAND. KEN CASSOLA. THANK YOU. OKAY.

ONE QUICK QUESTION. IS THERE, LIKE, HURRICANE GLASS PROTECTING THIS IN THE FRONT, OR HOW IS IT PROTECTED FOR STORMS? YEAH. YES. THE THE STORM GLASS IS THE SAME STORM GLASS AND WE'VE GOT A SAMPLE OF IT.

WE CAN SHOW YOU. BUT IT IS THE LOW E.

THAT THIS IS IT. AND IT, IT'S GOT VERY, VERY LITTLE TINTING IN IT.

AND THIS IS LOW E THOUGH TO HELP US ON THE HEAT LOADS ON THE BUILDING.

WITH THIS BEING ON THE, THE SOUTH SIDE, BUT THIS IS THE SAME GLASS WE'RE USING AROUND BOTH PHASES ONE AND TWO.

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE COMPLETE.

I HAVE MR. MCCONNELL. YEAH. JUST ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE I WAS AT THE DRB, AND I UNDERSTAND IT WAS A CONDITION, BUT IT WAS MORE OF A SUGGESTION THAT YOUR TEAM WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO BECAUSE THEY SAID 11 P.M., BUT YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK TO SEE IF IT WAS EVEN DOABLE TO GO TO 11 P.M..

DID YOU HAVE BEFORE WE COUNCIL APPROVED IT WITH THAT CONDITION? I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER SAY IT'S DOABLE OR NOT.

OH, CERTAINLY IT'S DOABLE. YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AS IT GETS INTO THE LATER EVENING, BUT ALL THE LIGHTING AND WE HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY TO BE SURE THAT THE ARRAYS OF LIGHTING DON'T GO BEYOND THE CURBSIDE. AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE LIGHTING THAT'S AT THE BOTTOM JUST HIGHLIGHTING THE COLUMN.

BUT EVERYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THAT, AND THE LANDSCAPE LIGHTING.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS DONE FROM THE INSIDE AND THAT ALL IS REINSTATED.

IT'S ALL LED LIGHTING TO GIVE THAT BACKDROP. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO IT JUST FOR FAIRNESS. THANK YOU. THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH.

OKAY. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO OUR STAFF REPORT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. JEFF BREMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PETITIONER REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC ART IN A NEW CHURCH LOCATED AT 849 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH.

THIS IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET HERE FROM CITY HALL.

THE NAPLES COMMUNITY CHURCH, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE CITY TRIGGER COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART FEE PROGRAM.

BASICALLY, PROPERTIES PROPERTY OWNERS EITHER PAY INTO THE FUND WITH A PAYMENT IN LIEU TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT,

[04:55:05]

OR THEY COMMISSION AN ACTUAL WORK OF ART AND PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF THAT PROJECT TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS HERE, THEY HAVE PROPOSED A QUITE ORIGINAL PUBLIC ART PROJECT.

IT'S AN EXPANSIVE STAINED GLASS WINDOW INSTALLATION.

IT'S NINE LARGE WINDOWS IN TOTAL. TOGETHER, THEY REPRESENT A SINGLE VISUAL NARRATIVE.

THE WORK IS VISUAL OR VISIBLE BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

PETITIONER PROVIDED A PRETTY DETAILED EXPLANATION DURING THE PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICATION MATERIALS ALSO DETAIL THE SPECIFICS QUITE WELL.

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

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO OFFICIAL PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE REQUEST.

THE. THE PROJECT APPEARED BEFORE DRB LAST MONTH FOR RECOMMENDATION.

FOLLOWING THAT PRESENTATION, THE DRB RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ARTWORK UNANIMOUSLY TO.

CITY COUNCIL STAFF ALSO HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION CRITERIA PROVIDED IN THE CITY CODE AND THE DESIGN REVIEW HANDBOOK AND FINDS THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET FOLLOWING THE DRB HEARING.

THE BOARD DID HAVE ONE RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.

YOU'VE HEARD IT THAT THE PETITIONER SHALL PROVIDE INTERIOR ILLUMINATION FOR THE STAINED GLASS WINDOW DISPLAY DAILY FROM SUNSET TO 11 P.M.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC VIEWING FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND SHALL CONSIDER EXTENDED NIGHTTIME HOURS FOR HOLIDAYS.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR COMMENTS. OF COURSE, WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. NO. YES.

BLANKENSHIP. SORRY. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE CHURCH.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THIS WEEK THE BIG CELEBRATION IN BARCELONA WHEN SAGRADA FAMILIA WAS FINALLY, FINALLY FINISHED AND DEDICATED. ARE YOU GOING TO PLAN A CELEBRATION LIKE THAT? WELL, WELL, I WILL TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS.

MY WIFE WERE IN BARCELONA. MY WIFE AND I WERE IN BARCELONA LAST SUMMER, AND WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING IN THE MEDIA SEVERAL TIMES. BUT I TOOK THESE PICTURES TO SHOW THE COLOR OF RAYS AND SHARED IT WITH OUR TEAM AND WITH PEGGY VAN WITT, WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. BUT SHE'S THE ARTIST FOR US THAT HAS WORKED WITH KEN.

AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THE COLORS, THERE ARE LARGELY THE COLORS THAT WE'RE ENDING UP WITH.

YEAH, IT LOOKS VERY FAMILIAR. SO FROM THAT, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

GOOD LUCK WITH IT. AND I MOVE APPROVAL. OKAY.

YES. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP.

BEFORE WE. SECOND, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IMPOSING.

THEY HAVE TO KEEP IT ON CERTAIN TIMES. I DON'T WANT TO.

THEY CAN. GOD BLESS THEM. LEAVE IT ON. OKAY. WAIT, I NEED A SECOND.

I HAVE TO READ IT INTO THE DISCUSSION. I WITHDRAW THE MOTION UNTIL I HEAR.

THANK YOU. COMMENTS. I'M ALL FOR THIS, BUT I THINK YOU COULD LEAVE IT ON AS MUCH AS YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT ON.

I JUST DON'T WANT SOMEBODY FUSSING AT YOU BECAUSE IT WASN'T ON.

OH, AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR LIGHT BILLS ARE. I DON'T KNOW NONE OF THAT. WELL, THE ARGUMENT, THOUGH, IS THAT THIS IS THIS IS PUBLIC CONSIDERED PUBLIC ART.

SO THEREFORE THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY IT.

AND WE ARE HERE REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC. SO NO, I GET THAT.

BUT I THINK YOU COULD SEE IT WITH THE LIGHTS OFF TOO, IS ALL I'M SAYING.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THAT IS. WE'VE ALL BEEN TO PLENTY OF CATHEDRALS.

I THINK THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST ONE VOICE.

I'M GOING TO SAY YES NO MATTER WHAT, BUT. OKAY.

ARE YOU OPPOSED TO IT, SIR? AND OPPOSED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONDITION THAT THE LIGHTING BE ON THE TIMING? NOT AT ALL. NO, NO, WE'RE VERY AGREEABLE.

OKAY, SO VICE MAYOR. OKAY, THEN I'LL MOVE APPROVAL FOR THIS REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC ART PETITION WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE HAVE, THE CONDITION THAT'S IN WITH THE CONDITION THAT'S IN THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO.

SECOND. OKAY. AN OFFICIAL MOTION TO READ IT IN OR.

NO. DON'T NEED IT. I THINK HE READ THE MOTION.

THE TITLE THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE WAS THE MOTION SUFFICIENT? IT WAS. I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY THAT ALSO DOES AUTHORIZES THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE PUBLIC ART.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS THAT YOU ARE APPROVING THE ART AND AUTHORIZING US TO REFUND THE $27,800 THAT THEY PAID INTO THE FUND.

OKAY. AND THE MOTION WAS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU, SIR.

MR. MCCONNELL, IF THE MOTION MAKER WILL AMEND IT BASED ON THE REIMBURSEMENT LANGUAGE, THEN YES, YES. THE MOTION AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT.

[05:00:04]

SECOND STILL SECOND STANCE. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. THIS IS SO STUNNING.

COUNCIL MEMBER PENNIMAN IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP.

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

KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. AND MAYOR HARTMAN.

YES. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL JUST EXTEND MY THANK YOU TO MR. JONES AND TO MR. LISTER FOR ENJOYING THE DAY WITH US.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU GENTLEMEN WELCOME TO STAY FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING, IF YOU'D LIKE AS WELL. OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES ITEM 13 F GOING TO THAT TIME CERTAIN MR. YOUNG. YES, MA'AM. IT'S ITEM 15 E WHICH IS A PRESENTATION.

[15.E) Presentation of FY 2024-25 Annual Audited Financial Statements (3:00pm Time Certain). ]

GOOD PRESENTATION ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 425 ANNUAL AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

AND WITH THAT, STEFAN MUSIL IS HERE. AND OUR AUDITOR, WHICH IS WADE SANSBURY AND STEFAN WILL INTRODUCE HIM ONCE HE HE STEPS UP TO THE TABLE THERE. THANK YOU FOR SEATING THAT TIME SO THAT WE COULD GET THAT PETITION COMPLETED BEFORE THIS.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MITCHELL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

STEFAN MUSIL, FINANCE DIRECTOR. AS A CITY MANAGER JUST MENTIONED WE ARE HERE TO ALLOW OUR AUDITOR AND THE PARTNER IN CHARGE OF THE AUDIT FIRM. HIS NAME IS WADE SANSBURY.

HE IS AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE AUDIT PROCESS THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN THIS YEAR FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED 2025.

SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025. JUST TO GIVE A OVERVIEW HIGH LEVEL, THERE WAS A INCREASE IN NET POSITION FOR THE CITY OVERALL OF $42.8 MILLION SPECIFICALLY TO GENERAL FUND UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE WAS $26.2 MILLION, WHICH IS 37.6% OF EXPENDITURES. BESIDES THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MULTIPLE SECTIONS IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE FIRST SECTION, WHICH IS THE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION ANALYSIS, JUST KIND OF PROVIDES A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF KIND OF WHERE THE CITY'S BEEN AND WHERE THEY ENDED UP AT SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025. AND I DID WANT TO MAKE MENTION OF A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FOR ONE, THE VERSION OF THIS AUDIT REPORT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, IT STATED THAT THERE WERE SOME LETTERS THAT NEEDED TO BE FINALIZED BEFORE A FINAL REPORT COULD BE RECEIVED. AND FROM THE AUDITOR, WHICH WE NOW DO HAVE, I RECEIVED IT TODAY, SO WE WILL BE PUTTING IT ON THE CITY WEBSITE IN SHORT ORDER. ALSO, I DID WANT TO MAKE MENTION THERE WAS A RESTATEMENT OF 2024 ENDING BALANCE, AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO SOME CONSTRUCTION AND PROGRESS THAT HAD BEEN SITTING THERE OVER MULTIPLE YEARS WITHOUT ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ORIGIN. WE DECIDED THAT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

SO THAT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE WERE, THERE WERE NO AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS SPECIFIC TO 2025 ARE CONSIDERED MATERIAL AND WE FEEL THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE PRESENTED FAIRLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

WITH THAT I SUPPOSE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. SANSBURY. GOOD AFTERNOON SIR.

MR. SANSBURY. OUR DAVID, IS HE MUTED? CAN CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. CAN YOU TURN IT UP? SIR? COULD YOU JUST WELCOME. AND COULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? YES, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S WADE SANSBURY PARTNER WITH MAULDIN AND JENKINS.

IT'S YOUR FLOOR, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'VE GOT A BRIEF PRESENTATION. HOPEFULLY YOU ALL CAN SEE THAT.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO TO THE INTRODUCTION TAB.

[05:05:03]

SO MAYOR CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE WITH YOU ALL TODAY ALBEIT VIRTUALLY.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS WADE STANSBURY. I'M THE ENGAGEMENT PARTNER ON YOUR AUDIT FOR 2025 AS WELL AS FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.

WE'VE GOT TREY SCOTT WAS OUR QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW PARTNER.

DANIEL ANDERSON WAS ANOTHER ONE OF OUR PARTNERS WHO WAS AN ENGAGEMENT SUPPORT PARTNER, OVERSAW SOME OF THE DAY TO DAY ACTIVITY.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HIGH LEVEL INFORMATION ABOUT MALDEN AND JENKINS. I WON'T GO OVER ALL OF THAT. I WILL JUST SAY THAT IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF OUR OVERALL FOOTPRINT. WE DID ACQUIRE A FIRM BACK IN DECEMBER IN LOUISIANA AND TEXAS, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED OUR OVERALL SIZE AND RESOURCES.

JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. EXCUSE ME SIR.

OH, GOOD. I GOT YOUR ATTENTION. WE COULD NOT HEAR YOU.

IT SOUNDED LIKE A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT EITHER YOUR MIC IS NOT CONNECTED OR IT'S NOT UP LOUD ENOUGH.

WE COULD HEAR YOU A LITTLE. WE JUST COULDN'T HEAR YOU A LOT OF TIMES.

OH. NO. THERE YOU ARE. OH, NOW.

OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. I'M SO SORRY. PLEASE TRY IT AGAIN.

SAME. SO. SO SORRY. I ALWAYS LOVE TECHNOLOGY.

WHEN IT DOESN'T WORK, IT'S FIRST TIME WE WANT TO THROW OUT THE WINDOW, RIGHT? OKAY, I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING. STOP ME IF YOU CANNOT HEAR ME.

SO, AS YOU ALL KNOW THE CITY PREPARES ANNUALLY, AN ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT.

STILL NO. OH, THERE WE GO. YES. LET ME TRY SOMETHING ELSE.

OKAY. CAN WE TAKE A BREAK? THE ECHOES FROM ABOVE.

YES. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK FOR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

OKAY, WE'RE BACK IN AND CONTINUING ON WITH 15 E THE ANNUAL AUDIT PRESENTATION.

THERE WE GO.

I'M GOING TO TRY AND DO THIS WITHOUT MY PHONE, BUT IF I NEED TO DO IT BY MY PHONE, JUST LET ME KNOW.

MR. SANSBURY. YES. OKAY. I THINK THAT WE CAN RESPECTFULLY MOVE FORWARD AND WE WON'T BREAK AND HAVE ANY CONVERSATION. WE'LL JUST LET YOU DO YOUR PRESENTATION.

OKAY. OKAY, GREAT. WELL, LET'S HOPEFULLY SECOND TIME'S A CHARM.

SO. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE.

I'M WITH YOU TODAY, EVEN VIRTUALLY. I DO, I DO APPRECIATE IT.

I'VE GOT A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT PRETTY QUICKLY. I'LL JUST START OUT ON THE INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TAB.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS WADE SANSBURY. I'M A PARTNER WITH, WITH MAULDIN AND JENKINS.

I HAVE BEEN YOUR ENGAGEMENT PARTNER FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

WE'VE GOT TREY SCOTT HERE WAS OUR QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER AND WE'VE GOT DANIEL ANDERSON, WHO WAS ANOTHER PARTNER WHO WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE OVERALL PLANNING PHASE OF THE ENGAGEMENT ITSELF. THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HIGH LEVEL INFO, HIGH LEVEL INFORMATION ABOUT MAULDIN AND JENKINS.

I WON'T GO OVER ALL OF THIS. I WILL JUST STATE THAT WE DID ACQUIRE A FIRM IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WHICH GAVE US ACCESS TO LOUISIANA AND TEXAS AND INCREASED OUR OVERALL FIRM SIZE TO NOW BEING WELL OVER 800 TOTAL EMPLOYEES.

THE NEXT SLIDE, JUST SOME GENERAL INFORMATION.

OBVIOUSLY, THE CITY DOES PREPARE AN ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT.

THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE STATE ACTUALLY REQUIRES.

IT DOES INCLUDE BOTH THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION, THE FINANCIAL SECTION AND THE STATISTICAL SECTION.

A LOT OF GOOD TEN YEAR HISTORY WORTH OF INFORMATION IN SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.

[05:10:02]

AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE CITY HIRES HAS HIRED MALDEN AND JENKINS TO PERFORM AN AUDIT ON YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

WE HAVE COMPLETED THAT PROCESS. WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE REPRESENTATION OF MANAGEMENT.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO, AGAIN, PERFORM AN AUDIT AND THEN TO EXPRESS AN OPINION.

WE'VE, WE'VE DONE SO WE'VE EXPRESSED AN UNMODIFIED OPINION, WHICH IS A CLEAN OPINION.

AND THE TYPE OF OPINION THAT YOU ALL WISH TO RECEIVE EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

NEXT SLIDE. AS STEFAN ALREADY REPORTED WE DID HAVE ONE FINDING REGARDING THE CAPITAL ASSETS THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND BEEN CORRECTED. THE CITY DID RECEIVE AND SPEND ABOUT $1.9 MILLION IN FEDERAL AWARDS THIS YEAR.

THIS REQUIRED US TO PERFORM A SINGLE AUDIT, COVERING ABOUT 1.9 MILLION OF THOSE TOTAL EXPENDITURES FROM THE DISASTER GRANT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS.

THE CITY ALSO SPENT AND RECEIVED ABOUT 4.5 MILLION IN STATE FUNDS.

SO WE WERE REQUIRED TO PERFORM AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE AUDIT COVERED ABOUT 4 MILLION OF THOSE STATE FUNDS.

WE HAD NO ISSUES WITH REGARD TO USE OF THOSE FUNDS WHATSOEVER.

THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE JUST SOME REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. I WON'T GO OVER ALL OF THOSE. AND WE'LL POINT OUT THAT THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO AND DID IMPLEMENT GATSBY'S 101 AND 102 DURING THE YEAR. DID NOT REALLY AFFECT THE CITY'S OVERALL OPERATIONS VERY MUCH.

THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES, THE ONLY ONE I'LL MENTION THERE IS AUDITOR INDEPENDENCE. WE ARE INDEPENDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE CITY.

WE TAKE THAT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. I WANT TO JUST POINT THAT OUT.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST, JUST SOME REALLY HIGH LEVEL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY.

THERE'S A 2025 SLIDE AS WELL AS 2024. THE OVERALL SPENDING PER RESIDENT, THE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE YOUR DEBT PER RESIDENT, YOUR TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. ALL OF THAT IS LISTED HERE.

AND AGAIN, THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE SAME INFORMATION AS OF 2024.

ALL OF THAT IS IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. WE DO ALSO PROVIDE TO YOU ALL WHAT WE CALL OUR AUDITORS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, THE A D AND A NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE MDA.

THE MDA IS FROM MANAGEMENT. THE AUDITORS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS IS FROM US FROM YOUR AUDIT FIRM.

WE, WE DO LIST OUT ALL OF OUR REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS ALL OF OUR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT, AS WELL AS ALL UPCOMING GASB STANDARDS AND PRONOUNCEMENTS.

AND THEN LASTLY, BEFORE THE LAST PARAGRAPH OR THE LAST SLIDE I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY HAS EITHER HAS OR IS ABOUT TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN ITS ACCOUNTING SERVICES FIRM. WHILE WE ARE OBVIOUSLY DISAPPOINTED IN THE OUTCOME.

WE'RE VERY INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF THE YEARS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SERVE YOUR GREAT CITY.

VERY PROUD OF THE QUALITY OF WORK WE'VE DELIVERED AND STRONG COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS WE'VE BUILT WITH YOUR TEAM.

SHOULD YOUR NEEDS EVER CHANGE OR YOU NEED, OR YOU REQUIRE OUR SERVICES AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO REACH OUT. WE WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE CITY AGAIN. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS? NO. MR. PRESENTATION AND ACCEPTANCE. SO THERE'S NO MOTION THAT WOULD BE NEEDED.

AND AND WE WOULD GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. WADE.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL THE ALL THE YEARS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN THIS YEAR'S AUDIT AS WELL.

AND, AND MY BEST TO YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND THE FIRM.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND BEING HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. WOW, THAT WAS EASY.

THANK YOU. SO CONTINUING AFTER DISCUSSION WITH MR. YOUNG, WE MADE SOME CHANGES. DO YOU WANT TO RECAP? WHAT WERE THE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO? YEAH, MADAM.

[15.B) Consideration of the Repeat Special Event Application Below:1. Cars on 5th – 5th Avenue South]

WE JUST MOVED TO ITEM 15 B BEFORE WE. WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS.

JUST BECAUSE WE'VE HAD PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AND ALLOW THIS OPPORTUNITY, THIS, THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD.

AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK TO THE AGENDA AS IT'S PLANNED.

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. SO WITH THAT, CHAD, IF YOU CAN COME OUT AND SIR, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE CARS ON FIFTH DISCUSSION AND THE PERMIT APPLICATION PENDING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ALL DAY. I'VE LEARNED A LOT.

WE'LL START WITH. IT'S OKAY.

RELAX. WE MOVED YOU UP. MR. MERRITT. AND IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS, SLIPS CAN BE FILLED OUT AND GIVEN TO THE CLERK.

PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. CHAD MAYOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR.

[05:15:10]

ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS. THE CARS ON FIFTH SHOW.

THIS IS REPEAT SPECIAL EVENT. THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED WITH.

FOR FEBRUARY 6TH, 2027. EVENT LOCATION IS FIFTH STREET, SOUTH PARK STREET, CAMBIER PARK.

EVENT HOURS SET UP IS FEBRUARY 1ST THROUGH FEBRUARY 5TH, 12 TO 5.

THE EVENT TIME 10 A.M. 4 P.M. TAKE DOWN 4 P.M.

THE 6 P.M. AND TAKE DOWN. TAKING FROM FEBRUARY 7TH TO FEBRUARY 9TH FROM 9 TO 5. THIS EVENT. EXPECTED ATTENDANCE OR ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE 17,000.

THE STREET CLOSURES INCLUDE FIFTH AVENUE, SOUTH PARK STREET, CAMBIER PARKWAY.

WE HAVE THE PARKING PLAN IS THE SURROUNDING LOTS.

WITHIN THE PARKING THERE IS AMPLIFIED SOUND. THEY DO HAVE ALCOHOL.

THEY DO HAVE TENTS. AND THIS IS A. IT WAS SUBMITTED WITHIN 120 DAYS.

AND WE'LL KIND OF START WITH SO LOOKING AT THE AFTER ACTION BACK IN THE 20, WE SAY 2025 IS TECHNICALLY 2026 EVENT. SO THE 2026 EVENT, THE AFTER ACTION WAS HELD JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

AND YOU'VE GOT THAT ATTACHED WITHIN YOUR AGENDA PACKET.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT AGAIN, BUT JUST KIND OF STARTING.

WE WE HAD THIS MEETING BACK IN JUNE 19TH, 2023 WHERE WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONCERNS AND THINGS THAT WE HAD AT A STAFF LEVEL AND WORKING WITH THE EVENT ORGANIZER DURING THAT TIME, WE WERE THE COUNCIL DIDN'T VOTE ON IT AND ASKED TO CONTINUE IT BECAUSE THE, THEY WANTED THE EVENT ORGANIZER TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE CONCERNS AND SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE HAD.

