[00:00:03] GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THIS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. [1) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL] OCTOBER 21ST, 2026. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP HERE. MAYOR HEITMANN HERE. THANK YOU. TODAY, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE REVEREND DOCTOR AARON JANKLOW WITH US TO. [2) INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] FROM FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO DO THE INVOCATION FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE. IF YOU COULD STAND, PLEASE. PLEASE JOIN ME IN PRAYER. DEAR GOD, THANK YOU FOR THIS CITY. ITS NATURAL RESOURCES OF BEACH, GULF, SKY, LANDSCAPE AND WEATHER. AND FOR ALL THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE GENERATIONS HOUSING, BUSINESSES, THE COMMUNITY THAT WE SHARE. AND SO WE PRAY FOR ALL THOSE WHO WORK TO SERVE, PROTECT AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY. WE PRAY FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, FIRST RESPONDERS, TEACHERS, DOCTORS AND NURSES. FOR THE BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYEES WHO SUSTAIN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY AND PROVIDE THE GOODS AND SERVICES WE DEPEND UPON AND FOR OUR HOUSES OF WORSHIP WHICH NURTURE FAITH AND SERVE THOSE IN NEED. THIS MORNING WE PRAY ESPECIALLY FOR THE FAMILY OF LINDA PENNIMAN. WE THANK YOU FOR HER SERVICE AND DEDICATION TO THE CITY, AND PRAY THAT YOU WOULD EMBRACE HER FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND COLLEAGUES WITH THE SECURITY OF YOUR LOVE. MAY THOSE HERE TODAY SEEK TO FOLLOW HER EXAMPLE OF DEDICATION TO THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE HERE. AND WE GIVE THANKS AND PRAY FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVE UPON IT FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. GUIDE THEIR DELIBERATIONS, GRANT THEM WISDOM AND PERSPECTIVE, AND HELP THEM PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE OUR CITY SUCH A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE. WITH THANKS FOR THIS CITY AND COUNTRY WE CALL HOME, WE PRAY IN YOUR HOLY NAME. AMEN. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. YESTERDAY. WE FOUND OUT THAT LINDA PITTMAN, A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, FRIEND, COLLEAGUE AND MENTOR, PASSED AWAY. SHE RECENTLY HAD TO RESIGN BECAUSE HER HUSBAND WAS ILL AND PASSED AWAY. ON BEHALF OF THIS COUNCIL, WE SEND OUR PRAYERS AND BLESSINGS OF PEACE, OF GOOD MEMORIES TO THEM. AND THIS DAIS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER HER AS HAVING THAT QUICK WIT. GET TO THE BUSINESS, SAY WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY AND ALWAYS, ALWAYS WAS IN THE MAIN CONCERN SHE HAD WAS FOR THE CITY THAT SHE DID THE RIGHT THING WITH INTEGRITY, CHARACTER, AND OF COURSE, LAUGHTER. SO SHE'LL BE MISSED HERE AT THE DAIS AND IN THE CITY AND ALSO THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY FOR THE MANY, MANY ACTIVITIES SHE HAD AND WILL HONOR HER NOW. WE REMEMBER LINDA WITH A DEEP SENSE OF REVERENCE. LINDA PENNIMAN, WHO WAS OFTEN KNOWN BY MANY OTHER NAMES DAUGHTER, WIFE, MOM, GRANDMA, BOARD MEMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER, VICE MAYOR, VICE CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST, PUBLISHER AND FRIEND. MY FIRST JOB, I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WAS. AS A RESULT, I LEARNED THERE WAS A DISTANT RELATIVE OF MINE THAT WAS WORKING AT THE NEWSPAPER AND HE SAID, COME ON DOWN AND SURE. AND I GOT THAT'S HOW I GOT MY FIRST JOB WORKING AT THE NEWSPAPER. IT'S LINDA'S SELFLESS SACRIFICE OF TIME, TALENTS AND GIFTS THAT WE ALL ENJOY TODAY BECAUSE OF HER. WE ARE A BETTER COMMUNITY. LINDA WAS DEDICATED TO HER FAMILY. [00:05:04] SHE LOVED HER HUSBAND, NICK OF 57 YEARS, AND LINDA LOVED LIFE AND SHE CHERISHED THE NAPLES COMMUNITY SO MUCH SO THAT SHE DEDICATED HER LIFE TO MAKING IT A BETTER PLACE. BUT NOT JUST FOR TODAY. SHE HAS MADE IT A BETTER PLACE FOR OUR FUTURE NEAPOLITANS. LINDA WAS PASSIONATE ABOUT HER BELIEFS. STRONG BUT OPEN MINDED. YES, DEDICATED TO THE CAUSE. ABSOLUTELY FUNNY AND MISCHIEVOUS. 