SO WE WENT BACK. WE DID ALL OF THAT. IF YOU LOOK BACK, DATING BACK TO 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY EXISTED WITHIN THAT AGM AS WELL.

SO I'LL START OUT BY SAYING AT THIS POINT, THE SPECIAL EVENT COMMITTEE, IT'S MADE UP OF SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS AND ALL OF THIS CONTENT THAT'S WITHIN THESE AGM'S.

WHEN WE EVALUATE THIS STUFF, IT'S COMPRISED FROM ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS, WHICH INCLUDES POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT, ETC. SO WE FEEL AT THIS POINT THAT WE DON'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS EVENT AND ITS CURRENT PROPOSED STATUS. THE EVENTS ANTICIPATED ATTENDANCE EXCEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION, CREATING SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS. IN ADDITION, AVAILABLE PARKING IS INSUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE ATTENDEES, INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF ILLEGAL PARKING IN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

STAFF ALSO REMAIN CONCERNED THAT THE EVENT ORGANIZER HAS CONSISTENTLY RESISTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF RECOMMENDED OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY MEASURES, AND DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PLAN AS APPROVED. IT SEEMS THAT EVERY YEAR THE SAME ISSUES ARE PRESENT, DESPITE THE ORGANIZERS STATING HE AGREES TO THE PLAN TO BE FOLLOWED.

BASED ON THESE FACTS OR THESE FACTORS, STAFF BELIEVED THE EVENT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATELY HOSTED IN AN ALTERNATE VENUE THAT CAN SAFELY ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE, PARKING DEMANDS, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. A LETTER IS ATTACHED FROM THE NAPLES FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVENT.

THE APPLICANT STATES IN THE APPLICATION, NO PLAN CHANGES, BUT IF YOU LOOK IN HERE, IT'S INCORPORATED SEVERAL OR.

HE HAS INCORPORATED SEVERAL CHANGES, WHICH WE'LL GO THROUGH HERE IN A SECOND.

AND I'VE GOT, I BELIEVE NAPLES FIRE AND AND POLICE SHOULD BE HERE.

SO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE WE LOOK AT WITH THIS EVENT, COMMUNICATION, COMMUNICATION IS A HUGE CONCERN.

IT'S BEEN A HUGE CONCERN. WE KEEP SAYING THIS.

YOU CAN LOOK INTO AG MS YEAR AFTER YEAR SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

IT'S BEEN IN THERE. AND AS I LOOK BACK, AS I SAID, IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT HAVING THAT MANY PEOPLE IN ONE AREA, YOU REALLY THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO.

[05:20:02]

WE'VE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WAYS. CAN YOU BRING IN THE COWS, WHICH ARE A MOBILE STATION FOR MOBILE PHONES.

AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEN THEY FIGHT THE SIGNALS FIGHT.

SO THAT DOESN'T WORK. SO WE'VE DETERMINED THAT'S NOT AN OPTION.

YOU BRING IN WI-FI. THEN AT THAT POINT EVERYBODY'S GOING ON TO THE WI-FI.

THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY WAY TO HELP THE THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN IT COMES TO COMMUNICATION, TOO.

SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GET AN EMERGENCY CALL OUT, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.

EXIT PLAN, THE EXIT PLAN. THIS APPLICATION SHOWS VEHICLES EXITING ON HIGHWAY 41 AGAIN.

AGAIN, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BACK IN 2023 WHERE WE SAID THIS IS NOT AN OPTION.

WE CAN'T DO THAT. THE STATE'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF 41.

IT'S NOT SAFE. YOU'LL SEE PICTURES IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH HERE IN A SECOND SHOWING, WHERE WE BASICALLY SET AN EVENT UP WITH BARRICADES TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AT THE EVENT.

BUT THEN AFTER THE SHOW ENDS, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE MOVE INTO STREETS WITH NO BARRICADES, BLOCKED, STREETS THAT AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BLOCKED, AND THEN THEY'RE COMPLETELY VULNERABLE TO THE CARS THAT ARE COMING IN THAT ARE TURNING AROUND IN THE MEDIANS BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY IRRITATED THAT THE TRAFFIC STOPPED. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT CARS REVVING THEIR ENGINES.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE SHOWBOATING THAT TAKES PLACE DURING THIS TIME EVENT SIZE.

SO WE GOT AT STATE 17,000 ATTENDEES. WE HAVE A SOFTWARE THAT SAYS IT'S OVER 30,000 THAT ATTEND.

PEAK ATTENDANCE COULD BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 15 TO 20,000.

WE'RE UNSURE BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WAY TO MEASURE THE EXACT PEAK ATTENDANCE.

THE EVENT LAYOUT. WE'VE GOT SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH THE EVENT LAYOUT.

ONE THE SOFTBALL FIELD. THAT WAS A QUESTION LAST YEAR.

THE STATEMENT WAS MADE. WE'LL APPROVE IT ON THE SOFTBALL FIELD IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY.

AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE ANY DAMAGE, WE'LL BE FINE FOR THE NEXT TIME.

WE HAD DAMAGE, WE. THE SOFTBALL TEAM HAD TO THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO USE THE SOFTBALL FIELD THE WINDS DAY BEFORE WHEN THEY VACATED AT TUESDAY, I THINK IS WHEN THEY FINISHED, WE HAD TO RUSH AND BRING IN A COMPANY TO COME IN AND LEVEL THE FIELD BACK UP. WE HAD THEY HAD HUGE CONCRETE BLOCKS.

THEY HAD THIS HUGE TENT. THEY HAD WE HAD DAMAGE TO THE SIDEWALK AROUND THE SOFTBALL FIELD FROM THE VENDORS RIDING OVER IT.

SO WE HAD TO REPAIR THAT. THAT WASN'T SOMETHING WE COULD REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.

SO WE DON'T RECOMMEND THAT THEY USE THE SOFTBALL FIELD.

WE HAD THE ORGANIZERS RECOMMENDED THE USE OF THE PARKING LOT AT THIRD STREET SOUTH.

HE HAD THAT ON HERE AS AN ALTERNATE. IF THEY DON'T APPROVE THE SOFTBALL FIELD.

THAT WAS ANOTHER THING. BACK IN 2023, WE MOVED AWAY FROM THE MCCABE LOT AT THIRD AND EIGHTH, RIGHT OVER BY THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. WE MOVED AWAY FROM THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS BETWEEN THAT LOT AND THE EVENT SITE, WHICH IS FIFTH. THERE WAS NO PROTECTION. YOU HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE MOVING BETWEEN THE VIP AREA AND THE EVENT SPACE.

SO THAT WAS A SAFETY CONCERN. WE MOVED THEM OUT OF THAT TO PUT THEIR VIP INSIDE.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WAS STATED SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE I GOT HERE, WAS TO TO RELOCATE THAT BASED ON THE LAYOUT OF THE EVENT, THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IS, IS RISK BECAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE CROWD, WHICH AGAIN, WE'LL TALK ABOUT OR WE'LL SHOW PICTURES HERE IN A SECOND.

ACTUALLY, WE'LL JUST DO. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE PICTURES YOU HAVE THE CARS ARE LINED UP IN A IN A POSITION TO WHERE YOU CAN'T REALLY USE ANY OF THE SPACE IN BETWEEN BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE WALKING BETWEEN THESE CARS.

I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL REALLY EXPENSIVE AND NICE CARS, BUT YOU'VE CRAMPED THEM INTO A REALLY NARROW SPACE.

YOU SEE, WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH THE CROWD, THEY'RE WALKING REALLY BELLY TO BACK.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TO MOVE THROUGH. SO WHEN YOU YOU START LOOKING AT SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR IF WE HAVE SOMETHING HAPPEN IN THAT CROWD, WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE.

AND I SAY WE MEANING OUR POLICE AND FIRE. THIS HAS BEEN A CONCERN, AGAIN, THAT HAS EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S BRAND NEW. AGAIN, A REPORT IN 2019 THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL STATED THAT THE EVENT WAS TOO LARGE

[05:25:08]

AND IT SHOULD BE MOVED TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IT SAID THAT THERE WAS ILLEGAL PARKING EVERYWHERE AND THERE NEEDED TO BE SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THE PARKING.

THIS IS ALL THIS STUFF HAS EXISTED FOR A WHILE.

THIS EVENT STARTED IN BAYFRONT. IT GOT TOO LARGE.

IT MOVED TO THIRD. IT GOT TOO LARGE. IT'S AT FIFTH.

SO WHERE ARE WE AT NOW AND WHERE? WHERE WE FEEL AS THE AS THE STAFF IS THAT IT IS TOO LARGE FOR THIS AREA.

THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD EVER LOOK AT DOING THIS WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THE EVENT ORGANIZER, BECAUSE HE'S BUILT THIS THIS EVENT IS IF HE BRINGS IT BACK, IT COULD, IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEM.

SO AT SOME POINT, YOU'RE ALMOST A VICTIM TO YOUR OWN SUCCESS.

AND IN HIS CASE, HE'S HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL EVENT AND IT CONTINUES TO WANT TO GROW.

AND IT'S TRYING TO YOU'RE TRYING TO HOLD IT BACK, BUT IT'S, IT'S A VERY POPULAR EVENT.

AND THE SPACE. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT SPACE FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN DO. WE'VE TRIED TO WORK SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOLUTIONS, BUT WE KEEP HAVING TO PUT THE SAME THING IN THESE AG MS OVER AND OVER PARKING, ILLEGAL PARKING THAT EXISTED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ENTIRE EVENT. SO YOU GOT A POLICE OFFICER WRITING PARKING TICKETS NEXT TO A NO PARKING SIGN.

YOU GOT RESIDENTS THAT ARE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU ALL, BUT WHEN I GET WHEN THE EVENT'S OVER, I GET EMAILS, I GET CALLS BECAUSE THEY'RE PARKED IN THEIR DRIVEWAYS OR IN THEIR YARDS, ETC.

THEN YOU HAVE THE EVENT ACCESS, THE PROPOSAL FROM THE, THE ORGANIZER IS HE WOULD LIKE TO NOW HAVE EXCLUSIVE USE OF FIFTH AVENUE. HE'D LIKE TO BLOCK IT OFF AND HE'D LIKE TO CHARGE THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO COME IN AND SHOP AND DINE FOR A WRISTBAND. LIMIT THAT TO 5 TO 6000. PAY I GUESS GIVE FUNDING SOME OF THAT FUNDING TOWARDS TO THE BID AND CITY OF NAPLES. YOU KNOW, FROM SPECIAL EVENT COMMITTEES SIDE, WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S REALLY A FAIR THING TO DO.

THEN YOU'VE GOT NONPROFIT STATUS. SO RIGHT NOW AS APPLICATION STATES THAT HE IS A NONPROFIT, BUT I DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT HE'S NONPROFIT.

WE'VE GOT, HE HAS ON THERE THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AS THE BENEFICIARY, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

HE SAID HE WAS STILL WORKING ON WHO THAT WAS GOING TO BE.

THE SECONDARY EVENT THAT WAS DENIED THIS LAST YEAR HAS BEEN NOW INCORPORATED IN THIS APPLICATION WHERE HE WANTS TO EXPAND EVEN INTO THE EVENING HOURS. SO YOU WOULD HAVE A AFTER PARTY FOR THE FOR SOME OF THE VIP AREAS OR SOME OF THE WINNERS AND A SPACE THERE. I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO GET NPD TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE SLIDES HERE SINCE THEY PUT THIS SLIDESHOW TOGETHER. GOOD AFTERNOON.

POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS TWO QUANTIFIABLE CONCERNS ABOUT THE EVENT.

THE EVENT IS WELL ORGANIZED. THE EVENT IS WELL RUN.

THE ISSUES ARE NOT WHAT THE EVENT ORGANIZATION ITSELF.

IT SIMPLY BOILS DOWN TO THE PARKING ISSUES AND THE CROWD ISSUES.

AND THEY'RE INTERTWINED. I DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT ON THE PARKING ISSUES, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN THE SLIDESHOWS AND THE PHOTOS OF PEOPLE PARKING INCORRECTLY. THE ORGANIZER PROVIDES OFF SITE PARKING.

THE ORGANIZER PROVIDES SHUTTLE BUSSES FROM THIS OFF SITE PARKING.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE PEOPLE ATTENDING THE EVENT DON'T USE THAT OFF SITE PARKING.

YOU SAW THE PHOTOS OF VEHICLES PARKED NEXT TO NO PARKING SIGNS.

WE HAD OFFICERS ISSUING CITATIONS. BY THE WAY, OFFICERS THAT THE ORGANIZER PAYS FOR.

THE OFFICERS ARE ISSUING CITATIONS TO THESE VEHICLES PARKED NEXT TO A NO PARKING SIGN.

AS SOON AS A VEHICLE LEAVES, ANOTHER VEHICLE PULLS RIGHT IN.

THE OFFICER STANDING THERE WITH A TICKET BOOK. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. ONE TIME IT HAPPENED TO ME WHEN I WAS WRITING A TICKET AND THEY SAID, ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO WRITE ME A TICKET? AND THE OFFICER SAYS, YES. PEOPLE SHRUG THEIR SHOULDERS AND GO TO THE EVENT AND LEAVE THEIR CAR PARKED THERE.

WE CAN'T FIX PARKING PROBLEMS LIKE THAT. WE CAN'T TOW THAT MANY CARS.

WE WROTE HUNDREDS OF CITATIONS. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, 1000 PARKING CITATIONS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.

WE HAVE NOT CHANGED THE PARKING PATTERN. WE HAVE NOT CHANGED THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PARKING PUBLIC.

[05:30:01]

WE. WE FILL ALL THE PARKING SPACES. BY 9 A.M.

THE EVENT DOESN'T START UNTIL 10 A.M. AT 10 A.M.

WE ARE NOW IN THE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY'RE NOT TAKING PARKING SPACES, THEY'RE JUST TAKING UP ROOM WHEREVER THE CARS FIT.

SO I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINT ON THE PARKING.

I DON'T SEE US SURMOUNTING THE PARKING ISSUE IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE OTHER EVENTS THAT THE LOCAL RESIDENTS WILL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

HOWEVER, IT TIES IN WITH THE CROWDS FOR THE EVENT YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS, NOT JUST FIFTH AVENUE ITSELF, BUT THERE WERE SOME PHOTOS THAT SHOWED THE SIDEWALKS WHICH WERE OPEN, NOT PART OF THE EVENT, SPACES THAT WERE STILL SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, CROWDS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO EITHER MOVE AROUND THE EVENT, CIRCUMVENT THE EVENT, OR VISIT ANY OF THE LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND STORES.

I'LL TELL YOU CANDIDLY, WHEN IT COMES TO OUR OFFICERS PROVIDING SECURITY, WE RELY ON AERIAL IMAGES FROM EITHER OUR DRONES OR FROM OUR SECOND STORY VANTAGE POINTS AND OFFICERS WALKING IN THE ALLEYS OUTSIDE THE EVENT.

WE CANNOT GET THROUGH THE CROWDS. LAST YEAR WE HAD AN EVENT WHERE A CAR CAUGHT FIRE.

LUCKILY, IT WAS AT 4:00 WHEN THE EVENT WAS ENDING AND PEOPLE WERE MOVING TO THE SPACES TO SEE THE CARS LEAVE.

OFFICERS HAPPENED TO BE POSTED RIGHT THERE. WERE ABLE TO PUT THAT FIRE OUT.

IF THAT FIRE HAD OCCURRED AT NOON OR 1:00 OR 2:00, I DON'T THINK THE OFFICERS WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THERE IN TIME.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STAYED STAGES, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THERE IN TIME TO.

WE HAVE BEEN BLESSED AND LUCKY IN THE PAST AND GOOD LUCK IS NOT GOOD TACTICS WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING.

ALL WE NEED IS FOR A BALLOON TO POP. SOMEONE TO HAVE A MEDICAL INCIDENT IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE CROWDS AND WE MIGHT HAVE A TRAGEDY BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THERE IN TIME.

JUST PEOPLE PANICKING FOR A LOUD BANG WOULD BE ENOUGH TO CAUSE INJURIES THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE A MASS CASUALTY INCIDENT TO RECTIFY.

THE OTHER ISSUE WITH THE CROWDS MR. MERRITT TOUCHED UPON IS THE CELL PHONE OVERWHELMING THE SYSTEM.

THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE DOWN THERE THAT OUR PHONES AND WE HAVE PRIORITY ACCESS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONES.

OUR PHONES ARE NOT WORKING. WE CAN'T ACCESS THE NETWORK.

AND WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE OUR SOFTWARE AND THE EQUIPMENT WE USE FOR ISSUING CITATIONS SHUTS DOWN AROUND 11 A.M.

BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET ONLINE ANYMORE. SO WE SWITCHED TO HANDWRITTEN TICKETS, NOT SO MUCH AN ISSUE FOR THE EVENT ITSELF, BUT THE RESIDENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS THAT NO LONGER HAVE LANDLINE PHONES NOW HAVE NO COMMUNICATION SERVICES AT ALL.

AND THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR US. AND I'M SURE IT'S A PROBLEM FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WE CANNOT GET PRIORITY PHONE CALLS FROM PEOPLE IF THEY NEED TO MAKE THEM.

THE OTHER ITEM MR. MERRITT MENTIONED WAS THE EXIT PLANS.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS, THIS WAS THE 2023 EXIT.

NO CHANGES MADE. THIS IS HOW IT WAS FOR YEARS.

HOWEVER, THIS WAS THE MOST IMPACTFUL YEAR. 2023 ROLLING THUNDER.

THE DOT. WE HAD TO EXPLAIN TO THEM AFTERWARDS WHY WE HAD TO SHUT DOWN US 41 AND GOODLETTE ROAD AS WELL FOR 40 MINUTES TO ALLOW THIS.

YOU CAN SEE ALL THE FOLKS STANDING IN THE TOP TWO PICTURES IN THE INTERSECTION ITSELF.

WE DIDN'T LET THEM GO THERE. WE DIDN'T TELL THEM TO GO THERE.

HOWEVER, WE COULDN'T GET THEM OUT OF THE ROADWAY.

SO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, WE HAD TO SHUT THE ROADWAYS DOWN.

WE HAD TO HAVE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COME IN AND SHUT DOWN GOODLETTE ROAD ACCESS AND US 41 EAST ACCESS INTO THE CITY.

SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TWO WAY TRAFFIC COMING DOWN THE STREETS.

THESE PHOTOS ON THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE BACKUP ON US 41 JUST AFTER WE INITIATED THE SHUTDOWN.

THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHY WE HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE COMING OUT INTO THE CROWDS, COMING OUT INTO THE MEDIAN TO WATCH THE CARS EXIT.

SO. IN 2025, WE MOVED THE ROLLING THUNDER EXIT TO THIRD STREET SOUTH, THINKING WE WOULD REMOVE US 41 FROM THE EQUATION. WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD BEFORE.

AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE PHOTOS, ALL WE DID WAS TRANSFER THE PROBLEM.

ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SEE THE SHOW AND IT IS A GREAT SHOW.

JUST MOVED TO THE THIRD STREET INTERSECTION, CROWDED INTO THE INTERSECTION, BY THE WAY, WHICH WAS OPEN AT THE TIME AS WELL.

SO WE HAD NORTH AND SOUTH TRAFFIC WHILE ALL THE CARS WERE TRYING TO EXIT FOLLOWING THE LIGHTS.

WE LEARNED THERE THE CROWDS ARE TOO LARGE. WE CANNOT CONTROL THEM ONCE THE EXIT STARTS.

SO LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE. WE PUT ALTERNATE STREET EXITS EVERY SIDE STREET, THIRD STREET, FOURTH STREET, FIFTH STREET, SIXTH STREET, EIGHTH STREET.

ALL THE VEHICLES FROM THE SHOW EXITED THOSE SIDE STREETS.

WE HAD THE FASTEST AND SAFEST EXIT, YET. WE DIDN'T HAVE HUGE CROWDS AT ANY ONE INTERSECTION, EXCEPT AS YOU SEE HERE AT EIGHTH STREET, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE FERRARIS EXITING.

THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S WITHIN THE CLOSED AREA. WE CAN CONTROL THE CROWDS.

WE CAN PROTECT THE CROWDS ONCE THEY LEAVE THE EVENT VENUE.

[05:35:02]

WE CAN'T CONTROL THEM. THE IDEA OF IMPLEMENTING ROLLING THUNDER, EVEN IN PART FOR THIS NEXT YEAR'S EVENT, IS GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE. WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

THEY WILL NOT AUTHORIZE IT IF AN EVENT APPLICATION IS RECEIVED FROM THEM TO SHUT DOWN THE ROADS.

THEY WILL NOT AUTHORIZE IT IF IT HAPPENS ORGANICALLY, EVEN IF IT'S APPROVED.

I CAN TELL YOU QUITE HONESTLY, WE WILL SHUT THE INTERSECTION DOWN AGAIN UNTIL WE GET ALL THE PEOPLE OUT OF IT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO STOP THE EXIT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT THE SIDE STREETS ANYWAY.

WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THE OPEN ROADWAYS, BECAUSE THAT'S PART AND PARCEL TO SAFETY, TOO. PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE TOWN. THE PREVIOUS YEARS, THEY WERE JUST LOCKED IN THERE.

WE'VE TRIED USING THE LIGHT CYCLES AT THAT LOCATION AS WELL.

THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. IT'S NOT THE TRAFFIC CAUSED BY THE EXITING CARS, IT'S THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM THE VISITORS.

THOSE ARE OUR TWO MAIN CONCERNS. FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN BRINGING UP THE CONCERNS AND EACH YEAR WE GET MORE AND MORE VISITORS THAT COME TO THESE EVENTS. WE GET MORE AND MORE PARKING PROBLEMS THIS YEAR.

I KNOW WE DID OUR JOB WELL BECAUSE WE GOT COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE WHO GOT PARKING CITATIONS, AND WE GOT COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS WHO SAID WE DIDN'T WRITE ENOUGH PARKING CITATIONS.

SO I ANTICIPATE IF IT'S APPROVED, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE SAME THING AGAIN.

OUR OFFICERS LOVE THE EVENT. THEY LOVE WORKING THE EVENT.

IT'S BEAUTIFUL WEATHER, IT'S BEAUTIFUL SIGHTS, AND THEY LOVE BEING NICE TO PEOPLE, NOT MEAN TO PEOPLE.

UNFORTUNATELY, OUR DUTY IS ALSO TO INFORM YOU WE FEEL THIS IS AN UNSAFE EVENT AND IT'S NOT TENABLE FOR THIS SPACE ANYMORE GIVEN THE CROWDS.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? MR.. NO, I MEAN, I THINK FROM FROM OUR SIDE, YOU KNOW, WE SIT HERE AND WE TRY TO EVALUATE AND WE TRY TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE EVENTS. AND AGAIN, WE SAY IT OVER AND OVER.

WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF EVENTS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH APPLICATIONS AND TRY TO DETERMINE, OKAY, IS THIS ONE GOING TO IS IT SAFE ONE? THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

CAN IT HAPPEN IN THE THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT? AND WE GO THROUGH THAT AND WE TRY TO COME UP WITH WAYS THAT WE CAN MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

AND I FEEL THAT STAFF HAS DONE THAT FOR YEARS.

WE'VE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT ALTERNATES. YOU KNOW, WE CAME UP WITH IT WAS OUR IDEA TO, TO TRY TO PUT THEM INTO CAMBIER PARK.

WE SAID, OKAY, THIS ISN'T WORKING. SO NOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A DIFFERENT SOLUTION.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE GET PUSHBACK BECAUSE THE EVENT ORGANIZER DOESN'T WANT TO MAKE THE CHANGE THERE.

SO EVERY TIME THAT WE, WE GO TO TRY TO MAKE SOME OF THESE CHANGES IT BECOMES A THING.

WE SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS DEALING WITH ONE EVENT LIKE THIS AND IT IT TAKES A STRAIN AND IT IS IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE OTHER EVENTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH. WHEN IT OCCUPIES A LOT OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE DOING.

YES. THIS IS ONE OF THE, I'D SAY, ONE OF THE LARGEST EVENTS THAT WE HAVE.

BUT AGAIN, THERE'S AN ERA OF, OF HOW THIS HAS PROGRESSED.

AND I THINK WE HAVE EXCEEDED THAT ERA WHERE THIS EVENT HAS EXCEEDED THE SPACE IN WHICH IT'S IN.

AND IT WOULD IF THERE'S A DESIRE FOR THE ORGANIZER TO CONTINUE AT THIS LEVEL OR POTENTIALLY GO HIGHER THAN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION. IF THIS WANTS TO BE CUT IN HALF. WHEN YOU LOOK AT FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, PARKING CAPACITY ON FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH ON A NORMAL DAY IS 200 180 200 CARS JUST ON FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH. SO IN THIS EVENT, WE PUT, YOU KNOW, ESTIMATED, I WOULD SAY THREE, 400 CARS IN HERE LINED UP JUST ON FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

AND THEN YOU TRY TO SQUEEZE 2000 PEOPLE IN THE SPACE BETWEEN THOSE CARS.

IT'S PROBLEMATIC. AND WE, I HOPE THAT IF THIS CONTINUES, I HOPE WE KEEP HAVING GOOD LUCK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND I HOPE NOTHING EVER HAPPENS.

BUT I THINK THIS IS A PROACTIVE MEASUREMENT AT THIS POINT TO SAY THIS THING IS, HAS DEFINITELY EXCEEDED.

AND WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR IT TO GO.

THANK YOU. I. APPRECIATE O'REILLY EXPRESSING HIS CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY.

SAFETY IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AND OUR SPECIAL EVENTS.

AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW THAT, YOU KNOW, IT GETS LARGER AND YOU'RE I DO SEE THAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR SOLUTIONS. AND I'M GOING TO MR. REARDON.

IF I WERE YOU, I'D FEEL LIKE I WAS ON THE HOT SEAT. SO I WANT YOU TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, EITHER WE CAN FIND SOLUTIONS OR WE CAN'T. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'LL TRY AND DO TODAY.

[05:40:03]

I DON'T SEE THE APPLICATION. MR. MERRITT, WAS THERE AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED? SAID AGAIN. SORRY. I'M SORRY. WAS THERE AN APPLICATION FOR THIS YEAR? BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED, I LIKE THE SOFTBALL FIELD.

AND YEAH, IT'S IT'S IN HERE. IT'S ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS HERE.

SO THE ISSUE IS, IS THE APPLICATION. THE ORGANIZER PUT NO PLAN CHANGES, WHICH WAS WHAT I WAS SAYING AT THE BEGINNING IS THERE'S SEVERAL CHANGES.

ONE IS HE'S TRYING TO GO BACK TO DOING THE EXIT ON 41.

HE'S ALSO WANTING TO ADD THE, THE AFTER DINING SPACE DINNER.

HE'S ALSO GOT THE YOU KNOW, WE ASKED WE NOT HAVE IT ON SOFTBALL FIELD, SO HE'S ASKING TO USE THE MCCABE LOT AGAIN IF WE DON'T DO THE SOFTBALL FIELD. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CHANGES.

AND YEAH, SO LET'S START WITH THE SOFTBALL FIELD BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS ANOTHER EVENT THAT COULDN'T USE THE SOFTBALL FIELD BECAUSE OF THIS EXACT REASON.

CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS THAT WE TOOK A, A FORMAL POLICY.

WE DIDN'T TAKE A POLICY ON WHETHER TO USE THE SOFTBALL FIELD OR NOT.

YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE DIRECTOR HAS THE DECISION ON WHETHER HOW THE SPACES ARE USED, IF THERE'S NEGATIVE IMPACT, IF WE'RE USING IT FOR SOMETHING IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE SAID, HEY, LET'S TRY IT OUT. AND I KNOW YEARS BEFORE I GOT HERE, THEY HAD THE NAPLES OPERA THAT WAS IN THERE. IT DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WE WERE GETTING A LOT OF DAMAGE ON THERE.

SO HERE WE ARE WITH WE HAD CARS ON FIFTH IN THERE.

WE'RE GETTING DAMAGE ON THE FIELD. WE MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE NAPLES GIRLS SOFTBALL THAT IT IS A SOFTBALL FIELD, AND WE SIGNED ANOTHER AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO USE THE SOFTBALL FIELD.

AND WE'RE HAVING TO PUSH THEM AWAY FROM SOFTBALL FIELD.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THESE REPAIRS AND THE DAMAGES THAT ARE DONE TO IT OVER AND OVER.

WHEN YOU MANAGE A FIELD, IT'S VERY, VERY SENSITIVE WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS THAT YOU PUT ON THERE.

NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT JUST HAVING CARS, WHEN WE FIRST THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SOME CARS OUT THERE AND THEN WE'LL BE DONE.

BUT THEN WE WE STARTED HAVING BOATS AND RVS, AND THEN YOU GOT THE RESTROOM TRAILER THAT COMES IN.

THEN YOU HAVE THESE BIG GIANT CEMENT BLOCKS BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE TENTS THAT GO IN THERE.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT ALL THE CARS COMING IN, YOU'VE GOT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A VIP AREA THAT I WOULD SAY IT HAD TO HAVE DOUBLED FROM WHAT I SAW THE FIRST YEAR I WAS AT HERE, AND WE SAW IT IN THE MCCABE LOT.

SO THE SOFTBALL FIELD JUST CANNOT TAKE THAT KIND OF CAPACITY WITH IF WE'RE PLANNING TO USE IT.

BECAUSE EVEN WHEN WE ROLL THAT FIELD IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE AGAIN BECAUSE IT SETTLES.

RIGHT. SO JUST WE'LL JUST TAKE THE SOFTBALL FIELD.

WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO MAKE IT SAFER.

I HEAR YOU. THERE'S ANOTHER SPECIAL EVENT THAT GOT DENIED THE SOFTBALL FIELD.

CORRECT. SO, MR. REARDON, IF WE CAN JUST TRY AND LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND COME TO ANY RESOLVE, IF POSSIBLE, WHAT WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU DIDN'T USE THE SOFTBALL FIELD? I GUESS IT WOULD IT BE FAIR FOR ME JUST TO TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS IN GENERAL.

YES YOU CAN. IF YES, FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS 21 YEARS OLD, SOMEBODY CONVINCED ME TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL IN MY LITTLE TOWN, AND I LOST. AND I'M REALLY GLAD I LOST.

BUT I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO DO SIT THROUGH SOME OF THESE THINGS.

SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU KNOW, PART OF WHAT I TRY TO DO EVERY YEAR IS I'M A CONSENSUS BUILDER.

I HAVE THROUGH MY ENTIRE CAREER, ACTUALLY, WE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT YESTERDAY ABOUT SOME PEOPLE WE KNEW IN MY CAREER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SO WHAT I DO HERE IS VERY SIMPLE.

IF I HAVE AN IDEA, I'M GOING TO GO UP AND DOWN FIFTH AVENUE, TALK TO THE MERCHANTS, TALK TO THE RESTAURANTS, TRY TO FIND OUT IF THIS WORK OR NOT WORK. I DO IT BEFORE I DO IT.

AFTERWARDS, I FIND OUT HOW HOW THE SHOW IMPACTS THEM.

SOMETIMES YOU RUN INTO SOMEONE WHERE YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T GET THE MESSAGE THAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.

BUT YOU KNOW, I WANT TO KNOW HOW IT IMPACTS THEM.

ONE OF THE REASONS WE DID THE DRIVE OFF IS IT USED TO TAKE US A COUPLE OF HOURS TO GET ALL THE CARS OFF THE STREET, BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO LEAVE. THEY JUST WANTED TO STAY THERE, STAY FOR DINNER. SO THE DRIVE OFF ACTUALLY WAS SOMETHING WE PUT TOGETHER TO ORGANIZE EXIT, AND WE GOT THE CARS OFF VERY, VERY QUICKLY. WE TWEAKED IT A COUPLE TIMES.

I AGREED WITH WITH LIEUTENANT O'REILLY THAT IT'S DANGEROUS WHEN WE BRING ALL THE CARS OUT ON 41.

YOU SAW THE PICTURES. WE AGREED WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

[05:45:04]

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE'S A THERE'S A 30 CARS THAT ARE THAT ARE IN THE BLOCK BETWEEN EIGHTH STREET AND, AND 41 THAT HAVE ALWAYS EXITED AT THE LIGHT. WE DON'T SHUT THE STREET DOWN.

THEY JUST WHEN THE LIGHT CHANGES, THEY LEAVE 15 MINUTES EARLY.

THEY KNOW THE DRILL. THEY'VE BEEN IN THAT SAME SPOT FOR, I THINK 15 OR 16 YEARS.

AND SO THEY JUST AT THE LIGHT, THEY ALSO PARK A DUMP TRUCK.

ONE OF THE GUYS IS IN THE TRUCK BUSINESS. HE PUTS A DUMP TRUCK IN THE OUTBOUND LANE.

THAT'S OUR OUR BARRICADE FOR COMING OUT. SO THEY ACTUALLY THE.

HE MOVES THE DUMP TRUCK AND THEN AS THE LIGHT CHANGED, THE 34 I THINK IT WAS CARS LAST YEAR LEFT.

ONE THING I'LL SAY IS THAT WE YOU KNOW OUR MEETING PRE MEETING FOR THE SHOW, WHICH PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN DECEMBER.

EVERYBODY'S BUSY. WE HAD 17 DAYS BEFORE THE SHOW.

NOW IT'S SIGNIFICANT IN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TRAINED 400 VOLUNTEERS FOR THE CHARITY TO GO OUT FOR ALL THE GATES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

WE START IN DECEMBER. I HAVE 100 OF MY OWN VOLUNTEERS.

I HAVE TO TRAIN. SO IT'S REALLY TOUGH WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES.

NOT THAT THEY'RE BAD OR THEY'RE WRONG TO GET THE WORD OUT TO EVERYONE.

AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS, YOU CAN SEND EMAILS. AND SO WE STRUGGLE WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE, IF WE GO FORWARD, THAT WE TRY TO DO THIS EARLY BECAUSE ANY CHANGE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE, I HAVE TO GET THE WORD OUT TO REALLY 500 PEOPLE.

PLUS, WE HAVE PRIVATE SECURITY THAT WE BRING IN, AND THEY HAVE TO GET THE WORD AS WELL. SO.

THERE WAS THAT THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE OFF SITE PARKING WE EVERY YEAR WE'VE ADDED MORE BUSSES.

WE DO IT AT THE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS. I MEAN ANY, I MEAN PARKING FOR ANY TIME DOWNTOWN NAPLES IN SEASON IS A PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, GARAGES FILL UP QUICKLY. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A GREAT SOLUTION, BUT WE ADDED BUSSES EACH YEAR.

LAST YEAR WE HAD THREE DROP OFF POINTS FOR FOR RIDESHARE AND WE HAD BOTH LYFT AND UBER HERE SOME PLACES SO PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE TO PARK.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CHARITY, FRANKLY, WHEN EVEN WHEN I PUT THE PERMIT IN, I PUT THE PERMIT IN PRETTY MUCH RIGHT AFTER THE WRAP UP MEETING THAT WE HAD, IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT WE'D EVEN GET APPROVED FOR.

SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO PUT A PERMIT IN WHEN YOU'RE NOT SURE WHAT SPACE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE.

SO WE PUT IT IN FIGURING, ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO PUT IT IN LIKE WE HAD IT LAST YEAR, AND WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS OR SOMETHING'S GOING TO CHANGE.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE. WE BECAUSE WE'RE SET UP ON THE FIELD, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR OUR DINNER IN THE FIELD, UNDER THE TENTS. SO WHEN WHEN WE SUGGESTED THAT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE FIELD, I WAS NEVER TOLD WE COULDN'T USE THE FIELD. IT WAS SUGGESTED WE MAY NOT USE IT AND WE MIGHT CONSIDER MOVING TO TO PARK STREET.

I THOUGHT, WELL, MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TO DO IT ON PARK STREET. SO AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP.

SO WHEN YOU PUT THE PERMIT IN, IT'S HARD TO TO ENVISION WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO WIND UP.

IT'S NOT GOING TO PROBABLY ALIGN WITH ANYTHING WE DO. WE'RE NOT PLAYING GAMES WITH IT.

YOU TELL ME HOW YOU PUT A PERMIT IN WHEN YOU WHEN YOU'RE NOT REALLY SURE THE DIRECTION. SO PART OF THAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING THROUGH THIS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ON, ON WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, THE HISTORY.

YEAH, IT WAS 2020 CARS ON, ON THE BAYFRONT IS HOW IT STARTED.

IT WENT TO THIRD STREET AND THEN THE, THE, THE CITY ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD MOVE AND THE BID TO MOVE IT TO FIFTH AVENUE.

SO WE SORT OF GOT INVITED THERE, MUCH LIKE WE WERE ASKED TO MOVE FROM PHIL MCCABE'S LOT TO THE BALL FIELD.

WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT ON THE BALL FIELD? SO WE WE WENT ALONG WITH IT ACTUALLY HAD SOME CHALLENGES THE FIRST YEAR, GOT THROUGH MOST OF IT. YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS AGREED IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT. LET US KNOW. WE'LL FIX IT.

YOU KNOW, EVEN IN OUR WRAP UP MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT WE ROLL THE FIELD FOR THEM WHEN WE PULL OUT OF THERE.

AND WE SAID, YEAH, IF YOU WANT US TO DO THAT, WE'LL DO THAT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF IDEAS SHARED OVER THE YEARS. IF WE WENT BACK, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR MOST OF THE, OF THE 23 YEARS THE SHOW HAS BEEN GOING ON. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD SOME IDEAS THROWN AT US.

SOMETIMES WE TRY THEM, SOMETIMES THEY WORKED, SOMETIMES THEY HAVEN'T.

WE'VE HAD. WHEN DANA AND MIKE WERE HERE, THEIR THOUGHT WAS TO EXPAND THE SHOW.

GO. WE WENT UP TO THIRD, THIRD AVENUE. WE WENT DOWN TO SEVENTH AVENUE AND THEY THOUGHT THAT WOULD SPREAD THE CROWD OUT.

ULTIMATELY IT REALLY. I DON'T THINK IT WORKED.

YOU KNOW THERE'S A NOTION THAT WE CONTINUE TO EXPAND THE SHOW.

WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN EXPANDING THE SHOW. WE WE DON'T WANT IT ANY BIGGER.

WE DON'T. AND WE, CANDIDLY, ALL OF US WOULD LIKE FAR LESS PEOPLE.

THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK IN 2017 OR 18, I BROUGHT UP THE CITY COUNCIL THAT YOU COULD CLOSE THE STREETS.

IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE CROWD, YOU CAN DO IT. I CITED IN THE PERMIT, THE STATUTE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO IT.

IT'S DONE IN ORLANDO. IT'S DONE IN MIAMI CONCOURSE, WHERE THEY'VE HAD SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES.

THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CROWD SIZE. THEY SHUT THE STREET DOWN SO IT CAN BE DONE.

[05:50:05]

IF YOU'RE A CAR OWNER YOU KNOW, I WAS TALKING BECAUSE ONE OF THE CONSENSUS THINGS SOMEBODY TOLD ME LAST YEAR, TALK TO THE OLD NAPLES ASSOCIATION. SO I REACHED OUT TO MAYOR YOUNG. SHE WAS THE PRESIDENT, SUPPOSEDLY.

THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. AND SHE SAID SHE LOVES THE SHOW.

HER HUSBAND SHOWS HER CAR AND I KNEW HER HUSBAND.

HE'S GOT A DIFFERENT NAME. AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE LOVE THE SHOW. WE JUST DON'T WANT IT TO GET ANY BIGGER.

AND I SAID, I DON'T WANT IT ANY BIGGER. I JUST WANT LESS PEOPLE THERE.

AND THAT WAS THEIR FEELING TOO. IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION, WHICH I OFFERED UP AN IDEA THAT I KIND OF RAN THROUGH A BUNCH OF THE PEOPLE ON THE MERCHANTS. THE MERCHANTS WERE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IDEA OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF TICKETS THEY THEY DON'T BELIEVE.

ACTUALLY, MANY PEOPLE GO DOWN TO FIFTH AVENUE DURING CARS ON FIFTH JUST TO HAVE LUNCH OR GO SHOPPING.

YOU CAN'T PARK, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO EAT, GET A RESERVATION.

SO THEY KIND OF BELIEVED THAT. BUT THEY ALSO THINK THAT MAYBE SOME OF THEM DO.

SO I SAID, WELL, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS THAT WE COULD GIVE THEM OUT. WE COULD SELL THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE FOR DINER SHOPPERS, PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING DOWN FOR THAT.

AND THE IDEA WAS SIMPLE, YOU PAY $10 FOR IT. SO IT'S A LITTLE SKIN IN THE GAME.

THE $10 WOULD GO BACK TO THE CITY, BACK TO THE BACK TO THE BID, BACK TO PARKS, WHATEVER.

I HAD SOMEONE THAT WOULD MATCH THE $10. SO NOW IF YOU, LET'S SAY WE SOLD 5000 TICKETS.

YOU'D HAVE $50,000 MATCHED WITH ANOTHER $50,000, YOU HAVE $100,000 COMING BACK.

AND THE BASIC NOTION IS THAT PEOPLE, ANYONE THAT HAD A DINER WRISTBAND THEY PAID $10 FOR AND THEY WENT INTO A PARTICIPATING RETAILER OR RESTAURANT AND SPENT 100 BUCKS.

THEY GET THEIR $10 BACK, WHICH YOU COULD DO MULTIPLE TIMES.

YOU COULD DO IT, YOU KNOW, GO TO GO TO THE JEWELRY STORE, YOU CAN GO TO A RESTAURANT.

SO YOU ACTUALLY WOULD GET YOUR MONEY BACK. SO IT'S KIND OF A SOMETHING THAT SORT OF FELT GOOD.

THE FEELING THAT WHEN I ASKED PEOPLE ABOUT IT AND TALK TO THE MERCHANTS ABOUT IT, THEY, THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO HOLD ON TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM. I DON'T ANY SOLUTION TO REDUCE THE CROWD, I THINK, WOULD MAKE US ALL HAPPY.

THIS WAS ONE THAT I CAME UP WITH, SEEMED TO SEEM TO GET SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME GOOD FEELINGS ABOUT IT, BUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL ALL THE PEOPLE COMING IN.

IT'S A SIX HOUR SHOW. WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE OF CONTROLLING THE CROWD.

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. THERE'S NO WAY. IF WE HAVE TO LET EVERYONE IN.

AND THIS DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF JOKE ABOUT IT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S SORT OF LIKE WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO LIMIT THE CROWD, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY IN. IT KIND OF WORK IN CONTRAST WITH EACH OTHER.

YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT WE HAVE AND WE'VE DONE THIS, THIS CAME UP IN 15 YEARS AGO, WE WERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A FIRE LANE DOWN FIFTH AVENUE.

AND IF YOU LOOK THE WAY WE PARKED THE CARS, YOU CAN DRIVE AND YOU CAN LOOK AT ANY VIDEO THERE'S THERE'S GOING TO BE 12 OR 13FT FROM ANY ONE CAR TO THE OTHER CAR OR ATTEMPT ANYTHING. SO YOU COULD GET A FIRE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE WAY, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE DONE THAT FOREVER WITH THE IDEA THAT IF YOU EVER HAD TO ACCESS IT, YOU COULD DO THAT.

WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY. YOU KNOW, OUR OUR SECURITY COSTS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAVE GONE FROM WHAT USED TO BE ABOUT 8500 TO LAST YEAR, ABOUT 125,000. SOME OF IT'S PD, SOME OF ITS SWAT FROM THE COUNTY.

SOME OF IT'S OUR PRIVATE SECURITY. SOME OF IT IS.

WE DID BRING IN A WI-FI SYSTEM TO. ACTUALLY, YOU COULD MAKE WI-FI CALLS OFF OF IT.

IT DIDN'T WORK AS WELL THIS YEAR AS IT DID LAST YEAR, BUT WE SPENT $25,000 SO THAT YOU COULD MAKE PHONE CALLS WITH A, YOU KNOW, A QR CODE OFF OF THE OFF OF THE SCREEN.

SO WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED. MY WHOLE FAMILY IS LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SO I HAVE A GUY ON MY BOARD THAT WAS HEAD OF SECURITY AT JFK AIRPORT AND ALSO AT AT LAGUARDIA.

SO WE ALWAYS LOOK AT THE STUFF AND, BUT WE'RE NOT AWARE.

EVERYTHING THE POLICE RUN INTO, THEY SEE THINGS WE DON'T KNOW.

THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, RISK ISSUES THAT COME UP. BUT WE TALK ABOUT IT.

WE TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT. WE DID CHANGE. WE'VE CHANGED THE THE EXIT A NUMBER OF TIMES.

I MEAN, IN 2025, IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE WE HAD AN EXIT PLAN AND 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE EXIT PLAN CHANGED, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY FOR US BECAUSE I'VE GOT 30 PAID SECURITY PEOPLE AND 100 VOLUNTEERS THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS OR THIS, AND WE WOUND UP, BUT BUT WE STILL GOT ALL THE CARS OUT SAFELY.

ALL THE CARS GOT OUT THIS YEAR. EVERY SINGLE CAR WAS OFF THE STREET IN 28 MINUTES.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD, AND I THINK THIS COMES DOWN TO THE MEETING 17 DAYS BEFORE THE SHOW, AFTER WE TRAINED EVERYBODY, SOME OF THE STUFF THAT I THOUGHT WAS SAID.

I HAD A COUPLE PEOPLE IN THE MEETING. WE THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS. IN TURN, I AMENDED THE MAPS, THE EXIT PLAN, AND SENT THEM BACK. I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING.

THE ARCHER PLAN IS DONE BY MERIDIAN, WHICH IS THE VEHICLE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN.

WE TWEAKED IT A LITTLE BIT, I THOUGHT. AND CHAD, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THOUGHT YOU WERE THE ONE THAT WANTED TO KEEP GAMBIER PARKWAY OPEN.

I REMEMBER YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PIZZA SHOP AND ALL THAT, SO I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP IT OPEN. LIEUTENANT O'RILEY,

[05:55:04]

I THINK HE'S STILL HERE. RIGHT. HE THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED, BUT WE, I AND ONE OF THE GUYS, WE LOOKED AT OUR NOTES AND THOUGHT WE WE THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OPEN.

WE WERE NOT USING THE PARK, YOU KNOW, SO WE DIDN'T NEED THAT END OF.

OF IT OPEN, BUT IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER. WE HAD ARCHERS THERE.

THE COST IS MINIMAL WHEN YOU START BRINGING EVERYTHING IN.

BUT IT WASN'T WHERE LIEUTENANT O'REILLY THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.

WE DID THOUGH. I SENT THE PLAN TO MERIDIAN BECAUSE THEY DO THE PLAN.

THEY SIGN OFF ON IT. THEY HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICER.

THEY SIGN OFF ON IT AND THEY SEND IT BACK. AND THEN WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING.

BUT THE PLAN THAT WENT BACK WAS THE ONE THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.

SO IT DIDN'T REALLY CAUSE ANY ISSUES. I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT WHAT LIEUTENANT O'REILLY EXPECTED.

BUT I ALSO SENT IT MYSELF. THEY SENT IT DIRECTLY TO TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I SENT IT AS WELL.

SO I THOUGHT WE HAD DONE THE RIGHT THING. BUT WHETHER IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION, WHETHER I SCREWED UP, BUT I DID MAKE SURE WE TRIED TO GET IT BACK TO EVERYONE THAT NEEDED TO SEE IT.

SO AND YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT. WE DON'T, I DON'T CARE WHERE THE ARCHERS ARE.

WE WERE THE FIRST ONES TO DEPLOY THESE IN A BIG WAY THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

WE'VE CHANGED IT, WE'VE TWEAKED IT. WE'VE PUT ARCHERS ON THE SIDEWALKS.

WHEN I REALIZED CARS COULD DRIVE ON THE SIDEWALK, WE PUT THEM NOW ON THE SIDEWALK TO MAKE SURE NOBODY CAN GET IN.

AND YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE CHARITIES, ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THREE CANDIDATES FOR CHARITY.

THE CHARITIES LOVE THIS THING. SO WE HAVE THREE CANDIDATES.

THE PROBLEM IS, UNTIL THEY KNOW REALLY WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE SHOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO IF WE'RE GOING TO SHUT THE STREETS DOWN, I NEED FAR LESS VOLUNTEERS.

IF THE STREETS ARE CLOSED THAN THEY DO IF THE STREETS ARE OPEN.

AND SO IT TAKES OUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT LIKE WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE OBVIOUSLY YET, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, YOU NEED ABOUT 400 VOLUNTEERS. THAT TAKES OUT AN AWFUL LOT OF CHARITIES.

SO WE'VE GOT SOME THAT CAN HANDLE THE 400 ON THE LIST, AND WE'VE GOT SOME THAT CAN PROBABLY HANDLE 150.

THEY'RE ALL GOOD CHARITIES. THEY'RE ALL COLLIER COUNTY BASED CHARITIES.

BUT I CAN'T PICK A CHARITY UNTIL I KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.

BUT WE CAN PICK IT AS SOON AS WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND WE'RE HAVING GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.

YOU KNOW, ONE THING, AND I KNOW I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS ONE ON ONE.

IT'S NOT MUCH HAS REALLY CHANGED WITH THE SHOW OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS.

IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING. THE FOOTPRINT HAS GOTTEN SMALLER. IF YOU WENT BACK TWO YEARS AGO OR THREE YEARS AGO, WE DID ALL OF ALL OF EIGHTH STREET FROM THIRD, ALL THE WAY DOWN.

WE HAD ALL OF CAMBIER PARK. WE USED IN 2025, WE USED CAMBIER PARK.

THIS YEAR WE CHOSE NOT TO USE CAMBIER PARK. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT FOR.

FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA WAS TO SPREAD OUT THE CROWD AND IT DIDN'T REALLY WORK THAT WELL. WE JUST HAD COST AND CAMBIER PARK IS STILL DIFFICULT TO SECURE RIGHT NOW, SO WE DIDN'T REALLY USE IT. WE TOOK THAT OUT OF THE OUT OF THE MIX OF WHAT WAS IN OUR APPLICATION AND DIDN'T, DIDN'T USE IT. BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE TRY EVERYTHING WE CAN TO, TO COMPLY, WE TALK WITH EVERYBODY.

WE PROBABLY NEED TO MEET A LITTLE MORE OFTEN OR A LITTLE EARLIER, I THINK IN THE PROCESS WOULD HELP.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE VICE MAYOR ASKED ME TO SEND, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SHARED ANY OF THAT STUFF I SENT OVER TO YOU, BUT YOU HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THE FINANCIALS. YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM WITH FIFTH CARS ON FIFTH ITSELF IS THE FINANCIALS HAVE BEEN GOING LIKE THIS.

THE NET HAS BEEN GOING DOWN. THIS IS WHY SAINT MATTHEW'S HOUSE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT ANYMORE.

THEY WERE NERVOUS ABOUT THE BIG EVENTS LIKE THE JAY LENO THING, WHICH ACTUALLY YOU SAW THE NUMBERS.

THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE MONEY WAS RAISED WITH THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF CARS ON FIFTH.

BUT CARS ON FIFTH IS THE ANCHOR FOR EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, SO YOU YOU CAN'T DO THE JET PORT UNLESS YOU DO CARS ON FIFTH.

YOU DON'T DO A CAR ENTERTAINER LIKE JAY LENO WHO NETTED, I THINK SOMEWHERE YOU SAW THE NUMBERS.

I THINK IT WAS $900,000 AND ALL THE THINGS THAT HE THAT WE DID WITH HIM THAT HE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE.

BUT CARS ON FIFTH NET CONTINUES TO GO DOWN. AND ACTUALLY, IN REALITY, THIS YEAR WE ACTUALLY LOST A LITTLE MONEY ON IT.

WE DON'T CARE. BUT IN THAT MIX, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, I BUY MY OWN TICKETS.

I MEAN, I PUT ON THE EVENT, I SPENT $9,000 ON TICKETS FOR THE EVENT.

I HAVE PEOPLE COME DOWN FROM NEW JERSEY TO HELP ME. I BOUGHT TICKETS TO THE DEL MAR THING.

I BOUGHT TICKETS TO THE JETPORT. SO IT GOES RIGHT TO CHARITY, OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT'S.

I BUY TICKETS TO MY OWN EVENT. I GAVE $50,000 TO TO SAINT MATTHEW'S HOUSE AFTER WE KIND OF WENT OUR SEPARATE WAYS.

I STILL BELIEVE IN SAINT MATTHEW'S HOUSE THIS YEAR. I GAVE $50,000 OF MY OWN MONEY TO TO HABITAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M ACTUALLY PUTTING STUFF INTO THIS TO TRY TO MAKE IT WORK.

AND I'M NOT LOOKING FOR ANY CREDIT. THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

WE DO THIS FOR CHARITY. THE THING THAT REALLY MADE IT TAKE OFF WAS THE FACT THAT WE WERE TIED INTO CHARITIES.

AND WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO DO THAT. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE YOU KNOW, WE GOT INVITED.

I KNOW I TALKED TO A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS, BUT WE HAD A FEW PEOPLE COME DOWN FROM A COUPLE OTHER CITIES IN FLORIDA ON THE WEST COAST

[06:00:02]

THAT WANT US TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS WITH THEM.

AND SO WE STARTED TO LOOK AT WHAT MAKES CARS ON FIFTHS UNIQUE, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE TOP FIVE CAR EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT AND SAY, WHAT IS IT THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT IT? AND MOST CAR SHOWS I'VE BEEN GOING TO CAR SHOWS SINCE I WAS A LITTLE KID.

MOST CAR SHOWS ARE DUDES TALKING TO DUDES. I CALL IT.

IT'S A GUY WITH A CAR AND SOME GUY WANTS TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT HIS CAR.

AND IT'S JUST TWO GUYS, YOU KNOW? AND THE WHOLE SHOW IS DUDES TALKING TO OTHER DUDES.

THIS SHOW IS NOT LIKE THAT. THIS IS ACTUALLY VERY FAMILY.

IT'S VERY HUSBAND WIFE ORIENTED. SO THIS IS WHY THE RESTAURANTS DO WELL.

THIS IS THE WOMEN LIKE TO SHOP AND IT'S THE VENUE.

IT'S FIFTH AVENUE ITSELF THAT MAKES IT SPECIAL.

AND IT'S THE CROWD THAT WE ACTUALLY BRING TO IT.

BUT IT'S JUST A MIX OF EVERYTHING. SO AS WE STARTED LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE OTHER PLACES PEOPLE WANTED TO GO, ONE OF THEM WAS TAMPA.

TAMPA DIDN'T FIT VERY WELL, BUT SAINT PETE DID BECAUSE IT'S VERY MUCH LIKE FIFTH AVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT YOU SEE HERE. SO IT'S HARD TO REPLICATE THAT.

IT'S HARD TO PICK THIS UP AND TAKE IT SOMEPLACE ELSE TO A PARK OR SOMETHING.

YOU CAN GO TO A CAR SHOW IN THE PARK EVERY WEEKEND FROM NOVEMBER TILL THE END OF APRIL.

AND IF YOU GO TO ANY SHOPPING CENTER, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A CAR SHOW.

IT'S NOT THIS, YOU KNOW, THESE CARS COME IN FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.

A LOT OF THE BEST CARS ARE COMING RIGHT, RIGHT OUT OF PORT ROYAL AND, AND ALKALINE SHORES AND A LOT, A LOT OF DOWNTOWN CARS. AND PEOPLE LIKE TO SHOW THEIR CARS.

ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE, I THINK ANY EVENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME HICCUPS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME THINGS I THINK THAT CAN SIMPLY BE AVOIDED IF WE TALK A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.

I'M PRETTY GOOD AT DOING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND SENDING THEM IN AND MAKING SURE EVERYBODY SEES THEM. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I SENT MAPS TO EVERYBODY, GOT SOME FEEDBACK. SOMETIMES THE FEEDBACK CONTRASTS WITH WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS.

WE DO SERVE A LOT OF MASTERS, AND THAT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY SOMETIMES WHEN ONE PERSON IN THE CITY SAYS THIS AND SOMEONE ELSE SAYS THAT.

SO WE RUN INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT. WE TRY TO WORK THOSE CONFLICTS OUT. BUT A LOT OF IT, I THINK IS REALLY GOES BACK TO IF WE START A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THERE'S REASONS WHY WE DO CERTAIN THINGS. YOU KNOW, WHY DO WE WANT THE CARS EXITING AT A SMALL GROUP OF CARS EXITING AT 41, BECAUSE I HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THE CARS IN IN THE MORNING.

AND SO I'D HAVE TO BRING THEM IN AT 41 AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING WHEN WE HAVE IT CLOSED, BECAUSE THE CARS HAVE TO COME IN BACK IN.

YOU CAN'T TURN THE CARS AROUND, SO YOU HAVE THEM COMING A CERTAIN WAY.

SO WE BRING THEM IN, YOU KNOW, COME DOWN EIGHTH STREET, TURN IN.

THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE SAME THING. THEY'VE EXITED THAT WAY EVERY YEAR FOR AS LONG AS THEY'VE BEEN THERE.

SO IT'S 34 CARS. NOBODY'S WAITING FOR THOSE CARS AT 41.

AND AGAIN THEY'RE JUST EXITING ON THE LIGHT. THEY LEAVE EARLY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE DO, BUT ANY OF THE THINGS CAN BE TWEAKED OR CHANGED. THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GET TO. IT'S NOT THAT IT WAS, IT'S NOT A GREAT EVENT.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE JUST FACED RIGHT NOW AS A COUNCIL WITH THE SAFETY CONCERNS, THE EXPANSION CONCERNS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY I STARTED WITH IF THE SHOW IS GOING TO CONTINUE, WHAT COULD WE DO? WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CONTINUALLY, YEAR AFTER YEAR, BECOME A PROBLEM FOR THE EVENT? YEAH. WELL, TO ME, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

IT'S IF WE HAD WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, WE KNOW HOW MANY TICKETS WE SOLD.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A CLAIM WE MADE. I KNOW HOW MANY.

I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU SAW THE NUMBERS. I SENT THEM TO YOU.

RIGHT. WE SOLD LESS THAN 15,000 TICKETS. THERE'S BEEN NUMBERS I'VE SEEN THAT ARE 35,000, I THINK, IN OUR FIRST MEETING. AND I THINK THERE WAS A 39,000 NUMBER THAT WE SAW AND WE SAW, I THINK THE MOST RECENT NUMBER IS 30.

IT'S SOME NUMBER ABOVE WHAT WE'RE ABLE, WHAT WE'RE SELLING.

IT'S PEOPLE THAT ARE SHOWING UP. THOSE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T PAYING.

ARE SOME OF THE PEOPLE PROBABLY PARKING ILLEGALLY BECAUSE IF THEY WON'T BOTHER TO PAY, THEY'RE NOT SPENDING ANY MONEY IN THE STORES. SO, YOU KNOW, THE SOLUTION THEY DID IN MIAMI THIS YEAR, AFTER FIVE YEARS OF HAVING SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES, IS THEY CLOSED THE STREET DOWN FOR THE DAY AND IT WORKED.

WE'LL START WITH THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN TAKE A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY CLOSE THE STREET DOWN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN YOUR INTERPRETATION? BECAUSE THE STREET IS CLOSED AND PRETTY MUCH.

WELL, THE CLOSING IT TO ANYBODY EXCEPT THAT SOMEBODY HAS A WRISTBAND, WHETHER WE GAVE THEM A WRISTBAND, WHETHER THEY BOUGHT A WRISTBAND OR WHATEVER. SO, SO, SO YOU KNOW THAT WHO'S EVER GOING INTO THE VENUE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU GOT CROSSWALKS, YOU HAVE TO KEEP UP. SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO IN ON THE SIDEWALK, THEY KNOW THE DRILL AND THEY JUST WALK INTO THE SHOW.

YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THE VIDEO YESTERDAY IN PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING.

IT WAS INTERESTING. THE FIRST 200FT LOOKED LIKE EVERYBODY HAD A WRISTBAND ON AND THE GUY WALKED THE ENTIRE SHOW.

[06:05:03]

ONCE IT GOT DOWN TO ABOUT PRESIDENT JEWELERS, IT'S LIKE IT LOOKED LIKE 10% OF THE PEOPLE HAD WRISTBANDS ON.

BUT LET ME ADDRESS THAT. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I TRIED.

SO THIS IS A STREET THAT IS THE PUBLIC STREET WITH RESTAURANTS AND WITH BUSINESSES.

I MEAN, IF IT WERE A EVENT AREA, I MEAN, THEN YOU'D HAVE THE WHOLE FACILITY.

BUT CLOSING DOWN A STREET TO ME, I DON'T EVEN KNOW LEGALLY WHETHER WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE BUSINESS.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD AFFECT THE BUSINESSES FOR A, AN EVENT ALL DAY LONG THAT I JUST WILL START WITH. YEAH. THAT'S A, ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS I HAVE IS LEGALLY, CAN YOU CLOSE THE STREET FOR SIX HOURS FROM 10 A.M.

TO 4 P.M.. YEAH, I CITED, I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IN THE PERMIT.

THERE'S A STATUTE NUMBER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT. CAN WE DO IT TO MAKE IT? TICKET HOLDERS ONLY? REGARDING THE STATUTE, MR. O'RIORDAN'S REFERRING TO, IT'S THE AUTHORIZATION STATUTE FOR CITIES TO GOVERN AND ESTABLISH TRAFFIC LAWS AND PARKING REGULATIONS.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN SHUT DOWN THE STREET LEGALLY FOR AN EMERGENCY, FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, FOR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, FOR A DISCRETIONARY EVENT.

I WOULD HAVE TO GET A LEGAL OPINION FROM SOMEONE MUCH SMARTER THAN I AM TO DO IT.

BUT THE STATUTE THAT MR. O'RIORDAN CITED IS JUST THE ONE THAT GIVES US AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE LAWS.

THANK YOU. DO WE DO. DO WE CLOSE THE STREET FOR OTHER EVENTS, LIKE THE CHRISTMAS EVENTS ON FIFTH AVENUE WHEN THEY HAVE THE LONG TABLE? IS THIS THERE'S A DISTINCTION, A DISTINCTION? YES. SO WE CLOSED THE STREETS TO TRAFFIC. BUT WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS EXCLUSIVE USE OF FIFTH AVENUE IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SHUTTING IT DOWN AND YOU TICKET ANYONE THAT COMES ONTO THE AVENUE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER EVENT THAT DOES THAT.

SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS. I MEAN, THE QUESTION CAN WE LEGALLY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

IT IS SPLITTING HAIRS, BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. SO FIFTH AVENUE IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO CLOSE IT OFF AND ONLY ALLOW PEOPLE WITH WRISTBANDS, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY TURNING IT INTO A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM THAT NOT EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO ENTER WITHOUT PAYING THE $10. WHAT THEY DO NOW IS THEY CLOSE THE ROAD FROM TRAFFIC, BUT PEOPLE CAN STILL ACCESS THE SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS THE SHOPS AND GO TO RESTAURANTS EVEN IF THEY DON'T PAY FOR THE EVENT.

SO THERE IS A DISTINCTION. SO YOU'RE CLOSING THE ROAD FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, BUT IT'S STILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR PEDESTRIANS.

IT'S A IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY, WHICH WE SHOULD FIND OUT.

I DO KNOW 7 OR 8 YEARS AGO THIS CAME UP BEFORE COUNCIL, DIFFERENT COUNCIL.

I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY WAS ON THAT COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, ACTUALLY.

AND THE, THE, THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME SAID THAT IT COULD BE DONE, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A FLORIDA STATUTE.

YOU CAN DESIGNATE AN EVENT SPACE ON A PUBLIC STREET, BUT JUST, JUST NEEDS TO BE LOOKED UP.

I MEAN, IF IT CAN'T BE DONE, IT CAN'T BE DONE. IF IT CAN BE DONE, THEN IT GIVES YOU AN OPTION.

FEEL COMFORTABLE? WELL, YEAH. WHETHER WE WANT TO DO IT OR NOT IS ONE QUESTION.

AND THAT'S ANOTHER LEGAL QUESTION IS WHAT IT WOULD BE NICE JUST TO HAVE A, SOME SORT OF I THINK I, I THINK THAT LIEUTENANT O'REILLY GAVE US THE STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS FOR AN EMERGENCY AND WE DO IT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.

AND IT WOULD JUST, IT WOULDN'T BE FOR SIX HOURS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO CONCLUDE YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE SETUP.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE SETUP TO 430 PROBABLY.

YEAH. AND THEN IT'S OVER. BUT SO. YES, SIR. ARE YOU FINISHED? MAY I? GO AHEAD. I WANT YOU TO IMAGINE CORDONING OFF PART OF THE CITY AS MUCH AS THAT SPACE WOULD TAKE FOR THE 15000 PEOPLE.

AND THEN WE. HAVE YOU BEEN TO THIS THING? YEAH.

SO IMAGINE ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE WRISTBANDS.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BARRICADE. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAN THE BARRICADES TO KEEP THEM OUT.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST SO IT'S.

AND HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT ARE WE GOING TO TAKE? AND WHAT WOULD THE BARRICADES LOOK LIKE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ARREST THE 16 YEAR OLDS THAT DIDN'T PAY.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST BEYOND REASON TO ME. I WILL SAY THIS.

I THINK WE'RE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.

I THINK ALL OF THIS AND TOM IS BRILLIANT. HE IS A HIGH ACHIEVER.

HE HE IS HE IS DEMONSTRABLY A BRILLIANT, SUCCESSFUL MAN.

THAT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO ME WHO THE CHARITY IS.

IT COULD BE THE KRAMER FOUNDATION. IRRELEVANT.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS TO ME AT ALL. FOR SEVEN YEARS, WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, FIRE AND POLICE THIS IS UNSAFE. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS AGAIN FOR SEVEN YEARS.

[06:10:04]

THEY JUST SAID IT AGAIN ON THE RECORD. HOW DO WE DEFEND THAT IN COURT? WHEN SOMEBODY GETS HURT OR SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS? LIKE WHAT'S OUR LIABILITY? NOW THAT THAT IS ON THE RECORD FOR SEVEN CONSECUTIVE. I WANT YOU TO IMAGINE IF WE HAD AN EVENT AT PRIME SOCIAL PORT ROYAL CLUB OR WHEREVER IN TOWN WHERE THEY SAID FOR ONE ONE YEAR, HEY, WE CAN'T DO THIS AGAIN.

THIS IS UNSAFE. AND THE CITY COUNCIL SAYING, OKAY, WE'LL JUST TRY ONE MORE YEAR.

FIVE YEARS LATER, HEY, WE CANNOT DO THIS. IT'S STILL UNSAFE.

THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY, GO AHEAD, SCHUCHART DO YOUR IT'S OKAY.

WE WOULD NEVER, EVER DO THIS FOR ANY OTHER EVENT.

THE LIABILITY IS THROUGH THE ROOF AND IT'S JUST NOT HOW WE DO BUSINESS. SO I DON'T KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THE SOFTBALL FIELD, ALL THAT IS STUFF THAT IT'S NOT EVEN GERMANE TO THE QUESTION HERE.

THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO LISTEN TO OUR EXPERTS WHO ARE TELLING US AND THE PUBLIC THIS IS AN UNSAFE EVENT.

IT'S UNMANAGEABLE. IT'S LIKE WE SAID BEFORE, VICTIM OF HIS OWN SUCCESS.

FANTASTIC JOB. UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOES NOT FIT OUR CITY AND WE AREN'T AN EVENT VENUE.

WE HAVE NO OBLIGATION FOR THIS WHATSOEVER. ZERO.