100%, BUT KIND AND RESPECTFUL ALWAYS. LINDA WAS ALSO INCREDIBLY WISE. SHE ONCE SAID DEALING WITH LOSS CAN BE A LONG JOURNEY IF DONE SENSITIVELY TALK TO HER. SHE'LL LIKE THAT. AND IN NUMEROUS AND UNEXPLAINED WAYS, SHE WILL BE ANSWERING. SO TODAY, LET'S DO AS SHE SUGGESTED. LET'S TALK TO LINDA OFTEN. AND I SUSPECT HER WORDS WILL BE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR IN ALL OF US. DAVID, YOU DID A GREAT JOB AT HONORING LINDA. IF WE COULD JUST TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL SET THE AGENDA AND DO THE ANNOUNCEMENTS. OKAY. WE'RE BACK IN FROM THAT SHORT LITTLE BREAK AND CONTINUING ON WITH THE AGENDA. SETTING THE AGENDA. MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU MAYOR. [3) SET AGENDA (add or remove items)] JUST A COUPLE ITEMS. THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENT ON ITEM 13 C, WHICH HAD AN UPDATED AGM, A RESOLUTION, AND ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, I DO WANT TO ADD AN ITEM. IT WILL BE LABELED AS ITEM 13 D, AND IT IS AN ITEM FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY WHERE THERE WILL BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF A FUTURE EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND THEN LASTLY IS ITEM 13. A IT SHOULD BE A RELATIVELY QUICK ITEM, BUT WE DO WANT TO HAVE THIS HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND WITH THAT, MADAM, THAT'S ALL. COUNCIL. ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO SET THE AGENDA? SO MOVED. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CRAMER. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I. AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT TAKES US TO ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS. [4.A) The League Club's 40th Anniversary Proclamation.] AND IF I COULD HAVE LAURA HEWITT JULIANNE SMITH, AND MARTHA WILLIAMS COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. YOU CAN SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN. THEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME A LITTLE BIT CLOSER. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. CONGRATULATIONS. SO IT'S MY HONOR TO READ THE PROCLAMATION AND HAVE THE LEAGUE CLUB RECEIVE AFTER 40 YEARS OF EFFORTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHEREAS THE LEAGUE CLUB INCORPORATED WAS FOUNDED IN NAPLES IN 1986 BY WOMEN WITH A SHARED COMMITMENT TO FELLOWSHIP, EDUCATION, VOLUNTEERISM AND PHILANTHROPIC. PERFECT FOR THE LINDA PENNIMAN AND THIS COMMUNITY. WHEREAS FOR 40 YEARS, THE LEAVE CLUB HAS BROUGHT TOGETHER WOMEN DEDICATED TO STRENGTHENING SOUTHWEST FLORIDA THROUGH CHARITABLE GIVING, VOLUNTEER LEADERSHIP, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AND MEANINGFUL SERVICE. WHEREAS, SINCE ITS FOUNDING, THE LEAGUE CLUB HAS INVESTED NEARLY 9 MILLION IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SERVING OUR COMMUNITY, SUPPORTING PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATION, OPPORTUNITY FOR CHILDREN ASSISTANCE AND FAMILIES IN CRISIS HEALTH CARE, HUMAN SERVICES, FOOD, SHELTER, AND SUPPORT OF SENIORS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SERVICES THAT IMPROVE THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA. WHEREAS, THE LEAGUE CLUB MEMBERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED COUNTLESS HOURS OF VOLUNTEER SERVICE SHARING THEIR TALENTS, EXPERIENCE, LEADERSHIP, GENEROSITY TO ADVANCE THE WORK OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, THROUGH THE SIGNIFICANT FUNDRAISING INITIATIVES, INCLUDING NAPLES TABLES AND THE DEDICATION OF GENERATIONS OF MEMBERS, DONORS, SPONSORS, VOLUNTEERS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS, THE LEAGUE CLUB HAS CREATED AN ENDURING LEGACY OF PHILANTHROPY AND SERVICE. WHEREAS THE LEAGUE CLUB CELEBRATES ITS 40 YEAR ANNIVERSARY IN 2026, IT HONORS THE VISION OF [00:10:10] FOUNDERS AND THE THOUSANDS OF WOMEN WHO COMMIT OVER 40 DECADES FOR DECADES AND HAVE HELPED NAPLES AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA A STRONG AND MORE COMPASSIONATE COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, THE LEAGUE CLUB CONTINUES TO BUILD UPON THE DISTINGUISHED LEGACY BY INSPIRING VOLUNTEERISM, FOSTERING FRIENDSHIP AND FELLOWSHIP, AND INVESTING IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, THOSE WHO WORK AND TRANSFORM LIVES THROUGHOUT OUR REGION. NOW, THEREFORE, I, TERESA HEITMANN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, BY VIRTUE AND AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 1ST THE LEAGUE CLUB 40TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION DAY IN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND EXTEND SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO THE LEAGUE AND ITS MEMBERS ON 40 YEARS OF EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE, PHILANTHROPIC AND VOLUNTEER LEADERSHIP, AND COMMITMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, MAYOR, WE'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. MAYOR HEITMANN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS WONDERFUL RECOGNITION OF OUR ANNIVERSARY. AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT BITTERSWEET RIGHT NOW BECAUSE LINDA PENNIMAN WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE CLUB FOR MANY YEARS. SO WE ARE CERTAINLY VERY SAD TO HEAR THAT. WE'RE HONORED, HOWEVER, TO BE HERE AND INCREDIBLY PROUD TO ACCEPT THIS PROCLAMATION ON BEHALF OF OUR 600 MEMBERS AND THE THOUSANDS OF WOMEN WHO HAVE COME BEFORE US TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. WHEN WE WERE FOUNDED IN 1986, IT BEGAN WITH A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO REALLY WERE LOOKING FOR FRIENDSHIP AND FELLOWSHIP. BUT IT GREW INTO THE BELIEF THAT GIVING BACK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. AS WE CELEBRATE, WE ARE ENORMOUSLY PROUD OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE. AND JULIANNE SMITH IS GOING TO SAY A FEW WORDS AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THROUGH THE GENEROSITY AND THE HARD WORK OF OUR MEMBERS AND THE SUPPORT OF OUR COMMUNITY, THE LEAGUE CLUB HAS INVESTED NEARLY $9 MILLION IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT SOUTHWEST FLORIDA. THESE DOLLARS HAVE HELPED TO EDUCATE CHILDREN TO SUPPORT FAMILIES IN CRISIS FOOD, TO PROVIDE FOOD AND SHELTER TO EXPAND ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AND HUMAN SERVICES, CARE FOR SENIORS, AND ADDRESS THE NEEDS THAT HAVE CHANGED IN OUR COMMUNITY AS OUR COMMUNITY HAS GROWN. BUT OUR IMPACT HAS NEVER BEEN ONLY ABOUT MONEY. FOR 40 YEARS, LEE CLUBWOMEN HAVE ALSO GIVEN THEIR TIME, THEIR TALENTS AND THEIR LEADERSHIP. THEY HAVE SERVED ON NONPROFIT BOARDS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, RAISED FUNDS, BUILT PARTNERSHIPS, AND STEPPED FORWARD WHEN WE FOUND A NEED. NAPLES IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GIVE GENEROUSLY. THEY VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME, THEY SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT A STRONG COMMUNITY DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN. WE ALL HAVE A ROLE IN BUILDING IT. MAYOR HINEMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY SPECIAL HONOR AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FOR RECOGNIZING THE ROLE THAT THE LEAGUE CLUB HAS PLAYED IN THE STORY OF NAPLES FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT STORY TOGETHER FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. THANK YOU. I THINK IT WAS. JUST A LITTLE TOO. PERFECT. A LITTLE BIT MORE WEIRD. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE PHONE FIRST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO MUCH. THAT'S HELPFUL. THAT'S A BIG DEAL. KEEP GOING. [00:15:06] OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM FIVE. PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT. THE SLIPS ARE IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND CAN BE GIVEN OUT TO THE CLERK. I HAVE. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM FIVE. OKAY, WELL, THAT TAKES US TO [APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA] APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL. MADAM MAYOR. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ITEMS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY. SUPPORT. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I, I OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO THE END OF CONSENT GOING TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. OUR FIRST ITEM IS 11 A MADAM MAYOR. WE WERE GOING TO HEAR 13 A OH, THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER. WE'LL GO TO. [13.A) Discussion and approval of the Proposed Amended and Restated Ground Lease for Jasmine Cay Apartments, 100 Jasmine Cay Circle.] 13 A THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS ITEM IS A DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT AND RESTATED GROUND LEASE TO JASMINE K APARTMENTS. IT IS IT IS SOMEWHAT FORM IN NATURE. IT DOESN'T EXTEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT IN ANY WAY. IT IS MORE RELATED TO A FEW ITEMS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THEIR THEIR LOAN APPROVAL AND VARIOUS FINANCIAL ELEMENTS OF THEIR OF THEIR OPERATION. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE MR. SCOTT BROWN TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS IS NOT A AN EXTENSION OF A LEASE OR ANY OF THOSE TERMS, JUST SOME OF THE LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION. SO WITH THAT, IF SCOTT COULD COME UP, I'D BE GRATEFUL IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. SO THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR. BROWN. COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LEASE? I JUST COULD YOU JUST LET US BE INFORMED ON WHAT EXACTLY YOU'RE GOING FOR WITH THIS LOAN AND WHAT IT'LL GO TOWARDS? SURE. IT'S JUST IT'S AN AFFORDABLE PROJECT. JASMINE K, AND THE LEASE IS 32 YEARS OLD OUT OF A 75 YEAR TERM. AND THROUGH THE YEARS NEW REQUIREMENTS AND LANGUAGE HAS BEEN REQUIRED BY FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, AND WE'RE JUST CLEANING UP SOME LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE TO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS. IT'S JUST A SIMPLE REFINANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. MOTION TO APPROVE OR. YEAH. MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDED AND RESTATED GROUND LEASE REGARDING JASMINE K. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ AYE. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW THAT TAKES US. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR BEING HERE, MR. BROWN. TO LAND USE ITEMS. ITEM 11, MR. MCCONNELL. [11.A) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 26-CU5, Pursuant to Sections 46-34, 56-94, and 58-143 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for an Accessory, Multi-Use Mobility Adaptive Recreational Facility in the R1-15 Residence District, for the Property Owned by John Paul Turcich, Trustee Of The John Paul Turcich Revocable Trust, and Located at 1175 Oleander Drive, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing An Effective Date.] YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION. 26 DASH Q5 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46-34, 56, 94 AND 58, 143 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR AN ACCESSORY MULTI USE MOBILITY ADAPTIVE RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN THE R1 15 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN PAUL TURK, TURKISH TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN PAUL TURKISH REVOCABLE TRUST AND LOCATED AT 1175 OLEANDER DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HERE IN PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SWEARING IN MADAM CLERK. ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DISCLOSURES. COUNCILMEMBER. SCHULTZ. COUNCILMEMBER. CUL DE SAC. YEAH. YEAH. DAVID. RIGHT NOW. I MUST NEED HEARING AIDS. DAVID IS WORKING ON IT. IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT THE RECORD OR THE [00:20:02] TRANSCRIPT? PARDON? I DON'T KNOW, BUT WILL IT. YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE RIGHT HERE. DAVID, YOU CAN TAKE A RECESS. OKAY. WE'RE CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM A 11 A WE HAD DISCLOSURE. I MEAN, WE HAD THE SWEARING IN. DO WE NEED TO REPEAT THAT, MR. MCCONNELL? I THINK WE GOT HALFWAY THROUGH DISCLOSURES. DISCLOSURES. YES. SO WE'RE OKAY WITH SWEARING IN? YES. HAPPENED. YES. WE'LL COMPLETE OUR DISCLOSURES. WE WERE AT COUNCIL MEMBER CURL SPOKE TO STAFF AND KNOW THE LOCATION. VICE MAYOR, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF. KRAMER SAY I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND I DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF AND BARTON. COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF TO SIMPLY GET SOME CLARITY ON THE SUBJECT MATTER. AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION AND SPOKE TO STAFF AND WATCHED THE PA BE. MEETING WITH THAT. GOOD MORNING MISS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR HEITMANN, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO. ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, JOHN PAUL TURCIC. TURCIC AS TRUSTEE OF THE TURCIC FAMILY. WITH ME TODAY ARE MR. AND MRS. TURCIC, WHO SWORE IN OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PETITION 26-CU5 REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN EXCESSIVE ACCESSORY. MULTI USE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT 1175 OLEANDER DRIVE. THE FACILITY IS A HARD ADA NAVIGABLE SURFACE FOR SUPERVISED MOVEMENT AND ADAPTIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY FOR THE FAMILY. SON WHO HAS SEVERE DISABILITIES ALONG WITH REASONABLE INVITEES SUCH AS A THERAPIST. THERE IS AMPLE COMMUNICATION ON THE SUBJECT IN YOUR PACKET. SO THOUGH NOT TRADITIONALLY WHERE I WOULD COMMENCE A PRESENTATION, I NEED TO OPEN WITH A FEW INITIAL REMARKS WHICH WOULD CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE SUBJECT AREA WAS REVIEWED AND PERMITTED BY THE CITY AS AN ADAPTIVE MOBILITY AREA, AND WAS CONSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMIT AFTER CONSTRUCTION. ON ONE OCCASION, WHILE THE FAMILY'S GROWN CHILDREN WERE VISITING, THE FAMILY PLAYED PICKLEBALL ON THE PERMITTED SURFACE. THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT MISTAKE THAT RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING CHAIN OF EVENTS. THE CITY NOTIFIED THE FAMILY THAT THEIR PLAY IS NOT AUTHORIZED. THE FAMILY IMMEDIATELY CEASED USE AND HAS NOT RESUMED IT. AFTER THE FAMILY WAS NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE FAMILY RESPONSIBLY MET WITH CITY PLANNING STAFF. THE FAMILY RECOGNIZED THAT THE ONE TIME USE WAS A MISTAKE AND ARE NOT INTERESTED IN VIOLATING CITY REQUIREMENTS. IN FACT, THE FAMILY OUTLINED THE PINNACLE INTENTION IN PAYING FOR THE AREA WAS TO FACILITATE THEIR SON'S ADAPTIVE RECREATIONAL NEEDS. THE FAMILY SON LUKE, AS NOTED, SUFFERS FROM SEVERE AND DEGRADING DISABILITIES. TRANSPORTING LUKE TO A PUBLIC RECREATIONAL AREA IS INCREASINGLY IMPRACTICAL. [00:25:01] IN MEETING WITH CITY PLANNING STAFF, THE FAMILY DIRECTLY EXPRESSED THAT THE FAMILY WOULD DO WHATEVER THE CITY REQUIRED TO ALLOW THEIR SON TO USE THE AREA FOR RECREATIONAL USES. UPON DIRECTION BY CITY STAFF. AND CONSISTENT WITH THAT COMMITMENT, THE FAMILY SUBMITTED PETITION 26-CU5 FOR AN ADAPTIVE MOBILITY MULTI-USE RECREATIONAL FACILITY. THE FAMILY SUBSEQUENTLY MET WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PETITION. THE MEETING SERVED SEVERAL PURPOSES. IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE FAMILY EXPLAIN AND APOLOGIZE FOR THE ONE TIME PICKLEBALL USE, BUT ALSO TO CLARIFY WHAT THE FAMILY IS SEEKING THROUGH THIS PETITION AND BETTER UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS DIRECTLY. THE MEETING CONCLUDED IN A COMMITMENT TO INCLUDE AN EXPRESS CONDITION THAT NO PICKLEBALL, ADAPTIVE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD BE AUTHORIZED AND THIS CONDITION WOULD RUN WITH THE STRUCTURE REGARDLESS OF TITLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS UNIQUELY TAILORED TO THESE FACTS. THE REQUEST IS FOR AN ADAPTIVE MOBILITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY. WHILE PRESCRIPTIVELY LISTING EVERY POTENTIAL USE OF THE FACILITY WOULD INFRINGE ON THE VERY ADAPTIVE NATURE OF RECREATIONAL USES AND EQUIPMENT THAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED AS LUKE'S CONDITION EVOLVES. WHAT THE RESOLUTION DOES INSTEAD ADDRESS IS THE ACTIVITY THE RECORD SHOWS TO BE THE ACTUAL CONCERN DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. PICKLEBALL AND OTHER SIMILAR PADDLE SPORTS ARE PROHIBITED. THE FACILITY IS PRIVATE ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE, LIMITED TO DAYLIGHT HOURS, AND WILL REMAIN REMAIN. AS SUCH, THE FACILITY REQUIRES DENSE BUFFERING VEGETATION TO BE MAINTAINED AND BY OPERATION OF THESE CONDITIONS, THEY WILL CARRY FORWARD AGAIN REGARDLESS OF TITLE. THIS IS THE PRETEXT. I'LL NOW MOVE INTO MY PRESENTATION. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT IMPORTANT BACKDROP. I BELIEVE AT LEAST ONE NEIGHBORING MEMBER IS HERE, AND I HOPE THAT HE SPEAKS TO YOU AS WELL IN TERMS OF THAT, THAT DIALOG IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE SCREEN IS A LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ORIENT CITY COUNCIL TO WHERE THE PROPERTY SITS. IT'S WITHIN THE COQUINA SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR LOUDHAM PARK BEACH. THE POINT OF THIS IMAGE IS TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS UNIQUE. THIS IS A UNIQUE VIEW. THIS IS A UNIQUE TRANSITION SITE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO MORE INTENSE USES TO THE WEST AND NORTH, INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM PARKING BEFORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUES EAST TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT CONTEXT MATTERS SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW A CONDITIONAL USE IS EVALUATED. SECTION 46-34A DEFINES A CONDITIONAL USE