SO I DON'T GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS NOW, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO, IF VICE MAYOR WANTS TO SAY, HEY, LET'S CORDON OFF OUR CITY, WE'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BARRICADE IT AND TO PROVIDE ENOUGH ARM.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED ARMED SECURITY. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO THE SECURITY GUY, I GUARANTEE YOU THAT TO KEEP THOSE FOLKS OUT.

AND THEN HOW DO WE LET THE WORKERS IN? LIKE, I MEAN, THE WHOLE THAT IS SO CONVOLUTED AND TO ME NOT RELEVANT.

SO I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION I ASKED MYSELF AND I TOLD TOM THIS LIKE, THIS IS YOU DO A GREAT JOB.

PUBLIC SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE. I'M TOLD BY MY EXPERTS, THIS IS UNSAFE.

THERE IS NO OTHER THAN COMPLETELY CORDONING IT OFF AND ONLY ALLOWING PATRONS WHO'VE PAID FOR IT, IN WHICH I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE IN MY HEAD DOING THAT.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT, TO SECURE THE PLACE.

SO I THINK THE REST OF EVERY LITTLE CONVERSATION ABOUT I DON'T THOSE, THOSE DETAILS ARE IRRELEVANT TO ME.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, I WAS TRYING TO GET TO IF MY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OUR STAFF IS SAYING THIS IS TOO LARGE, TOO BIG.

I WAS TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FOUND SOLUTIONS.

AND IF WE CAN'T FIND SOLUTIONS, THAT MAKES THE FOOTPRINT SMALLER, THAT MAKES THE CROWD SIZE SMALLER, YOU KNOW, THEN WE'RE AT THAT POINT. BUT THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GET TO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU JUST IT'S TOO BIG.

IT'S OUTGROWN ITS SPACE. IT NEEDS TO MOVE TO ANOTHER ONE.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO BE OF REASON. THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING DOWN THOSE.

SO I THINK NONE OF US WANT AN UNSAFE EVENT. THE ORGANIZER DOESN'T WANT AN UNSAFE EVENT.

THE QUESTION IS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A SAFE EVENT OR NOT? AND I THINK WE WERE WANTING TO EXPLORE COMPROMISES, SOLUTIONS TO HAVE A SAFE, A SMALLER, SAFER EVENT BEFORE WE JUST CANCEL IT.

I HEAR FROM A LOT OF RESIDENTS THAT THEY LOVE THE SHOW.

IT'S ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF SEASON FOR THEM AND WE WORK FOR THE RESIDENTS.

SO I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TRY TO HAVE A SAFE EVENT FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

IF WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST EXPLORE WHAT THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS ARE.

AND WITH RESPECT, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR SEVEN YEARS.

THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN RECENTLY. SEVEN YEARS. YEAH.

AND I THINK WITH NO RESOLUTION. YES. I THINK, THOUGH, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY THE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN DO NOT WORK.

GOING INTO CAMBIER PARK DOES NOT WORK. I WOULD TAKE A CONSENSUS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T USE CAMBIER PARK.

IT'S JUST OUT OF QUESTION. AND THEN GO FROM THERE AND IF HOW MANY VENDORS YOU HAVE, I MEAN, DON'T BRING SO MANY VENDORS, STOP THE VENDORS.

I MEAN, WHEN I LOOK ON HERE AND THERE ARE I LOOK AT THE VENDORS, TOTAL REDUCTION CAN HAPPEN.

I MEAN, WE DON'T NEED FOOD AND CONCESSIONS. WE HAVE FIFTH AVENUE.

WE DON'T NEED ART AND JEWELRY. WE HAVE FIFTH AVENUE STORES.

WE DON'T NEED ENTERTAINERS. THE ENTERTAINMENT IS ON THE STREET.

WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ENTERTAINERS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY FOOD VENDORS. WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE 400 CARS.

MAYBE IT'S 100. I'M SORRY. I WAS LOOKING AT THE.

WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN AS VENDORS. SO I MEAN, HOME GOODS, APPAREL AND WINE AND ALCOHOL ARE ALL LISTED HERE AS VENDORS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED THEM. YOU'RE YOUR VENDORS ARE SURROUNDING YOU.

YOU WOULD ASK ME A QUESTION ONCE BEFORE I LOOKED.

WE HAD FOUR VENDORS THIS YEAR THAT WERE NOT CAR RELATED.

YOU KNOW, SOME SOME OF THE APPAREL ARE PEOPLE LIKE THAT MAKE RACING SUITS FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE THAT DRIVE THEIR CARS AND RACING.

[06:15:05]

SO THAT'S A OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO CARS. THERE'S ONE OF THOSE.

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.

SOME OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY MAJOR SPONSORS. SO THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE HAGERTY'S AND THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, BUT THEY DO AUTOMOBILE, BUT THEY DO OTHER STUFF. SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID DO, WHICH WE HAVEN'T DONE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, IS WE, WE HAD WE HAD BOATS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

WHEN WE WENT DOWN SEVENTH AVENUE, WE HAD TO FILL IT UP WITH SOMETHING. I ALWAYS HAD SOME PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO SHOW THEIR BOATS.

THEY'RE STILL HIGH END PEOPLE. THEY'RE A PAIN IN THE NECK.

I WON'T DO THEM ANYMORE. YOU KNOW, WE HAD A $3.5 MILLION MOTORHOME THAT WE PUT IN.

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT STUFF ANYMORE. I'M TRYING TO GET TO THIS PARTICULAR SHOW.

RIGHT. WE HAVE HAD THAT DISCUSSION. I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH OTHERS ON HOW WE COULD ELIMINATE THE EXCESS.

AND THAT'S ALL I WAS SUGGESTING. AND IF THIS IS THE APPLICATION, ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE LISTED.

NOW, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US.

IT'S A SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION AND IT DOES HAVE IT CHECKED.

YOU CHECKED ON THERE. WELL, KEEP IN MIND WE HAVE THE VIP AREA IS A VIP AREA.

WE SERVE FOOD AND WINE AS PART OF THE $300 TICKET.

SO WE ARE SERVING FOOD AND WINE IN THE VIP AREA.

BUT THAT'S PART OF THE VIP EXPERIENCE. BUT WE'RE NOT WE DON'T HAVE VENDORS OUT THERE COMPETING WITH ANY.

YEAH. SO I REALIZED WE COULD GO ONE BY ONE BY ONE TO RESOLVE THIS, WHICH IS WHAT I HAD HOPED WOULD HAPPEN IN THE, IN THE PAST YEARS. BUT I, WE FIND OURSELVES STILL IN THIS SAME DISCUSSION ON TRYING TO RECTIFY AND FIND SOLUTIONS.

SO I'M SORRY I TOOK YOUR FLOOR VICE MAYOR. AND THEN I HAVE SCHOLZ AND THEN I HAVE GIRL. I DON'T KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS TO TAKE THE COMMITTEE APPROACH HERE.

AND LIKE YOU SAID, GO LINE BY LINE AND TRYING TO RESTRUCTURE THIS.

RIGHT. BUT WHAT'S THE PROCESS WE HAVE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES STAFF, THE POLICE AND FIRE STAFF AND THE ORGANIZER. LIKE YOU SAID, THEY'VE TRIED TO WORK IT OUT FOR A FEW YEARS IN A ROW.

THEY'VE EXPERIMENTED, THEY'VE TWEAKED, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING.

SO WE NEED A DIFFERENT PROCESS. WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP DOING THE SAME THING, BEATING OUR HEADS AGAINST THE WALL OVER AND OVER.

SO. OUR CITY MANAGER, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR A WAY TO BREAK THIS LOGJAM BETWEEN STAFF? I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD DO IT. I JUST DON'T KNOW.

WELL, ACTUALLY, WE WENT THROUGH FOR US YEARS AGO ACTUALLY. SOMETIMES THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR.

BUT HE USUALLY DOES HAVE REALLY GOOD SOLUTIONS.

HE DOES. WELL, THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE AND HERE'S HERE'S WHAT I WILL SAY IS WHAT I'D RATHER NOT DO IS BECAUSE WHAT I'VE SEEN IT IN THE PAST IS IF WE HAVE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO WORK OUT, THEN WE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO WORK THEM OUT OVER THE SUMMER AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH A MODIFIED PLAN THAT YOU VOTE ON. AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM THE DAYS BEFORE IS WILL WE APPROVE IT? YOU GUYS WORK IT OUT AND THEN NO, THERE'S NO LEVERAGE TO WORK IT OUT.

AND THE ADVERTISING IS ALREADY GOING ON AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.

AND SO THE, THE, THE STOMACH TO SAY NO GOES OUT THE WINDOW.

AND, AND SO WE'RE HERE TODAY. AND, AND I DO WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION JUST BECAUSE THE MAYOR, YOU SAID YOU WERE CITING FROM THE PERMIT APPLICATION.

AND I JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION. YOU SUBMITTED A PERMIT APPLICATION, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. MARCH RIGHT AFTER OUR MEETING. OKAY.

AND THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THAT. CORRECT. OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO GET THAT SAID HERE. SO MY ONLY POINT AND I RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, VICE MAYOR, BUT I DON'T HAVE A MAGIC BULLET. I'M ALWAYS WILLING TO WORK WITH ANYONE.

BUT WORKING TOGETHER IS A TWO WAY STREET. AND ONCE YOU GET SO FAR DOWN THE ROAD, ALL LEVERAGE EVAPORATES.

AND IF SO, IF YOU ASK ME MY OPINION, I'M ALL FOR SPENDING TIME WITH THEM OVER THE SUMMER.

AND IF IT SAYS IN MAKING THE STATEMENT, IF YOU AGREE THAT THE BALL FIELD SHOULDN'T BE USED AGAIN, AND THE NUMBER OF TIMES WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT SINCE LAST YEAR IS BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN THE SOFTBALL AGREEMENTS AND THE CHANGES WE HAD TO MAKE.

WELL, THEN WE NEED TO STAND BY THOSE CONVICTIONS AND SAY, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO? AND DOES IT GIVE YOU RELIEF? BUT IN THE SAME BREATH, IF WE SAY WE DON'T WANT THEM GOING OUT ON 41, BUT WE REALLY NEED THEM TO GO OUT ON 41 IN SOME CASES, AND YOU APPROVE THE EVENT. I'M JUST BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD SPOT AND SO IS STAFF IN SOME REGARDS.

SO THAT'S I KNOW THAT DOESN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT I'M WILLING TO SIT DOWN AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, PROVIDED IT'S NOT STAFF FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING IT.

[06:20:01]

AND IT'S THEY'RE ALREADY ADVERTISING AND THAT SHIP HAS SAILED.

IT'S NOT IT'S I JUST WANT IT TO BE A FAIR FIGHT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

SO IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT TODAY, WE CONTINUE IT UNTIL AUGUST.

GIVE YOU TIME TO TO SEE IF YOU CAN WORK IT OUT.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE ANYTHING IF YOU AND STAFF ARE AGAINST IT.

SO YOU HAVE ALL THE LEVERAGE YOU NEED, I THINK, TO MAKE CHANGES TO REDUCE THE SIZE, REDUCE THE SCOPE, TO TRY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL, SAFE EVENT. AND IF YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH AND THAT WE CAN BLESS, THEN IT WON'T HAPPEN. AND THERE ARE SOME REALITIES.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT AS LONG AS YOU IF YOU SEND US DOWN THAT ROAD, THERE ARE THE REALITIES THAT YOU WILL HAVE NOT DEALT WITH IN THIS, WHICH IS NO MATTER WHAT, IT'S GOING TO BE LARGE ENOUGH.

AND WE CAN ASK FOR A LEGAL OPINION WHERE WE CAN BLOCK THE ROAD OR NOT. OR IS THAT OFF THE TABLE? THERE ARE A COUPLE LARGE ITEMS THAT, IF THEY WERE OFF THE TABLE, WOULD MAKE THE NEGOTIATION IN A MORE PRODUCTIVE AND FRUITFUL PROCESS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER YOU CAN OR CANNOT LEGALLY DOES, IS THERE A CONSENSUS IN THE ROOM THAT YOU'RE EVER GOING TO SHUT DOWN FIFTH AVENUE FROM PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THAT CAN BE ANSWERED, AND IF THAT GETS ANSWERED, THE REST BECOMES IT'S A DIFFERENT EQUATION.

SO. WELL, I THINK WE CAN. THERE'S A FEW BIG TICKET ITEMS TO KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON.

SO AS WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO? HAVE A DISCUSSION. SO I HOPE THAT WAS A FAIR.

I THINK IT'S THAT AND I THINK IT'S THE CAMBIER PARK.

THE TWO BIG ISSUES OF TRYING TO SOLVE, AS, YOU KNOW, PARKING AND SIZE AND WE'VE DONE IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THE ONLY VENDORS THAT NEED THIS IS MY OPINION.

I DON'T, I CAN GET A CONSENSUS, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED ANY OTHER VENDOR BUT YOUR CARS.

WE DON'T NEED ANY OTHER VENDORS, BUT THE CAR SHOW ITSELF, THAT'S WHAT IT IS, IS A CAR SHOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOES TO REDUCE THE SIZE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW? SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THAT.

SO AGAIN, THE VENDORS ARE ONE THING AND IT DOES TAKE UP SPACE.

ANYTHING THAT YOU ADD INTO AN EVENT SPACE, THAT'S A VENDOR, A CAR.

IN THIS CASE, IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THE PEDESTRIAN OR ATTENDEES CAN MOVE INTO.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT AGAIN, I MADE THE STATEMENT AN AVENUE THAT HAS A PARKING CAPACITY OF 180 TO 200 CARS, AND THEN YOU PUT 400 CARS ON THERE, YOU'VE REDUCED THE EVENT SPACE DRAMATICALLY.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT DOING STUFF LIKE THAT, A RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CARS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VENDORS. THEN AT LEAST YOU HAVE THE THE PEOPLE.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE AVENUE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. SO REDUCING.

WE CAN SIT HERE AND TALK, EXCUSE ME TILL WE'RE BLUE IN THE FACE ABOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME TO THE EVENT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. SO YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES AGAIN AND YOU'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THIS SPACE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE STANDING ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER AND YOU'VE GOT TENTS, YOU'VE GOT CARS.

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CARS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TENTS AND VENDORS.

AND THEN YOU TRY TO SEE WHAT THIS SEE HOW THE CROWD REACTS AT THAT POINT.

DO WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE SPACE? IS THAT GOING TO HELP? DO WE STILL STAY WITH WHAT WE HAVE? BUT THAT'S THAT'S JUST MY OKAY.

I WANT TO GO DOWN AND LET OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAK.

ONE JUST ONE COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DO WE NEED 60 CORVETTES AT THE SHOW? SEE WE DON'T YOU KNOW, THAT'S EASY TO MANAGE IN TERMS OF SHUFFLING THINGS AROUND.

THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN, THAT IF WE CAN'T CONTROL THE CROWD AND WE MAKE THE FOOTPRINT A LITTLE BIT SMALLER, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO PUSH MORE PEOPLE INTO A SMALLER AREA.

SO THAT DOESN'T REALLY TALK TO MR. O'RIORDAN.

WHAT I HEARD OUR STAFF SAY, AND WHAT CRAMER IS SAYING IS THE EVENT'S TOO LARGE FOR THIS AREA.

UNLESS WE CAN CONTROL THE CROWD, WHICH WHICH WOULD MAKE ALL OF US HAPPY, I THINK, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTS.

BUT THIS WAS THE IDEA. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANOTHER IDEA, WE'RE ALL OPEN TO ANY IDEA THAT MIGHT PRODUCE THE.

OKAY, I HAVE CAN I HAVE CAN I DO SCHULTZ AND THEN CALL.

OKAY. I'VE ATTENDED CONCOURS D'ELEGANCE MULTIPLE TIMES AND IT'S OPEN FIELD.

SO IF YOU LOOK FOR OPEN FIELDS ON LIVINGSTON, THE NORTH COLLIER PARK UP, THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF OPEN SPACE.

YOU GOT WHERE THEY PUT THE GREAT BEAR LODGE OR SOMETHING LIKE GREAT WOLF, I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH. YOU GOT YOU GOT A PLACE THERE. YOU'VE GOT YOUR MAIN ARENA, YOU'VE GOT THE AIRPORT.

I MEAN, THERE ARE PLACES THAT COULD POSSIBLY HOUSE THIS.

[06:25:03]

POSSIBLY, BUT TRYING TO REWORK AND CONFIGURE THIS IF I HEARD LIEUTENANT RILEY.

I MEAN, PROPERLY, THIS IS STRICTLY HOW DO YOU GET AN AMBULANCE IN AND OUT OF THERE? HOW DO YOU GET A FIRE TRUCK IN AND OUT OF THERE? BUT LOOKING AROUND AT SPACES THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AS THEY DO IN AT CONCOURS D'ELEGANCE IN MONTEREY.

AND I'VE BEEN THERE AND IT'S THEY JUST KEEP GOING TO BIGGER GREEN SPACES.

AND SO I JUST TICKED OFF FOUR SPOTS THAT I THINK ARE LARGE.

WE'VE GOT THE COASTAL MALL. I DON'T THINK THAT MAYBE THAT PROBABLY COULDN'T TAKE IT EITHER, BUT YOU'D HAVE OVERFLOW FROM COASTAL AND MALL TO FLEISHMAN PARK.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN TOTALLY ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ALL HAVE TO TRY TO PROTECT AND DEFEND AND MAKE, YOU KNOW, NOT OUR JOB TO HAVE HAVE A GREAT TIME.

WE'D LIKE EVERYBODY TO HAVE A GREAT TIME. BUT IT'S LIKE A SARDINE CAN.

SO YOU CAN'T FUNCTION THIS WAY. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT BIGGER SPACES, MAYBE GREENER SPACES WHERE THIS CAN ABSORB THAT MANY PEOPLE AND THAT MANY CARS THAT MIGHT BE A WAY OUT FOR YOU TO MAKE A SUCCESSFUL EVENT EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL AND CAN CAN GROW AND PROSPER.

BUT THAT THAT THOSE ARE JUST MY INITIAL THOUGHTS RELATIVE TO WHAT I SAW AT CONCOURS D'ELEGANCE.

YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD JUST WE DON'T NEED TO DISCUSS IT NOW, BUT I THINK THE AIRPORT BECOMING A ENTERTAINMENT ZONE IS A VERY IS A WE GOT IT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND AND THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN SCHULTZ SAYS. I THINK HE WANTS TO KEEP IT NEAR FIFTH AVENUE.

THAT'S WHY THE WHOLE THING. WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF VENUES THAT CAN HOST THIS.

YOU KNOW JERMAINE, WHATEVER YOU CAN GO. THERE'S TONS OF PLACES TO GO, BUT I IMAGINE YOU WANT TO TRY TO KEEP THE AMBIANCE OF FIFTH AVENUE AND, AND THE EVENT THERE, YOU KNOW, HAS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT AND PRESERVE THAT TO FOR US.

HOW ABOUT THIS? CAN IT BE RESTRUCTURED WHERE YOU HAVE FERRARIS ON FIFTH, OF CORVETTES AT BAYFRONT.

PORSCHES ON THIRD AND MAKE IT MORE OF A WALKING EVENT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND DISPERSE THE CROWD MORE.

BUT YET, WE'RE STILL KIND OF ALL IN WALKING DISTANCE.

YOU CAN WALK TO BAYFRONT FROM FIFTH. YOU COULD WALK TO THIRD, FROM FIFTH A LITTLE LONGER WALK.

AND BY DISPERSING THE POPULACE, BUT YET STILL KEEPING THE INTEGRITY OF HAVING IT DOWNTOWN.

IT MAY WORK IF IT'S STRUCTURED RIGHT AND IT'S AN IDEA, AND MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, LOOK AT, LOOK AT THAT, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW.

HAVE ENOUGH POLICE OFFICERS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF SPREADING IT OUT.

15,000 PEOPLE OVER THREE VENUES IS A LOT BETTER.

THE PROBLEM IS IT BECOMES A STAFFING CHALLENGE.

WE HAVE TO HAVE 12 OFFICERS TO CLOSE DOWN FIFTH, IF WE ALSO ARE CLOSING DOWN A PORTION OF THIRD STREET AND STAFFING BAYFRONT, THAT'S PROBABLY DOUBLING AT LEAST THE STAFF TO HIRE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFFS.

WE WOULD. YES, SIR. WHICH HE. HE WOULD HE WOULD WRITE A CHECK FOR THAT, I ASSUME.

WELL, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY. RIGHT. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS SORT OF DECLINE IN OUR NET FOR THE SHOW OR IT'S REALLY NOT THE ONLY REASON THE WAY WE'RE GOING. THE ONLY REASON YOU WOULD KEEP IT IS YOU HAVE TO DO THE OTHER EVENTS WHICH WRAP AROUND EVERYTHING. SO THERE IS A THERE'S A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON OUR SIDE OF IT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO MAKE MONEY, BUT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO LOSE MONEY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT AFFECT IT.

AND LIKE I SAID, YOU HEARD, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF PUTTING AN EVENT IN THE CITY HAS GOTTEN REALLY PRETTY HIGH.

AND WE, WE WRITE THE CHECK. IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T, IT'S JUST THAT IT GETS TO A POINT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE DOES THAT STOP? SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THIS AREA.

YEAH, I DO. IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT THOUGH.

I MEAN, I LIKE THE CREATIVE THINKING. YEAH. I MEAN, AS FAR AS FIFTH AVENUE.

I MEAN, WE LETTING THE STAFF GO BACK WITH PARAMETERS IS BASICALLY WHAT IF IF WE ARE GOING TO SAY PARAMETERS FOR THIS EVENT OR NO. WELL, I'D LIKE TO PRESERVE IT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT EVENT IN TOWN.

IT'S A WAY TO DO IT. AND THE DISPERSION THEORY DOING IT THAT WAY.

I THINK THAT COULD POSSIBLY WORK. BUT BUT I HEAR HIM SAY THIS.

THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM IS BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE CROWDS AND THE PARKING.

SO IF I COULD JUST LET ME JUST FINISH THE REST OF COUNCIL.

ARE YOU COMPLETE? YEAH. THAT'S FINE. YEAH. SO YOU'RE ASKING SPECIFICALLY IF I'M OPEN TO ALLOWING THEM TO WORK WITH STAFF AND TRY TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS THAT MAYBE WE CAN VOTE ON IN AUGUST, BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE PARAMETERS BECAUSE WE HAVE SAID THAT FOR YEARS, COME BACK, BRING SOMETHING, AND THEN IT'S THE SAME. NO, I TOTALLY AGREE.

[06:30:01]

I'M IN A CONUNDRUM HERE AND THAT IS THAT I LOVE THIS EVENT.

I GO TO IT ALMOST EVERY YEAR. I THINK IT'S AN ABSOLUTE BLAST.