AS ONE THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE GENERALLY, BUT MAY BE APPROPRIATE BASED ON AREA, LOCATION AND RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SECTION 46-34F9 THEN ASKS WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE SURROUNDING DISTRICT. BOTH STANDARDS ARE INHERENTLY LOCATIONAL. THEY TURN ON WHERE THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY SITS, NOT WHETHER AN ADAPTIVE MOBILITY COURT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. IN THE ABSTRACT, A SITE ALREADY BORDERED BY CONDOMINIUM PARKING IS NOT THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT AS AN INTERIOR LOT, SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT EXPECTS EXACTLY THIS KIND OF EDGE CONDITION TO CARRY ADDITIONAL BUFFERING. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS NOT A PRECEDENT SETTING FOR OTHER PROPERTIES. WE HAD THE SAME LOAD ERROR. ON YOUR SCREEN AND IN THE PETITION MATERIALS. THIS IS JUST A CODE SECTION. SO IT'S NOT IT DOESN'T AFFECT REALLY THE THE THE PETITION SLIDES. WHAT WOULD BE ON THE SCREEN IS THE OPERATIVE CODE PETITION. IT IS IN THE PETITION MATERIALS IN THE RESOLUTION ITSELF. THIS IS A SECTION STAFF RELIED UPON IN ADVISING THE FAMILY THAT A CONDITIONAL USE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SON'S ADAPTIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY NEEDS. THERE IS NO SUBCOMPONENT OF THE CODE THAT ADDRESSES ADA SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES, SO THIS IS THE ONLY PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR LUKE'S USE OF THE OF THE AREA. THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED AND ISSUED AUTHORIZED THE CONSTRUCTED SURFACE ITSELF, [00:30:02] MEANING IT COMPLIES WITH ALL SETBACKS AND STORMWATER CODES AND REQUIRE AND REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. SO IT IS NOT THE SURFACE IN AND OF ITSELF THAT GIVES RISE TO THE CONDITIONAL USE. IT IS THE RECREATIONAL USE TO WHICH THE SURFACE MAY BE PUT. SECTION 56-94 DEFINES A RECREATIONAL FACILITY BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY CONDUCTED UPON IT. TENNIS, RACQUETBALL OR HANDBALL COURTS. SOFTBALL COURTS OF THREE OR MORE. THESE ARE THE CODE ENUMERATED USES THAT QUALIFY AS CONDITIONAL USE. FULL BASKETBALL COURTS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL OR SPORTS FACILITIES SIMILAR IN NATURE. THE ORDINANCE DRAWS NO. AS I NOTED, DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN ACTIVITY CONDUCTED THROUGH STANDARD MEANS AND THE SAME ACTIVITY CONDUCTED THROUGH ADAPTIVE ADA EQUIPMENT. IT IS THIS PRINCIPLE, AND SPECIFICALLY THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY CONTEMPLATED FOR THE FAMILY SON THAT BROUGHT THE FAMILY TO THIS PROCESS, RATHER THAN ANY DEFICIENCY IN THE UNDERLYING PERMIT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING EXACTLY WHERE THE FACILITY'S PRECISE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS ARE SITUATED. THE PROPERTY IS A PLATTED LOT OF APPROXIMATELY 17,424FT², WHICH EQUATES TO A LOT SIZE. AND THIS IS ONE PLATTED LOT THAT IS 2400FT² OF LOT AREA ABOVE THE MINIMUM IN THE R-1 15 ZONING DISTRICT. THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY IS APPROXIMATELY 1768FT² AND ROUGHLY 90 OR MORE FEET FROM THE NEAREST ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION PROVIDES SEPARATION FROM ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAT A STANDARD SIZE LOT MAY NOT AFFORD, WHICH DIRECTLY SUPPORTS THE COMPATIBILITY AND ADEQUACY FINDINGS BY STAFF UNDER SECTIONS 46, 34, F, EIGHT, AND NINE. YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE, BUT I'LL SPEND A FEW MOMENTS GOING THROUGH THE THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS. THIS PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE EXISTING MATURE VEGETATION SCREENING ALONG YUCCA ROAD FRONTAGE. THIS HEDGE FULLY SCREENS THE COURT FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TODAY AND UNDER THE CONDITIONS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED AND WHICH WE SUPPORT. A DENSE VEGETATIVE BUFFER MUST BE MAINTAINED SO THE FACILITIES REMAIN SCREENED ON THE PROPERTY. THE PRACTICAL RESULT IS A GUARANTEED LEVEL OF DENSE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONTAGE GOING FORWARD, BEAUTIFYING A STREETSCAPE OTHERWISE PATTERNED WITH PARKING FACILITIES AT THIS QUADRANT. THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN FROM THE CONDOMINIUM PARKING LOT TO THE WEST. LOOKING