I MEET BUDDIES DOWN THERE AND WE HAVE A GREAT TIME ON FIFTH AVENUE.

ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A GREAT TIME ON FIFTH AVENUE. SO NOTHING MADE ME HAPPIER THAN TO SEE IT CONTINUE.

MY DILEMMA IS THAT I'VE SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO UNDER ITS CURRENT STRUCTURE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING NOT TO APPROVE.

POLICE HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PROPERLY PROVIDE SECURITY AND SAFETY.

AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE LIEUTENANT O'RILEY. UNSAFE EVENT IS WHAT HE SAID.

SO WHAT I WILL SAY TO THIS NOW AND GO BACK TO YOUR, YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION MADAM MAYOR, AND THAT IS YES, I WOULD LOVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PRESERVE THIS.

I AM I AM OPEN TO ALLOWING THEM TO NOT VOTING ON, ON IT TODAY IN ITS CURRENT FORMAT, ALLOWING THEM TO WORK WITH STAFF AND POTENTIALLY COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY OUT LOUD, AND FOR THE RECORD, WHEN WE COME BACK TO ADDRESS THIS AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION IN AUGUST, IF MY IF I'M GETTING THE SAME COMMENTS FROM STAFF THAT I GOT HERE TODAY, IT'S GOING TO BE A NO FOR ME.

I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST WE HAVE AN EVENT THAT STAFF IS TELLING ME THAT THEY.

THEY RECOMMEND ME NOT TO APPROVE, AND THAT MY POLICE FORCE IS TELLING ME THAT IT'S AN UNSAFE EVENT.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SEND IT BACK TO STAFF, THERE HAS TO BE PARAMETERS ON THAT.

WELL, HOW DO WE I LIKE SO WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT WE COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS.

I MEAN, WHAT I HEARD WAS I THINK MAYBE CLOSING THE STREET MIGHT WORK FROM A STANDPOINT OF CONTROLLING THE CROWD.

I'VE ALSO HEARD THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LEGAL.

AND I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM FROM MY COLLEAGUE HERE COUNCILMAN CRAMER, THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THAT THE, THE, THE PROCESS FOR BLOCKING OFF AND SECURING THOSE ENTRYWAYS TO THE, TO THE AVENUE IS GOING TO BE A CONUNDRUM, I THINK IS WHAT THE WORD WAS THAT YOU USED. AND I DON'T DISAGREE.

SO DO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE CROWD? YES. DO I THINK THAT'S A VIABLE SOLUTION? I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT.

I DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING. WHAT I NEED IS I NEED I NEED OUR EXPERTS THAT DO THIS FOR A LIVING.

TELL ME IF IT IS A VIABLE SOLUTION OR NOT. IF THEY THINK IT'S A VIABLE SOLUTION, AND THEY'RE TELLING ME IN AUGUST THAT THEY'VE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO MAKE THAT WORK AND THAT THAT WILL CONTROL THE CROWD, THEN THEY THEN THEY MIGHT GET A YES FROM ME.

BUT LIKE I SAID, IF I DON'T HAVE THEM TELLING ME THAT THEY'VE FOUND VIABLE SOLUTIONS IN AUGUST AND IT'S GOING TO BE A NO FOR ME, I CAN TELL YOU, I THINK WE KNOW HOW TO CLOSE IT OFF. YOU KNOW, I'VE RUN I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH RUNNING THE OLYMPICS, EVERY MAJOR TENNIS TOURNAMENT IN THE WORLD, NBA FINALS. IT'S DOABLE. AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE OBSERVED IT IN MIAMI CONCOURSE WHERE THEY HAD THE SAME ISSUE.

SO I, I KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND YOU'D WANT TO SEE IT VISUALLY, BUT I THINK IT'S DOABLE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO IT. I BELIEVE IT'S LEGAL.

AND IF THAT'S IF WE TRY THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE THE CROWD DOWN FROM 39 OR I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS. I REMEMBER IF WE COULD DO IT BEFORE, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT WITH ALL YOUR VOLUNTEERS AT EVERY ENTRANCE.

IF YOU NEED FRENCH BARRICADES AROUND THE BARRICADES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, I CAN.

I KNOW WHAT TO DO BECAUSE WE TRIED TO LAY IT OUT ONCE BEFORE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING YOU FEEL LIKE.

LET ME, LET ME. I'M SORRY. YES, I DON'T I AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS NOW AND IT'S BEEN AN HOUR AND A HALF.

SO I'M TRYING TO WRAP IT UP. SO YES, TWO QUICK THOUGHTS.

WHERE I AM, I AM NOT WILLING TO TELL ANY OF OUR CITIZENS.

YOU GOT TO PAY MONEY TO WALK ON FIFTH AVENUE, PERIOD TWO.

IT'S A QUANTUM LEAP FOR ME. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S YOU'RE THOUGHTFUL, YOU'RE SMART. BUT THIS I'M A I'M A TEACHER.

LIKE I'M THE HEAD OF A HEALTH AND PHYS ED DEPARTMENT.

TO THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT IN THREE SEPARATE SPACES THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WALK, THERE IS A QUANTUM LEAP. THAT'S ALSO PROBABLY A SAFETY ISSUE, ACTUALLY, I THINK I PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT.

THERE'S A LOT INVOLVED IN THAT. YEAH THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

AND. SO I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY AGAIN, I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW MUCH ARE WE INVESTING IN THIS PETITIONER.

HE'S. I LOVE HIM. HE'S A GREAT GUY. BUT DOES EVERYBODY GET THIS CONSIDERATION? DOES EVERY ARE WE GOING TO FIND ANOTHER WHATEVER PROCESS? LIKE WE HAVE A PROCESS AND YOU HAVE IT RIGHT THERE AND I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH IT FOR SEVEN YEARS.

AND OUR, OUR, OUR OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF SAFETY SAY THIS IS UNSAFE.

THAT'S REGRETTABLE FOR THIS PETITIONER, BUT I AM NOT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO ADMIT SOMETHING.

IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY. IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN FIXED BY NOW, IS ALL I'M SAYING. I DON'T THINK AUGUST WOULD AUGUST GIVE YOU THE TIME TO EVEN PUT ON THE EVENT. WHAT'S THAT? I'M SORRY. AUGUST GIVE YOU THE TIME TO EVEN PUT ON THE EVENT.

I TELL YOU WHAT. I TELL YOU HOW IT IMPACTS US.

OKAY. BUDGETS AVAILABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR THE PEOPLE THE CHARITY GO AFTER.

THEY NORMALLY WE'RE FISHING FOR THOSE IN JULY, RIGHT?

[06:35:02]

BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE SETTING THEIR BUDGETS FOR NEXT YEAR. WELL, NO, IT'S USUALLY JULY WHEN THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR BUDGETS TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, BANKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE KNOW THIS FROM YEARS PAST, YOU KNOW.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN EITHER THEY'RE FISHING FOR MONEY, WE'RE FISHING FOR MONEY ON THEIR BEHALF.

BUT THAT'S WHEN THAT'S WHEN THE FUNDS SORT OF GET DESIGNATED FOR SOMETHING.

THEY HAVE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FUNDS. THEY CAN PUT OUT ONES, EVENT TYPE FUNDS AND OTHERS FOUNDATION MONEY. WE GOT INTO THE FOUNDATION MONEY, WHICH ACTUALLY IS LIKE LONG LASTING FOR SAINT MATTHEW'S HOUSE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT WITH THEM ANYMORE. SO HAS MONEY COME IN AND COMMITTED TO THREE YEARS UNDER FOUNDATION? SO IT'S IT'S TRICKIER FOR US TO DO IT LATER.

YOU KNOW, IT IS. AND IT'S TRICKY FOR US TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS EVERY YEAR, YOU KNOW, BE INTERESTING IF WE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION OR TRY SOMETHING TO SEE IF IT WORKS AND THEN EVALUATE IT AGAIN. BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK EVERYONE I'VE TALKED TO WITH THE CITY, ALL THE OLD NAPLES PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION.

THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT REDUCING THE CROWD A LITTLE BIT ARE THE VENDORS ON FIFTH, BUT THEY SAID THEY'D RATHER DO THAT THAN HAVE IT GO AWAY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO THEM.

BUT OKAY, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CONCLUDE THIS.

I HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER. AND THEN YES, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH EITHER SOMETHING OR NOT.

THANK YOU. THANKS. JOAN FIORE. HELLO, EVERYONE.

JOAN FIORE. I WANT TO START OUT. I HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR ALL OF YOU, INCLUDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF. I'M A BUSINESS PERSON, SELF-MADE.

AND IF EVERYBODY THAT STARTED A BUSINESS DID IT BECAUSE SOMETHING NEGATIVE WOULDN'T HAPPEN, THE BUSINESS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE A BUSINESS. NEW YORK KNICKS JUST ONE.

RIGHT. THEY HAD A BIG, BIG GAME. HOW DID THEY COMMUNICATE? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE, HOW THEY PARK? HOW DO THEY GET THEM IN? OF COURSE THAT'S CONTROLLED. BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THE PARADES.

HOW ARE THE PARADES DIFFERENT? WE TALKED ABOUT COMMUNICATION AND I WAS GOING TO SAY A JOKE SINCE I GOT UP HERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR GUYS'S RECEPTION OR TELEPHONES OR WI-FI OR ANYTHING ELSE HERE, BUT IT'S NOT GREAT AT ANY GIVEN DAY.

GO TO NORTH NAPLES. DOESN'T EVEN WORK. AND I HAVE AT&T.

I HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT POINTS THAT I'VE LISTENED TO PEOPLE ALL DAY.

WHEN YOU ASK, I HAVE A GREAT I'M HERE AS A RESIDENT.

I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE FOR NEARLY 40 YEARS.

I HAVE A CITIZEN'S GROUP. I'VE BEEN HERE REPRESENTED LOTS AND LOTS OF ISSUES.

YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS, YOU DO SERVE IN A PUBLIC CAPACITY.

YOU ARE HERE TO WORK FOR THE RESIDENTS. AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS, THAT A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS WANT THIS.

I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE PERSON THAT SAYS THIS IS A VERY HORRIBLE THING. I MEAN, WE KIND OF GO AFTER LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO LOOK AT FIREWORKS. YOU GOT TO LOOK AT ALL THESE PARADES, THE RUN PRIDE.

YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT NOT USING BEER. WELL, I WAS THERE WHEN THEY HAD THE BIG TO DO AT THE COUNCIL ABOUT THE PRIDE USING IT.

AND THAT WAS WORKED OUT. AND I ASKED IT WAS MY QUESTION.

IT WAS PROBABLY ME THAT HAD THE APPLICATION REFORMED, WHO CAN HAVE THIS? YOU TALK ABOUT NOT USING THE BASEBALL FIELD. WELL, I MY KIDS ARE GROWN.

I DON'T USE ANY OF THESE THINGS, BUT I PAY A WHOLE LOT OF TAXES.

SO I'D HAVE TO ASK WHY THESE VENUES AREN'T AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE.

THAT'S ONE OF THEM. SOMETHING YOU SHOULD REALLY CONCERN.

WELL, I'M GOING TO GO OVER MY THREE MINUTES. YEAH.

SOMETHING YOU SHOULD REALLY THINK ABOUT IN THE BUSINESS CLIMATE, EVERYBODY KNOWS BUSINESS CLIMATE IS RIGHT NOW.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THE ECONOMY IS BAD. EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE'S CASH NOT AVAILABLE.

THIS MAN RAISES BETWEEN 2 AND $3 MILLION A YEAR TO BUILD HOMES OR I DON'T CARE WHAT CHARITY IS FOR, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, WHATEVER, AND BUILDS HOMES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WORK HERE.

DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO RAISE THAT? WHAT IF YOU HAD TO RAISE IT FOR BUSINESS? I'M IN A I'M GOING TO START A BUSINESS RIGHT NOW AND I'M TRYING TO RAISE THAT.

AND I CAN TELL YOU IT'S NEXT TO DIFFICULT. WHY DON'T WE PUT SOME KIND OF WEIGHT ON THAT? LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE. AGAIN I'M ASKING. NEW YORK HAS FIREWORKS.

I KNOW DETROIT DOES. BOSTON DOES. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG PARADE IN NEW YORK.

MATTER OF FACT, MY DAUGHTER'S FLYING THERE. NOT FOR THE PARADE. WHAT DO THEY DO TO KEEP THESE PEOPLE SAFE? IT'S NOT SAFE. THERE'S WAYS TO. THERE'S WAYS.

YOU GUYS. EVERYONE HERE HAS ENOUGH TALENT TO TURN AROUND AND COME TOGETHER WITH IDEAS TO MAKE THIS WORK.

I MEAN, COME ON, IT'S ONE ONE EVENT THAT CLOSES DOWN.

I DON'T KNOW, YOU SAID 730 TO 4. I'M THERE EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

AND I'M SO IMPRESSED THAT EVERYTHING IS GONE BY LIKE 430.

I MEAN, WE TALK, WE HAVE OUR SHOWS THAT TAKE UP FIFTH.

WE HAVE PARADES, WE HAVE RUNS. WE. WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM? THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT BRING THAT MONEY TO NAPLES FOR THE PEOPLE.

[06:40:03]

YOU SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO RAISE THIS MONEY.

THE WRAP IT UP. ONE MORE THING. WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

IPO TDC HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE DOES TDC GET A YEAR FOR TOURISTS TO BRING TOURISM IN HERE.

WELL, YOU CAN ANSWER. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT BECAUSE HE WAS FINANCE.

YES. PLEASE. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME THAT BECAUSE NOW WE GET ALL THIS MONEY TO GO ON TDC FOR TOURISTS AND NOW WE HAVE A TOURISM EVENT AND NOW WE DON'T WANT TOURISTS.

WELL, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S UPSET RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE I AM MY TAX DOLLARS.

I SEE IT ALL BEING FRAUD AND ALL THAT. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT FROM A PARTIZAN ISSUE.

WELL ARE MY TAX DOLLARS REALLY BEING SPENT OR THE DOLLARS THAT REPRESENT NAPLES? ARE THEY BEING SPENT PROPERLY? AND WE GIVE A GREAT DEAL.

I KNOW THEY'VE SAID THAT BECAUSE I USED TO KNOW THE NUMBERS. I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND HOW MUCH WE GIVE THE COUNTY HOW MUCH OF OUR TAX BILL GOES TO COUNTY. WELL, I'M ENTITLED TO SHERIFFS AND I MADE ALL THESE EVENTS.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, I WALKED DOWN. YOU CAN'T WALK DOWN FIFTH ON THE PARADE I GOT I WAS DOWN AND THEY PUT THE NEW BARRICADE UP.

I END UP HAVING TO WALK FROM THIRD STREET DOWN TO EIGHTH STREET IN FRONT OF THE CITY HALL TO WALK AROUND TO GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.

THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE, AND THE FIFTH IS ALL FULL.

AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THOSE FLOATS ARE THAT MUCH EASIER TO GET OUT THAN JUST DRIVING DOWN THE MIDDLE AND GET PEOPLE OUT? BUT ANYWAYS, ONE MORE THING I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT. THERE'S SO MANY, SO MANY, SO MANY RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS HERE.

WHY DON'T WE GET AN ORGANIZATION TOGETHER AND ALLOW THEM TO DONATE THEIR TIME SO THEY CAN PROVIDE THE SAFETY WE NEED.

BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, I'LL JUST SAY IT.

THIS GOES BACK TO CROWD SIZE AND PARKING AND THE CAPACITY OF BEING ABLE TO DO IT IN A SAFE WAY.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE THREE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S COME TO US AGAIN TO MAKE A DECISION AND EITHER WE KEEP. PUSHING THE, WHAT'S IT CALLED, ENVELOPE.

YEAH. NO KEEP PUSHING IT DOWN THE BALL, KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE RIGHT.

OR WE REALLY COME UP WITH MEANINGFUL WAYS TO CHANGE THIS EVENT.

AND I MEAN, I'VE TRIED AND TRIED AND TRIED. I JUST DON'T SEE WHETHER WE GIVE THESE PARAMETERS TO NEGOTIATE AND DISCUSS WHETHER THAT'S THAT SHRINKING THAT IS GOING TO OFFICIALLY WORK.

BUT WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ITEM 15 BE TO APPROVE THIS EVENT AS PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE IT. I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TO APPROVE IT.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE SO IF YOU SAY YES, THEN YOU'RE APPROVING IT.

AND IF YOU SAY NO, THEN YOU'RE NOT. I GET YOU, OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER FOR APPROVAL.

VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. WAIT, I HAVE TO ASK YOU THIS.

I GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING. IT'S A GOOD ONE. IS THIS THE APPLICATION FOR THIS YEAR, OR ARE WE DISCUSSING? OKAY, SO THERE'S NO OTHER INFORMATION. THERE'S NOT A LAYOUT OF THE NUMBER OF VENDORS.

THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD PROVIDE TO US.

NO. MAYOR. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE THE EVENT OR WHEN WE HAVE THE MEETING BEFORE THE EVENT, THAT EVENT OR THAT MEETING IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S BEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VENDORS, THE NUMBER OF VENDORS ARE IN COMPLIANCE.

IT'S NOT A PLANNING TIME FOR US. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THOUGH, THIS THIS IS HOW HE SUBMITTED IT AND HE WANTED IT BROUGHT TO YOU ALL THIS WAY. I APPRECIATE YOU RUSHING ME, BUT I HAD ANOTHER PUBLIC SPEAKER, SO I DIDN'T GET A SECOND. SO I'M SORRY, MEG, IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD.

RIGHT. I DIDN'T GET A SECOND. HI, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

HI. CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

AS WE WERE HERE, MEG STEPANIAN, FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ON TUESDAY, ACKNOWLEDGING THE SUCCESS OF THIS EVENT AND HOW IT DOES BENEFIT FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

WE SUPPORT EVENTS THAT DO BENEFIT THE AVENUE.

WE DO SUPPORT EVENTS THAT FOLLOW THE CITY POLICIES AND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

THE BID, HOWEVER, WE NEED TO GO ON RECORD SAYING WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE COMPLETE RESTRICTION AND PUBLIC OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH FOR A

[06:45:03]

PRIVATELY PRODUCED EVENT, UNLESS THERE'S SOME DEMONSTRATED BENEFIT TO DO SO.

OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THE MERCHANTS DO BENEFIT AND SOME OF THEM DO NOT.

ULTIMATELY, FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH IS A PUBLIC ASSET, RIGHT? IT IS NOT A PRIVATE VENUE AS ACKNOWLEDGED. AND I GUESS AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO MAKE THIS EVENT WORK. SQUARE PEG, ROUND HOLE. HOW, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THIS? BUT ULTIMATELY THIS DOES WOULD SET A PRECEDENT IF YOU WERE TO CLOSE THE AVENUE FOR PAYMENT OF A PUBLIC ACCESS. SO THAT'S ALL WE WOULD HAVE TO SHARE TODAY ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AGAIN. YES. VICE MAYOR. SINCE THAT MOTION DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND, I'LL OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION, WHICH IS TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TILL AUGUST TO GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS TEAM TIME TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH CRITERIA FOR A SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED SIZE EVENT THAT CAN BE CONDUCTED SAFELY.

I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU GIVE LARGER PARAMETERS AS TO NOT THE USE OF CAMBIER PARK OR SIDE STREETS. I AGREE. DON'T USE CAMBIER PARK. I MEAN FOR THE REASONS STATED.

PLUS THE PLAYGROUND IS GOING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT'S SOON, RIGHT? SO I THINK CERTAINLY FOR CAMBIER PARK SHOULD BE RULED OUT.

AS FAR AS SIDE STREETS, I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TEAM TO DECIDE IF ANY OF THE STREETS CAN BE USED OR NOT.

CAN I GET ONE CONSENSUS IS THE CLARITY ON WHETHER OR NOT TO.

THE ITEM THAT I ALLUDED TO BEFORE AND WHAT MEG BROUGHT UP THERE IS THAT.

ARE WE PURSUING IT FROM LIMITING PUBLIC ACCESS TO FIFTH AVENUE BY VIRTUE OF A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TO ACCESS.

THAT IS A KEY COMPONENT THAT IF I DON'T HAVE DEFINED IT, LEAVES IT WAY, WAY TOO OPEN.

AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD BE ONE ELEMENT THAT FOR CERTAINTY, I WOULD NEED TO KNOW WHETHER THAT IS IS ON THE TABLE OR NOT.

SO NO, I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO FINISH THE REST OF THIS.

I'M SORRY, MR. REARDON, BUT WE CAN'T. WE NEED TO CONCLUDE THAT POINT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. BUT JUST TO TAKE A STEP BACK, I THINK AT A BASE LEVEL, THE CONSENSUS REALLY JUST NEEDS TO BE.

ARE YOU WILLING TO CLOSE FIFTH AVENUE TO THE PUBLIC? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IN PAYMENT OF LOU, BUT JUST LET'S JUST ASSUME IT'S CONTINGENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH.

BUT IF THE CONSENSUS IS NO, THEN I THINK THAT ANSWERS GARY'S QUESTION.

MY QUESTION WOULD I HAVE TO RESEARCH AND WOULD AT LEAST SET A PARAMETER ON.

WE'RE NOT CLOSING FIFTH AVENUE. AND I SAW HEAD NODS, BUT I MEAN, I, YEAH, I CAN GET A CONSENSUS.

AS LONG AS YOU'RE WILLING TO STOP MAKING YOUR MOTION.

YES. OKAY. SORRY. WE'RE MAKING SAUSAGE RIGHT NOW.

SO DO I HAVE A CONSENSUS NOT TO CLOSE THE STREET AS A PRIVATE EVENT? YES. NO, NO NO YOU CAN'T. I FAVOR NOT CLOSING IT.

I WOULD BE OKAY WITH IT IF IT'S LEGAL, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH.

DO NOT CLOSE WITH THAT, BARTON. NO. THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD.

THANK YOU. I WOULD I MEAN, I'M TORN, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY AFTER WE JUST HEARD FIFTH AVENUE DID SAY THAT THEY DON'T. THEY THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT. I'D LIKE TO I'LL SAY YES BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT WHAT A LEGAL OPINION SOUNDS LIKE.

YEAH. I THINK YOU CAN'T CLOSE A PUBLIC STREET LIKE THAT.

OKAY. SO. AND I'M A NO. SO THAT'S FOR. ALL RIGHT.

SO NOT CLOSING THE STREET AS A PRIVATE EVENT.

IT'S JUST HOW YOU WOULD DO IT, WHETHER IT'S EVEN.

RIGHT. AND JUST. AND WE'RE OPENING A BAG OF WORMS FOR ANYONE ELSE TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO CLOSE YOUR STREETS. AND THAT'S I THINK IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT TO START.

BUT IF THERE'S PARAMETERS, COULD YOU PLEASE THINK OF THOSE? IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE THEM GO BACK AGAIN TO DISCUSS THIS, THE PARAMETERS IN HERE, VENDORS STREETS, CAMBIAR WHATEVER IT IS THAT I JUST WANT TO GIVE THEM THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY HAVE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING BACK AGAIN TO NEGOTIATIONS THAT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ROUND AND ROUND.

[06:50:03]

WE, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THIS EVENT IS TOO LARGE FOR FIFTH AVENUE OR NOT.

IT IS TOO LARGE. I THINK WE'VE AGREED THAT TO MAKE IT SMALLER AGAIN, WITH RESPECT, IT'S BEEN SEVEN YEARS.

WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT NOW.

IN TWO MONTHS. WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO DIE. I MEAN, HE JUST SAID HOPEFULLY WE STAY LUCKY.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AGAIN TO APPROVE THIS, AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT BY A VOTE IF WE'RE APPROVING IT AS PRESENTED.

I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. AND THAT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE.

THAT'S RIGHT. IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, SAY NO. NO.

AS PRESENTED. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. NO. THAT'S PRESENTED.

VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. AS PRESENTED. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

WAIT, WAIT A SECOND. YES. AS PRESENTED. WAIT.

HOW WAS THE MOTION PHRASED? NO. AS PRESENTED.

THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE IT OR DENY IT. APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED.

OH, THEN I VOTE NO AS IT WAS PRESENTED. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON, AS IT'S CURRENTLY PRESENTED BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND OUR SECURITY EXPERTS. MY ANSWER IS NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL.

I YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE WAY THIS MOTION IS STRUCTURED, IT'S JUST NOT I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY FAIR TO THE EVENT.

I MEAN, I, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH IT. SO TO YOUR POINT, IF THIS I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER MOTION THAT COMES UP.

OKAY. YES. YEAH. WELL, IF THIS PASSES, IT'S GOING TO COME.

PLEASE VOTE. OKAY. WELL I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THE EVENT.

BECAUSE I'M VOTING YES TO MAKE IT INTERESTING.

COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ CAN'T BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE.

NO MAYOR. NO. SO THANK YOU FOR THE EXERCISE. I'M TRYING TO MOVE IT FORWARD. SO, MADAM MAYOR, IF I IF I INTERPRET WHAT JUST OCCURRED THERE CORRECTLY.

YES. UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION TO CONTINUE THE EVENT IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN THE MOTION, THAN THE EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELED, AS FAR AS I KNOW.

THAT'S A POINT OF ORDER. I THINK THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A. THAT'S NOT A FAIR STATEMENT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT THAT THAT WE GIVE OUR CITY MANAGER, MR. YOUNG AUTHORITY TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE THIS THIS EVENT WORK IN A SAFE MANNER.

THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S AGREEABLE BY OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.

AND STAFF AND COME BACK TO US THE NEXT ON THE SEPTEMBER MEETING AS, AS A NEW, A NEW EVENT APPLICATION.

BECAUSE OF THE. YOU PROBABLY NEED A NEW EVENT APPLICATION AT THIS POINT, RIGHT? AND CAN I CLARIFY THAT IS TO GIVE THE EVENT PARAMETERS.

GIVEN THE EVENT PARAMETERS. BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK WITH A SOLUTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THOSE PARAMETERS. RIGHT? I MEAN, NO, HERE'S MY I'M SORRY, BUT JUST MOTION MAKER.

SO WE'RE NOT SPINNING OUR WHEELS. IF WE PUT STAFF IN MR. REARDON TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS, THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO PUT MR. YOUNG IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

AND WITH WHAT PARAMETERS TO TO. WELL, CAMBIER IS OFF THE YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T USE CAMBIER, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT WORK WITH WITH PER WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, THE SAFETY WITH ALL THE SAFETY CONCERNS FROM FROM STAFF. SO. FROM JUST FROM PURPOSES OF CLARITY, I GUESS IT WAS DENIED AS SUBMITTED. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN THINGS.

SO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE CHARGED WITH AMENDING THE APPLICATION OF WHICH WE WOULD COMPLY WITH HAVING MEETINGS TO HELP TRY TO FACILITATE, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE ACTION ON HIS PART, BECAUSE, I MEAN, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS WE SHOULDN'T JUST BE GOING BACK. HOW DO WE MASSAGE THIS TO MAKE THIS WORK? I DO THINK THERE HAS TO BE A COMPELLING SO SIGN OFF FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.

[06:55:04]

AND THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE IS LAST YEAR, THE AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE AVENUE CLOSED BEFORE YOU SEND US HAVING CONVERSATION FOR THE DINING, WHICH WAS A SECONDARY THOUGHT LAST YEAR, BUT IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF I COULD GET CLARITY ON THAT ITEM AS WELL.

AS TO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THE DINING ON FIFTH AVENUE, THEN EXTENDING THE HOURS INTO THE EVENING FOR THAT ONE ADDITIONAL, I HOPE I'M PARAPHRASING IT RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER BENEFIT TO KNOW FOR DURATION OF TIME YOU'RE WILLING TO HAVE THE ROAD CLOSED.

SO I JUST, I WOULD ASK FOR THOSE TWO THINGS. ONE IS, IS YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN ME CONSENSUS CLARITY ON, ON THE CLOSING THE AVENUE, THE OTHER CONSENSUS CLARITY ON EXPANDING THE HOURS TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE, THE DINING PORTION THAT WOULD CLOSE THE AVENUE.

AND THEN AGAIN, PUTTING IT INCUMBENT ON INITIATING A MODIFICATION TO IT SO THAT WE CAN THEN CONSIDER IT AND SIT IN A ROOM AS TO WHAT HE'S THINKING AS WELL.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING THE WORK WITH, WITH ANYBODY.

AND I KNOW YOU'RE ALL TORN. YOU KNOW, WE WE ALL LISTEN TO MEG ON MONDAY.

I WAS GOING TO BRING IT UP AND AT SOME POINT AS WELL IS, IS IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY BE ON THAT WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH WHAT THAT DECISION. AND LOOK, I, I DON'T WANT TO TACKLE IT OVER.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'D RATHER TACKLE IT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO AND NOT EVEN HAD IT TODAY.

BUT I, YOU KNOW, I'M WILLING TO, TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, WITH TOM AND DO WHAT I CAN.

BUT I DO WOULD LIKE THAT OTHER CLARIFICATION ON THAT ITEM REGARDING TO THE EXTENDED HOURS ON THE AVENUE, IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK HIM TO AMEND THE APPLICATION AND CONSIDER IT AND SPEND THE TIME WITH HIM, THAT'S ALL I WOULD ASK. I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE EXTENDED HOURS ON THE AVENUE.

WE DON'T NEED TO EXTEND THIS EVENT. WE'RE ALREADY HAVING TROUBLE WITH IT IN ITS CURRENT FORMAT.

SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS ON THAT ITEM, I'M GOING TO KNOW ON THAT.

AND I'M NOT SURE WE VOTED NO AGAINST THAT ANYWAY.

I LOOK I'M JUST FOR PRESERVING A CAR SHOW. SO ALL THIS EXTRA STUFF IF IT NEEDS TO GO TO MAKE IT WORK.

BUT I'M LOOKING TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK AS A LAST DITCH EFFORT HERE AND AT A CAR SHOW.

THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S INVOLVED IN IT CAN ALL GO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. SO NO DINING OR CLOTHES ANY EXTRA HOURS AFTERWARDS.

NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. YES. YEAH, YEAH.

I MEAN, BECAUSE TO PRESERVE THE SHOW, THIS IS DONE.

WHY AREN'T WE MOVING ON? BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ANOTHER MOTION.

AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION AS AMENDED. THANK YOU.

NO, I AGREE. NO AFTER HOURS. OKAY. YOU ALREADY SAID NO.

CAMBIER PARK. AND DID WE SAY NO TO OUTSIDE FOOD AND BEVERAGE VENDORS THAT PEOPLE CAN USE THE RESTAURANTS? WAS THAT IN FAIRNESS? THAT'S AGAIN, THAT'S WE'RE MAKING SAUSAGE, BUT THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE BECAUSE HIS VIP PEOPLE LET HIM REAPPLY.

AND BUT IF WE NARROW IT DOWN AND HE KNOWS IT'S NOT GOING TO GET A VOTE TO STAY HERE UNLESS THIS CONSIDERABLY IS REDUCED IN SIZE AND THE PARKING AND THE SAFETY IS ADDRESSED.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE YOU KNOW CAN COME UP WITH SOME PLAN THAT THIS IS A SOLUTION THEN.

I JUST THINK WE OWE IT TO THE COMMUNITY, THAT WE TRY A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO TRY TO SAVE THIS JUST AS A CAR SHOW.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER.

MADAM CLERK, DO YOU HAVE YOUR PERIMETERS? YES.

AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT DOES AS WELL. AND I THINK IT WAS A FAIR MOTION AND WITH CLARITY FOR US, AND WE AT LEAST KNOW WE'RE NOT EXPANDING IT. BUT WE DO WANT TO PRESERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, IF IF POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT'S THE OBJECT AS YOU DEFINED IT.

I'M SORRY, MADAM CLERK. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER PENNIMAN IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROL. YES. MAYOR.

HARTMAN. YES. OKAY. IT PASSES 5 TO 1. SO I. MR. O'RIORDAN, I THINK THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND A.

A POPULATION SIZE ISSUE. I PRAY THAT YOU GUYS CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT IS IS GOING TO WORK, AND I'D LIKE TO BE AT THOSE MEETINGS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DO.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A FEASIBLE. JUST I DON'T NEED TO SAY ANYTHING.

[07:00:04]

I JUST WANT TO BE PRESENT AND. THESE DISCUSSIONS, I WELCOME THAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT. YES. CAN WE CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? YES. CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK WITH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE BACK IN AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 14 A

[14.A) Continuation of Discussion Related to Revising the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project Schedule from June 15, 2026, City Council Meeting.]

THAT WOULD. SURE. THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE REVISING THE CITY OF NAPLES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT SCHEDULE.

YOU DISCUSSED THIS AT THE JUNE 15TH MEETING WHERE YOU WERE PROVIDED NUMBERS.

ESSENTIALLY THE COST TO EXTEND. YOU DID VOTE ON THE EIGHT MONTH EXTENSION.

SO THAT WOULD BE WE WOULD AMEND THE CONTRACT TO ADDRESS AN EIGHT MONTH EXTENSION.

AND YES. VICE MAYOR, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH ON MONDAY.

SO, MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE NEGOTIATIONS AND AMEND THE CONTRACT TERMS WITH THE CONSULTANT TO ADD EIGHT MONTHS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TIMELINE, AS WE DISCUSSED ON MONDAY.

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

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL VICE MAYOR.

BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRULL. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MARTIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. SCHULTZ. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENMAN IS ABSENT AND MAYOR HEITMANN. NO, BUT IT PASSES 5 TO 1.

I THOUGHT SIX MONTHS. SO ANYWAY THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN.

THAT NOW TAKES US TO ITEM 15 A MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU MA'AM.

[15.A) A Resolution Approving an Independent Contractor’s Construction Agreement Between the City of Naples and Playcore Wisconsin, Inc. d/b/a Gametime, a Wisconsin Corporation Authorized to Conduct Business in Florida, for Replacement of the Playground at Cambier Park, Pursuant to City Bid 26-002 in the Amount of $2,719,882.45; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Independent Contractor’s Construction Agreement; Providing for Scrivener’s Errors; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

THIS IS THE CAMBIAR ITEM CAMBIAR PARK PLAYGROUND.

FINAL APPROVAL TO FINALIZE THE AGREEMENT. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO CHAD MERRITT, AND THEN I'LL BE CIRCLING BACK.

OH. I'M SORRY. I NEED A RESOLUTION ATTORNEY. THE.

I'LL BE CIRCLING BACK AFTER MR. MCCONNELL READS THE RESOLUTION.

CHAD DOES A BRIEF STATEMENT, THEN I'LL CIRCLE BACK ON FUNDING.

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

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND PLAY CORE WISCONSIN, INC. DBA GAME TIME.

A WISCONSIN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN FLORIDA FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE PLAYGROUND AT CAMBIER PARK.

PURSUANT TO CITY BILL 26-002. IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,719,882.45, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. YES.

GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAD MAYOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR.

VERY EXCITING MOMENT FOR US BECAUSE WE WE'VE GOT ALL OF THE FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL WE CAME BACK, WE DID THE, THE DESIGN. IF YOU LOOK HERE, I WANT TO JUST BRIEFLY GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FINAL.

SO WE WANTED TO TAKE OUT THE PYTHON AND PUT AN ALLIGATOR.

SO ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE, HERE'S THE FLORIDA ALLIGATOR.

WE'LL CALL IT A FLORIDA ALLIGATOR. THE STEPPING STUMPS THAT GO TO IT.

THIS WAS, IS VERY LIFELIKE. THOUGHT IT LOOKS OUTSTANDING AND IS VERY FITTING OF, OF WHAT WE WERE SEEKING.

IF YOU LOOK, LET ME GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

I DON'T WANT TO GO. SO HERE IS YOUR THEATER. IT WAS ASKED TO DO THE THEATER.

THE THEATER HAS A FLOWER SEATS WITH BUTTERFLIES AS THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENT.

SO IT KIND OF TIES IN TO ONE ANOTHER. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE CAMBIER PARK THEATER, WHICH WE CAN, OF COURSE, IF WE DON'T LIKE THAT NAME, WE CAN DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF YOU WANT.

BUT AND THEN WE GET TO. SO THIS, IT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.

I'VE ALREADY GOT SOME, SOME FEEDBACK FROM COUNCILMAN BARTON.

THE LINE'S NOT, IT NEEDS TO BE THINNER, BUT THIS IS MEANT TO BE A SNOOK.

THEY'RE STILL IN DESIGN. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME. SO THEY SAID, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE'RE NOT DONE. BUT THE PLAN IS FOR IT TO LOOK LIKE A SNOOK.

SO THEY DID THE LINE TO SHOW YOU THAT. SO THEY'RE GOING TO KIND OF FIX THE FACE A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MAKE THIS.

AND THE GOAL IS FOR IT TO LOOK LIKE A SNOOK. AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO TIE IN SOME OF THE OPENINGS TO MAKE SURE THE SPACE IS DONE.

SO I KNOW Y'ALL OVER HERE LAUGHING. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT DONE YET.

AND THEY HAVEN'T LET US DOWN. SO THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB SO FAR.

STILL KEEPING YOU HAVE YOUR SEA TURTLE THAT'S IN HERE.

[07:05:01]

YOU'VE GOT LET ME GET TO MY FAVORITE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE FLORIDA PANTHER.

EVERYTHING HERE STILL THE SAME. AND HERE. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO CREATE AN OPENING. THE OPENING WAS CREATED. HERE'S THE FLORIDA PANTHER COMING OUT OF THE OPENING.

SO THAT ALLOWS THE KIDS TO KIND OF COME OUT OF THE OPENING.

THEY'RE ON TOP OF THE FLORIDA PANTHER, WHICH IS SUPER COOL.

I WISH I COULD FIT THROUGH THERE. I PROBABLY WILL GET STUCK IF I TRY AND I BELIEVE ADDING A BEAR.

SO HERE'S A BEAR. SO NOT DOING A LIFE SIZE BEAR, WE'RE, I AM GOING TO WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A BLACK BEAR SINCE WE DON'T HAVE BROWN BEARS. BUT WE DID ADD THE BEAR INTO THIS.

AND THE LAST THING WAS THE MANATEE. THIS IS STILL THE SAME, STILL THE SAME.

HERE'S THE MANATEE THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE A MANATEE NOW.

THEY HAD IT ON A ROCK. I SAID, PLEASE DON'T PUT THE MANATEE ON A ROCK.

IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I SHOULD RESCUE IT. SO THEY DID IT ON A WAVE.

SO IT'S NOW SURFING. SO THAT'S ALSO NOT NORMAL, BUT IT HAS A SEA TURTLE BESIDE IT.

HERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE ANGLES. IT IS A LIFE SIZE LIFELIKE MANATEE.

AND IT IS THAT KIND OF CONCLUDES A LOT OF THE CHANGES THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO MAKE.

AND I WILL ACTUALLY. IS THERE ANY OTHER AREAS THAT YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH? IF NOT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO GARY SO HE CAN TALK ABOUT THE REST OF IT.

THAT'S GREAT. FANTASTIC. OKAY, SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I JUST WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ORDINANCE, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FUNDING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S A SECTION IN THERE THAT.

AND WHAT IT CITES IS, IS THAT ONE, WHEREAS THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS 2,000,798 8245, AND THE AMOUNT OF 7198, 8245 WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO BE APPROVED AT A FUTURE MEETING.

SO THAT'S IN THERE FOR A REASON, BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING READY TO GO ON BREAK.

YOU'RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACT BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE DESIGN, ETC..

AND THEN I WAS PLANNING ON DECIDING EXACTLY HOW I WAS GOING TO FUND THE REMAINING 719 AND HAVE THE MAYOR DO IT DURING BREAK, WHICH IS WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY. AND YOU WOULD RATIFY THAT, IF I TAKE IT OUT OF THE 340, WHERE THE 2 MILLION WAS APPROPRIATED, WOULD REQUIRE A TRANSFER FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE TAX AND SO ON.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I'VE BEEN APPROACHED BY SOME PROMINENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS ASKING FOR PHILANTHROPIC OPPORTUNITIES.

AND WE'VE I'VE HAD SEVERAL EMAILS AND SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS, AND NOTHING'S FINALIZED AT THIS POINT, BUT WHAT I CAN COMMIT IS ONE PARTICULAR FAMILY, AND IT IS SHELLY STEYER ON BEHALF OF THE STEYER FAMILY, AND SHE HAS COMMITTED, AT MINIMUM, AN AMOUNT TO CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE 2.7 AND THE 2 MILLION LAWFULLY APPROPRIATED. IT COULD BE MORE. AND MY COMMITMENT TO HER WAS THAT ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WOULD BE RECEIVED ABOVE THAT, THAT THE FUNDS WOULD REMAIN IN CAMBIER PARK AND WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR PART OF THE BOLLARDS, THE DECORATIVE PLANTINGS AND THOSE THINGS THAT SECURE THE PARK.

SO I'VE HAD MY MY LATEST CONVERSATION WITH HER PERSONAL ASSISTANT LAST NIGHT AS LATE AS 430.

SO I EXPECT TO FINALIZE THESE IN THE COMING WEEK OR SO.

SO WE WILL WITHHOLD ACTUALLY AWARDING IT, BUT THIS WAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT TILL AUGUST TO COME BACK TO YOU.

NOW, THERE WAS ONE CONDITION IN WHAT SHE'D LIKE IS SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

THEIR PHILANTHROPIC OPPORTUNITIES IN OTHER STATES HAVE INCLUDED PUTTING IN PLAYGROUNDS.

AND THIS ONE, WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS IN APPRECIATION OF THEIR COMPANY AND EVERYTHING.

THEY CALL IT FUN. BILL. SO IS ASKING FOR A SIGN IN THE PLAYGROUND TO BE FUN.

BILL PLAYGROUND WITHIN CAMBIER PARK AS AS A CONDITION OF THAT.

AND I'LL MR. KRAMER, YOU YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY, BUT BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M AT IN THE PROCESS WITH, WITH, WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL. MR.. AND ON BEHALF OF HER FAMILY.

AND SO I DID WANT TO POINT THAT OUT IN THE GENEROUS CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD.

AND THEN I'LL LET MR. KRAMER SAY WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY, AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. JUST A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE ENOUGH, BUT THE FUN BILL THEATER WOULD FIT RIGHT THERE. THAT'S I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A PERFECT PLACE FOR IT WITHOUT IT.

SO YES, I, I AGREE WITH YOU RIGHT THERE WHERE IT'S HAD THE THEATER.

SO I WOULD HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS IF YOU AGREE CONCEPTUALLY THAT WE'LL FIND A PLACE FOR THAT.

AND THEN SO WHAT THAT LEADS ME TO IS EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE AWARDING AND I'LL REMIND YOU, WE HAVE CAPACITY, THE CITY MANAGER, ONCE YOU AWARDED IN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, THAT PART OF IT.

I HAVE LATITUDE TO DO ANY CHANGE ORDER THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO MODIFY A CHANGE OR SIGN OR ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO, SO I THINK THAT WE'RE IN A VERY GOOD POSITION.

[07:10:04]

AND THE GENEROSITY OF MISS STEYER AND HER FAMILY AND THEIR FOUNDATION.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I CAN'T SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE EVEN JUST THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD OVER IT.

SO AND THAT WASN'T THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME.

SO I'M GOING TO PURSUE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.

I WOULD REMIND YOU, YOU DO HAVE A DONATION FUND FOR CAMBIER PARK ALREADY FOR THE PLAYGROUND AND MAINTENANCE.

YOU ALSO HAVE ONE FOR CAMBIER FOR TREES AND ITS MAINTENANCE.

SO I THINK WE'RE IN POSITION TO ACCEPT IT. BUT I WOULD NEED THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND FINALIZE DURING THE BREAK WHEN THAT TIME CAME.

AND SO WE'RE ALL AWARE IF WE DID DO THAT, ONCE SOMETHING, A DONATION IS ACCEPTED, IT'S DEEMED APPROPRIATED.

SO WE WOULDN'T APPROPRIATE ANYTHING, WOULD BE ACCEPTING THE DONATION AND IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR CODE SAYS IN THE STATE YOUR PERMANENT BUDGET DOES.

SO I POINT THOSE THINGS OUT. IT'S A IT'S A GOOD DAY.

AND SHOULD YOU AWARD IT TODAY? WE'LL WORK ON THE REST OF THAT AND KEEP YOU INFORMED OVER OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS DURING BREAK AS TO HOW WE PROGRESS ON THAT DONATION.

SO AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON ON BEHALF JUST IN APPRECIATION TO MISS STAIR AND HER GENEROSITY AND THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD.

SO THANK YOU. WELL, ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S THAT'S WE HAVE A VERY SPECIAL COMMUNITY THAT KEEPS GIVING BACK TO US.

AND THAT'S A TREASURE THAT WE'LL NEVER NEGLECT.

SO THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU NEED HERE? DO YOU NEED A MOTION THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES ALL OF THAT OR.

NO, I THINK YOU NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION.

AND THEN I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU KNOW, AFTERWARDS A CONSENSUS FOR ME.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. DAVID. JUST TO PASS THE RESOLUTION FOR THAT PART.

AND THEN AFTERWARDS, I WOULD LIKE A CONSENSUS THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS AND WORK OUT WITH THE MAYOR OVER BREAK TO, TO, TO ACCEPT DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF, YOU KNOW, OF THE CITY FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

THANK YOU. CAN I MAKE A MOTION? YES, PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND PLAY CORE WISCONSIN.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. ARE YOU MAKING TWO MOTIONS? NO. YOU WANT TO CONSENSUS AFTER. AFTER. OKAY.

THANK YOU. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER.

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

COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL.

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

BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. YES.

AND MAYOR HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU. SO NOW THERE'S THE CONSENSUS.

YES. SORRY, DAVID. YEAH. JUST AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THAT I'VE ADVISED OF THE DONATION AND THAT WE SINCE WE ARE APPROACHING A BREAK TO CONTINUE TO COORDINATE THAT EFFORTS AND TO IF NEEDED, AND IF WE CAN ACHIEVE IT TO, TO HAVE THE MAYOR APPROVE DURING BREAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

AND THE REASON I'M ASKING FOR CONSENSUS IS ANYTHING SHE WOULD SIGN ANYWAY WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IN THE FORM AND WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU BY YOUR OWN RULES FOR RATIFICATION AFTER THE FACT. I JUST WANTED IT TO BE KNOWN THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WORKING ON.

GOOD FOR ME. YEAH. AND DO I HAVE A CONSENSUS FOR.

YES. THANK YOU. YES. KEEP IT COMING TOO. THANK YOU.

THAT'S EXCITING NEWS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND YOU WEREN'T LAST, MR. MAYOR. SO THAT CONTINUES ON TO 15 C THANK YOU.

[15.C) A Resolution Adopting Amendment No. 1 to the Collier County And City of Naples Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) for Fiscal Years 2025-2026, 2026-2027, and 2027-2028; authorizing the Correction of Scrivener’s Errors; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

MAYOR RESOLUTION. ADOPTING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AND CITY OF NAPLES LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025, 26, 26, 27 AND 2728. AUTHORIZING THE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I'M GOING TO HANDLE THIS ITEM.

LISA CARR FROM THE COUNTY WAS HERE, BUT I KNOWING IT WAS GOING TO BE AT THE LATE HOUR, I WENT AHEAD AND SAID THAT I WOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS THIS ITEM MYSELF. FROM THE STANDPOINT THIS WAS THE COUNTY.

I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT WE. TWO YEARS AGO WE ENTERED INTO THE SCHIP PROGRAM OR WAS A YEAR AGO ACTUALLY FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD.

AND IN THERE IS ACTUALLY A MANUAL OF THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES AND WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE.

AND IT WAS KIND OF A LATE ENTRY, BUT IT IS THERE CHANGING.

THE COUNTY IS PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE MANUAL.

IT'S NOT CHANGING OUR AGREEMENT WITH THEM BECAUSE IT ONLY REFERENCES IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, THE MANUAL. BUT THOSE CHANGES ARE BEING IDENTIFIED FOR YOUR BENEFIT SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

AND REAL QUICKLY, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM SO THAT YOU HAVE WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE.

TO ME, THEY'RE NON-MATERIAL AND SOME LOGICAL CHANGES, BUT I WANTED TO AT LEAST ARTICULATE THEM FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT DECREASING OR EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

[07:15:02]

IT'S ONLY CHANGING THE MANUAL AS IT PERTAINS TO THAT.

SO THE UNITED STATES RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, THEY WANT TO IMPOSE THAT APPLICANTS MUST BE LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, CONSENT REQUIRED FROM ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AND VERIFICATION VERIFICATION CONDUCTED THROUGH SAFE PROGRAM.

SO THAT IS A JUST A POLICY. AND I'M ASSUMING THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD AN ISSUE WITH MAYBE SOMEBODY IN THE FAMILY NOT APPROVING IN THE PAST.

AND IT'S A CLARIFYING ITEM. THE REST OF IT IS MAXIMIZING THE SHIP FUNDS TO 25% HOW MAY BE USED.

AND THEN ALSO CHANGE OF SUPPORTS OF RENTAL DEVELOPMENT AND TENANT BASED ASSISTANCE FOR PROFIT DEVELOPERS.

SOME FUNDS WILL BE DEVELOPED, EXCUSE ME, AWARDED BASED ON A LOAN AND NOT AS A GRANT AND NON PROFIT DEVELOPERS WOULD BE FORGIVABLE LOAN OR GRANT.

SO IT'S CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE THERE. AND THEN THE REST OF THE ITEMS ARE REALLY LIMITING AND ACTUALLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE RENTAL PROGRAM FUNDING. AND THOSE ARE SMALL REDUCTIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THIS MANUAL.

AND THAT'S BASICALLY OUTLINED HERE. REHABILITATION OF A RENTAL PROGRAM FOR A UNIT IS FIVE PLUS UNITS IS REDUCED TO 750,000.

DEVELOPMENT THAT IS LESS THAN 50 UNITS IS REDUCED TO 500.

AND THEN DEVELOPMENTS ABOVE 51 IS REDUCED TO 750,000.

AGAIN, HAD WE NOT HAD AN AGREEMENT. THESE ARE MINISTERIAL CHANGES THEY CAN MAKE TO THEIR OWN MANUAL LIKE WE DO OUR CRA OBJECTIVES ET-CETERA AND OUR LOAN PROGRAM.

BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THEM, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM ON ON BEHALF OF THAT.

SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS DOING.

AND IT IS THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTENT TO TAKE IT UP AT THEIR NEXT MEETING UPON YOUR APPROVAL, TO APPROVE THE SAME. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS.

I THINK IT'S EXCEPT FOR I WOULD MAKE TWO REQUESTS.

AND THAT'S ONE THAT WE HAVE A COPY OF THE MANUAL AT LEAST SENT TO US SO WE CAN READ IT.

AND ALSO NORMALLY SHE WOULD DO A REPORT. SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT IN PERSON, BUT JUST OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE HAPPENING WOULD BE A REQUEST THAT. SO COUNCIL KNOWS WE IT IS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, BUT WE'RE INFORMED ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT.

SURE. YEAH. AND I WILL GET HER TO GIVE US THAT REPORT.

I'M SURE SEND IT OUT WITH THE MANUAL AS WELL.

YEAH. I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO GO TO COUNTY, SO I HOPE I'M NOT CREATING ANY FURTHER WORK.

OKAY, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

NONE. AND NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AND CITY OF NAPLES.

LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 25, 26, 26, 27 AND 2728.

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

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP.

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

KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN IS ABSENT.

AND MAYOR HARTMAN. I'M SORRY. YES, MAYOR. YES.

THAT PASSES SIX UNANIMOUSLY. WITH THAT GOING TO OUR READINGS, MR.

[17.A) An Ordinance Amending Section 30-9 (A), Monthly Rates, Fees And Charges; And Amending Section 32-71, Collection Of Refuse Types I And II Set Forth in Appendix “A” Fees And Charges Schedule of The Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples, to Reflect Annual Rate Adjustments Supported by The United States Consumer Price Index; And Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; And an Effective Date.]

MCCONNELL, SECOND READING, STARTING WITH 17. YES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 30-9, SUBPARAGRAPH A MONTHLY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES, AND AMENDING SECTION 3271 COLLECTION OF FUZE TYPES ONE AND TWO SET FORTH IN APPENDIX A FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES TO REFLECT ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING. KIND OF FUNNY. SORRY. LISA DOUGLAS, BILLING AND COLLECTION MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

AND STEPHANIE MUSSEL, FINANCE DIRECTOR. JUST A LITTLE RECAP.

IF YOU REMEMBER, WE CAME TO YOU JUNE 3RD. SEEMS LIKE FOREVER AGO, BUT JUST TWO WEEKS AGO, BRINGING YOU A YOUR ANNUAL RATE IN INDEX. THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

AS THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST MENTIONED, THE RATE INDEX IS PROVIDED ANNUALLY EACH YEAR.

WE HAVE OVER HISTORY KIND OF DEBATED WHICH ONE WORKS BEST FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES.

AND WE HAVE LANDED ON THE MIAMI FORT LAUDERDALE AREA IN THE PAST AND THAT'S WHAT WE RECOMMENDED IN ON JUNE 3RD.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE ALSO RECOMMENDS.

[07:20:02]

THERE ARE THREE AREAS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT ARE DISCUSSED IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.

AND THAT IS WATER, SEWER, RECLAIMED WATER AND SOLID WASTE.

IF YOU RECALL, STORMWATER WAS UPDATED LAST YEAR AND WITH A FOUR YEAR INCREASE OF 25 OR 25% OVER FOUR YEARS, THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED OCTOBER 1ST, BEGINNING THIS YEAR AND THE.

THE 2520 6TH APRIL OVER APRIL. CPI FOR FORT LAUDERDALE, MIAMI AREAS, 3.8%.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALSO MENTION THAT IF YOU WERE TRYING TO DO THE MATH, AND I ALWAYS LOOK AT COUNCILMAN BLANKENSHIP BECAUSE HE'S THE MATH MATH WIZARD ON COACH TO THAT, THAT COLLIER COUNTY IS NOTIFIED US THAT THE SOLID WASTE PATHS THROUGH CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS IS 4.44% AND FOR COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS IS 1.95%. SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO CALCULATE OUT THE DISPOSAL AND YOU JUST TRY TO APPLY 3.8% ACROSS THE BOARD, SOLID WASTE ISN'T GOING TO WORK OUT FOR YOU BECAUSE WE DO ENCOMPASS THAT DISPOSAL RATE IN THERE.

AND THAT'S A PASS THROUGH FROM THE COUNTY. SO YOU JUST HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

IT ALSO IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT DURING THE CIP WE TALKED EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT WHAT IS THE RIGHT RATE TO GIVE.

AND THIS IS OUR TYPICAL CUSTOMARY COME TO YOU WITH A RATE INCREASE.

THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL OR THERE'S A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GOING ON.

AND WE ALSO HAVE A TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT A RATE CONSULTANT COMING IN AND LOOKING AT EVERYTHING.

AND THAT RATE CONSULTANT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, COMING FORWARD SOON TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE IF A RATE INCREASE NEEDS TO HAPPEN ABOVE, WHAT ARE YOUR ANNUAL CPI IS? AND LASTLY, JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THIS ANNUAL INCREASE THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO APPROVE TODAY WOULD MEAN A RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER FOR WATER, SEWER AND SOLID WASTE CHARGES IS ABOUT $67.80 PER YEAR.

AND FOR A FOR THE STORMWATER CHARGES OF THE 25%, IT WOULD BE $150 INCREASE A YEAR.

AND WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU. EXCELLENT WORK. AGAIN. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. I SEE YOUR MIND WORKING THERE, VICE MAYOR.

I'M OKAY WITH WITH THESE CHANGES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

IT'S JUST WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF 60 DOLLARS HERE.

$150 HERE, $300 HERE, $600 HERE. YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY TAXES, WATER RATES, SEWER RATES, STORMWATER RATES, SOLID WASTE. YOU KNOW, PLUS PEOPLE ARE HAVING INSURANCE COSTS IF THEY CAN GET INSURANCE, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT EVERYBODY IN NAPLES IS WEALTHY.

SOME ARE ON A FIXED INCOME. AND WE JUST NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE MORE AND MORE THINKING ABOUT OUR BUDGET, WHEN WE GET TO IT IN AUGUST TIME FRAME. AND I KNOW MR. YOUNG'S PROBABLY THINKING THE SAME THING THAT WE HAVE A LOT TO CONSIDER AND A LOT TO BALANCE OUT.

AND IN THE CUSTOMER SERVICE FIELD, WE LIKE WHEN YOU PASS A LOWER RATE BECAUSE WE GET LESS PHONE CALLS FROM ANGRY CUSTOMERS.

THAT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL. THANK YOU. AND YOUR MOTION.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN 17 A ON SECOND READING.

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

JUST FOR THE RECORD, NO PUBLIC COMMENT, NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT RECORD. AND, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCILMEMBER BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRULL.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

SCHULTZ. AYE. AND MAYOR. YES. THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TAKES US TO 17 B YES. THANK YOU.

[17.B) An Ordinance Amending the Definition of Plan Review Fees in Section 16-51, Definitions, and Amending SEC. 16-53 – Plan Review Fee, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Providing Review Fees at Application, Resubmittal for Corrections and Revisions; Amending Section 16-52, Building Permit Fees, Section 16-53, Plan Review Fee, and Adding Paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) to Section 16-58, Miscellaneous Fees, of Chapter 16, Construction, Rehabilitation and Property Maintenance, of Appendix “a” – Fees and Charges Schedule of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Florida for the Purpose of Increasing Building Permit, Plan Review, Plan Revision, and Inspection Fees; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and an Effective Date.]

MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF PLAN REVIEW FEES IN SECTION 16-51 DEFINITIONS AND AMENDING SECTION 16-53 PLAN REVIEW FEE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING REVIEW FEES AT APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL FOR CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS.

AMENDING SECTION 1652 BUILDING PERMIT FEES SECTION 1653 PLAN REVIEW FEE AND ADDING PARAGRAPH SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT TO SECTION 1658. MISCELLANEOUS FEES OF CHAPTER 16 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OF APPENDIX A FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING BUILDING PERMIT PLAN, REVIEW PLAN REVISION AND INSPECTION FEES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU MATTHEW.

[07:25:04]

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. STEVE BECKMAN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING SERVICES.

SO I'M BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY FOR THE SECOND READING OF THIS ORDINANCE TO ADJUST OUR FEES, WHICH ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COST RECOVERY OF OUR OPERATING EXPENSES AS OUR COSTS HAVE INCREASED DUE TO INFLATIONARY PRESSURES, INSURANCE SALARIES AND WAGES, T AND OTHER OTHER COSTS.

OUR FEES AND STRUCTURE HAVE REMAINED MOSTLY UNCHANGED FOR 25 YEARS SINCE EARLY 2001.

WE DID ADJUST SOME FEES OVER THE YEARS IN 2008, 18 AND 25.

HOWEVER, THE MAIN FEE STRUCTURE FOR MOST PERMITS, ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION HAVE REMAINED AT $0.50 A SQUARE FOOT SINCE 2001, AT WHICH TIME IT WAS CHANGED FROM $0.35 A SQUARE FOOT TO 50.

JUST TO GIVE SOME INFORMATION. FOR THE RECORD, 2008 SAW INCREASES TO SOME MINIMUM FEES AND SOME FIXED FEES.

AGAIN, THAT BASE FEE WAS LEFT UNCHANGED. 2018 SAW INCREASES TO SOME OTHER FIXED FEES AND INTRODUCED A COUPLE SOME NEW FEES, BUT AGAIN, THAT BASE FEE REMAINED UNCHANGED IN 2025, SAW INCREASES TO SOME FIXED FEES AND INTRODUCED THREE NEW FEES, WHICH WERE A FEE FOR A STOP WORK ORDER EXTENDING TCOS.

WE PUT SOME DIFFERENT FEES IN THERE FOR THAT, AND THEN ALSO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FEE FOR WHEN WE HAVE REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF OUR CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. BUT AGAIN, THE MAIN STRUCTURE IS MOSTLY UNCHANGED IN 2018.

THERE WAS ONE ADJUSTMENT TO A PER SQUARE FOOT FEE, BUT IT WAS ONLY FOR A DEMOLITION MOVING PERMIT.

SO AGAIN, SMALL MINOR PERMIT WAS A VERY MINOR CHANGE.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, OUR BASE FEES FOR ALL PERMITS HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED.

THIS ORDINANCE WILL ALSO ADD THREE NEW FEES A FEE FOR AUTHORIZING EARLY WORK, A FEE FOR AUTHORIZING AFTER HOURS WORK, AND IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO PHASE A PERMIT. SO WE'LL HAVE FEES FOR THOSE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT DO OCCUR, DO TAKE SOME STAFF TIME AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ANY FEES FOR THOSE IN THE PAST.

THE PROPOSED NEW FEES WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST AT OUR BEGINNING OF OUR NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BECKMAN. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING? NO CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE IN 17. BE ON SECOND READING.

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

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

SCHULTZ. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN IS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. MAYOR. YES. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 17 C, MR.

[17.C) Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Procedure for Review of the Design Review Board. An Ordinance Relating to the Design Review Board of the City of Naples, Amending Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Boards, Commissions and Committees, Division 4, Design Review Board, Sections 2-474 Organization; Quorum; Rules of Procedure, 2-475 Applicability of Design Review; Prohibitions; 2-476 Procedure for Review Criteria; Review, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for the Purpose of Updating the Procedure for Review of the Design Review Board of the City of Naples; Providing for Codification, Conflicts, Severability, Correction of Scrivener’s Error, Construction, Publication and an Effective Date.]

MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION.

ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.

SECTION 2-474. ORGANIZATION QUORUM. RULES OF PROCEDURE 2-475.

APPLICABILITY OF DESIGN REVIEW PROHIBITIONS 2-476.

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW CRITERIA. REVIEW OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES.

PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. THIS IS SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE DRB ORDINANCE. THIS IS TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS TO ELIMINATE ONE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW HEARINGS.

THIS WAS A PRODUCT OF MANY, MANY WORKSHOPS AND MEETINGS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND THE CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL WAS TO GO WITH WHAT WE WERE CALLING OPTION B, WHICH WAS TO ELIMINATE THE SECOND DESIGN REVIEW HEARING.

SO NOW WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY WILL REQUIRE ONE DESIGN REVIEW HEARING.

IT WOULD NOT BE PRELIMINARY OR FINAL. IT WOULD JUST BE A DESIGN REVIEW HEARING.

AND THAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. SO THE FIRST STEP FOR A NEW NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DESIGN REVIEW.

THEN IT WOULD GO ON TO SITE PLAN AND THEN ON TO CITY AND CITY COUNCIL IF ANY ENTITLEMENTS ARE REQUIRED BEFORE GOING TO BUILDING PERMIT.

SO IT ELIMINATES THAT STEP OF A SECOND DESIGN REVIEW BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND BUILDING PERMIT.

[07:30:02]

THIS WAS BEFORE YOU ON JUNE 3RD FOR FIRST READING.

WE HAVE MADE NO CHANGES. IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ON FIRST READING BY CITY COUNCIL.

WE HAVE MADE NO CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING. IT'S THE EXACT SAME ORDINANCE THAT WAS BEFORE YOU ON JUNE 3RD.

MISS MARTIN, WE DID MAKE ONE CHANGE. REMEMBER, WE ADDED THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE FIVE ABOUT.

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT CITY COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO REQUEST A DESIGN REVIEW BOARDS REVIEW OF ANY PROJECT AT ANY TIME.

WE DID DO THAT. SORRY. NO WORRIES. THAT WAS THE ONLY REQUEST WE GOT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO REQUEST AND THAT WAS. AND THE REASON WE DID THAT WAS TO BE SURE THAT IF IF FOR SOME REASON, WHEN A PROJECT WENT THROUGH SITE PLAN OR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND COUNCIL, ANY CHANGES WERE CAME OUT OF THOSE REVIEWS, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO SEND THOSE CHANGES BACK TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.

SORRY. YEAH. KRAMER, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I HAD THIS IN MY NOTES FROM LAST TIME.

I DIDN'T ASK IT. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH IT. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS SOMEBODY FROM LIKE SIMULTANEOUSLY, WHATEVER THE PROCESS BEGINNING DRB AND SITE PLAN, THEY COULD SUBMIT AND THOSE TWO THINGS CAN BE RUNNING CONCURRENTLY, RIGHT. BUT YOU THE WHERE IT WHERE IT THEY CANNOT HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME IS THEY ARE BOTH REQUIRED PRIOR TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. AND THEY CAN DO THAT NOW. THEY CAN DO THAT NOW.

RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 17 D AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION.

NOPE. ITEM 17. C AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AMENDING CHAPTER TWO.

A LITTLE BIT MORE AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

DIVISION FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SECTIONS 2-474.

ORGANIZATION QUORUM. RULES OF PROCEDURE DASH 2475.

APPLICABILITY OF DESIGN REVIEW PROHIBITIONS 2-476 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW CRITERIA.

REVIEW OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES.

THAT WAS MUCH MORE THAN I ANTICIPATED. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ.

AYE. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. AND MAYOR HARTMAN.

YES. THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND JUST ONE THING, COUNCIL, IF YOU AGREE, IF THIS PROCESS IS HAPPENING, THAT WE DIRECT DRB, WHICH HAS BEEN ON THEIR AGENDA FOR A VERY LONG TIME, TO REVIEW THE LIGHTING AND THE SIGNAGE, SO WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MOVING FORWARD. WHAT THE UPDATING THOSE.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT NOW THAT THIS THERE'S ONE DESIGN REVIEW HEARING THAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, ANY PROJECTS THAT DO COME BEFORE YOU THAT WILL HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW.

SO I FEEL LIKE YOU SOMETIMES YOU HEAR, WELL, THE PROJECT IS BEFORE YOU, BUT WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT THE LIGHTING? AND CURRENTLY THE WAY THE PROJECT IS, IT'S AFTER YOU. NOW THAT FIRST DESIGN REVIEW HEARING WILL INCLUDE ALL OF THAT.

NO, I MEANT WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING ABOUT THE STANDARDS.

YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT I THINK SO FAR WE'VE LOOKED AT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING.

THOSE ARE THE TWO MAJOR. OKAY. AND IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE, PLEASE COME BACK TO US, YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCIL IS NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

THEN WE'RE GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU. TAKING US TO ITEM

[17.D) An Ordinance Amending Section 36-1, Definitions, and adding New Sections 36-5, General Provisions for Micromobility Devices, 36-6, Micromobility License Agreements, 36-7, Micromobility Tour Companies, 36-8, City Council Review of Micromobility License Agreements and Micromobility Tour Companies and 36-9, Penalties of Article I, in General, of Chapter 36, Traffic and Vehicles, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Providing Definitions; General Provisions for Micromobility Devices; Micromobility Franchise Agreements; Micromobility Tour Companies and Penalties; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and an Effective Date.]

17. D. THANK YOU. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION ONE DEFINITIONS AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 365 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES 366 MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS 367 MICROMOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES 36. A CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND MICROMOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES, AND 369 PENALTIES OF ARTICLE ONE IN GENERAL OF CHAPTER 36 TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING DEFINITIONS.

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS, MICROMOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES AND PENALTIES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. AND I HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER AND I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC SPEAKER BEFORE WE GET INTO ANY DISCUSSIONS.

I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD DO THAT. WELL, I'M AHEAD OF YOU, MR..

MR. SMITH. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR HEITMANN, CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE.

[07:35:02]

RANDY SMITH, CEO OF NAPLES TRANSPORTATION AND TOURS.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT ON OUR COMPANIES AND WHAT WE DO WITH WITH REGARDS TO THIS ITEM.

WE'VE BEEN SAFELY OPERATING IN NAPLES TROLLEYS SINCE 1988.

THIS IS OUR 38TH YEAR. I'VE BEEN RUNNING IT SINCE 1990, MY 36TH YEAR.