BACK ACROSS THE ALLEY TOWARD THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT SHOWS BOTH THE ALLEY SEPARATING THE TWO PROPERTIES AND THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALONG THE SIDE OF THE SITE. FINALLY, THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE PARKING LOT FOR THE CONDOMINIUM TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED THIS PETITION AGAINST ALL TEN STANDARDS OF THE CODE REQUIRED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE AND FOUND EACH WAS MET SEVERAL MERIT PARTICULAR ATTENTION ON SCREENING AND BUFFERING. STAFF IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING DENSE VEGETATION REINFORCED BY THE MANDATORY BUFFER CONDITION AS. AS CRITICAL FACTORS TO FINDING THAT CONDITION HAD BEEN SATISFIED ON SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING. NONE IS PROPOSED AND THE DAYLIGHT ONLY PROPOSED USE FURTHERS THAT FURTHERS THAT INTENTION. ON COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY, STAFF FOUND THE USE TO BE COMPATIBLE SPECIFICALLY SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THE PETITIONER AGREED TO. NO PADDLE BALL USE. PICKLEBALL USE. WE FURTHER ASK THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER THAT COMPATIBILITY FINDINGS DO NOT REST ON ASSURANCE ALONE. IT RESTS ON ENFORCEABLE CONDITIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RESOLUTION BECOMES A PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS ENFORCEABLE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT AS IF IT WERE WRITTEN INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND. [00:35:12] THIS IS THE RESOLUTION, AND I BELIEVE I BELIEVE NUMBER FOUR WAS WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE MODIFIED BY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. WITH, WITH THE INTENTION THAT ANY OTHER PADDLE LIKE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES MAY PRECLUDE SOMETHING THAT IS ADAPTIVE AND, AND FACILITATING TO LUKE'S NEEDS. WE SUPPORT PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE DID NOT OBJECT TO STAFF'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. WITH THAT, I CONCLUDE MY OPENING REMARKS AND. I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY FOR. FOR QUESTIONS, MR. AND MRS. TERCEK ARE HERE TO TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING THAT MAY BE HELPFUL. THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PETITION, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. COUNCIL MEMBER, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. I NOTICED THERE WAS A UTILITY ASSESSMENT. IS THIS SLAB GOING TO BE OVER ANY UTILITY CITY OWNED WATER PIPE OR ANY VENDOR SERVICE PIPE PIPING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IS THERE ANY NO, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. AND IF IT AND IF IT WAS, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH. THERE'S A PROCESS WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES, TO THE EXTENT A STRUCTURE EXTENDS INTO AN EASEMENT, AND IT'S EVEN PERMITTED TO EXIST IN THAT EASEMENT, YOU HAVE TO ENTER INTO ESSENTIALLY A LICENSE AND A HOLD HARMLESS. SO IF IT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED, THAT'S THAT'S ON THE OWNER. SO I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE WITHIN AN EASEMENT, BUT IF IT DID, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EXACT SAME PROCESS THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT ANY, ANY OTHER DRIVEWAY OR ANYTHING ELSE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER. CITY ATTORNEY. CITY CLERK. TASHIMA LEWIS. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BEFORE. USE. CONDITIONAL USE. PETITION 26CU5. THE PETITIONER IS JOHN PAUL TRUSTEE. THE AGENT IS FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO, ESQUIRE OF COLEMAN YOVANOVITCH. AND THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IS FOR AN ACCESSORY MULTI USE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY LOCATED IN THE R1 15 RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1175 OLEANDER DRIVE, THIS ITEM WAS ORIGINALLY NOTICED ON MAY 6TH, 2026 FOR THE JUNE 10TH PAB MEETING, BUT WAS RESCHEDULED TO THE SEPTEMBER 9TH PAB MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. THIS ITEM WAS NOTICED ON AUGUST 10TH, 2026, IN WHICH A TOTAL OF 457 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS OF TODAY, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED 48 EMAILS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST, WHICH ARE PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL FOR THIS ITEM. THE CONSENSUS OF THE OPPOSITION PERTAINS TO THE USE OF PICKLEBALL AND THE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPORT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COQUINA SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD ON A DOUBLE FRONTED LOT ALONG YUCCA ROAD AND OLEANDER DRIVE. ON MARCH 17TH, 2025, THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT PRSW2501524, TO INSTALL A CONCRETE SLAB IN THE FRONT YARD ADJACENT TO YUCCA ROAD. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK WAS DESCRIBED AS AN ADAPTIVE MOBILITY AREA. THE PERMIT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS. THE PLANNING REVIEW WAS COMPLETED ON JUNE 24TH, 2025, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 58, DASH ONE, 46 AND 56-54 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH PERTAIN TO SETBACKS AND ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS. THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON JULY 3RD, 2025 AND FINALIZED ON APRIL 21ST, 2026. ON MARCH 24TH, 2026, STAFF RECEIVED A CITIZEN COMPLAINT THAT THE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY AREA WAS RETROFITTED FOR PICKLEBALL USE. THE NEXT DAY, I VISITED THE PROPERTY AT APPROXIMATELY 11:40 A.M. AND SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED AND THE PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMED ME THAT THE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY AREA WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR THEIR SON WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. THE FAMILY DID USE THE AREA FOR PICKLEBALL USE, BUT DISCONTINUED FOLLOWING THE COMPLAINT AND THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURES WILL BE FOLLOWED TO OBTAIN THE CORRECT PERMIT. THEN, ON APRIL 28TH, 2026, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR THE ACCESSORY MUSCLE USE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY PETITION 26 Q FIVE. AS A RESULT OF THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED, THE PETITIONER'S AGENT VOLUNTARILY HELD A BIMODAL NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING ON JULY 23RD, [00:40:04] 2026 TO MEET THE RESIDENTS, HEAR THEIR CONCERNS, AND PROVIDE SOLUTIONS. SENIOR PLANNER JEFFREY BRAMMER AND MYSELF ATTENDED THE MEETING SOLELY FOR OBSERVATION. THIS ITEM WAS REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ASIDE FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS REGARDING PICKLEBALL, NO OTHER NOTEWORTHY COMMENTS DERIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026. BOARD DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING THE TYPES OF ADAPTIVE MOBILITY, USES, LIGHTING, AND THE PROHIBITION OF PICKLEBALL, AND VOTED 7 TO 2. I'M SORRY. 7 TO 0. RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY STAFF PURSUANT TO SECTION 46-34F OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS TO REQUEST THE ALLOW THE TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY MULTI-USE RECREATIONAL FACILITY LOCATED IN THE R 115 RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUCH AS ARE SUGGESTED BY STAFF WITH THE PABS MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NUMBER FOUR, WHICH INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF THE WORD SIMILAR AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION. I CAN READ THEM ALOUD IF YOU WILL. NUMBER ONE, THE MULTI USE THE MULTI USE MOBILITY ADAPTIVE RECREATIONAL FACILITY IS FOR PRIVATE FAMILIAL USE AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR TRANSIENT OR COMMERCIAL USES IN ANY WAY. TWO A SOLID LANDSCAPE BUFFER SHALL BE REQUIRED AND MAINTAINED ALONG YUCCA ROAD, PORTIONS OF OLEANDER DRIVE AND THE ALLEYWAY TO ADEQUATELY SCREEN THE MULTI USE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY. THREE LIGHTING USED FOR MULTI USE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A MANNER WHICH PREVENTS NUISANCE GLARE AND POLLUTION ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND FOR SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT INCLUDE PICKLEBALL OR ANY SIMILAR PADDLE LIKE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY DRAINAGE NEW REQUIREMENTS YOU THINK THAT MET ON THIS OR, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING PERMEABLE SPACE AND ALL THAT? IS THERE ANYTHING DURING THE PERMITTING FOR THE ACTUAL PAD ITSELF THE UTILITY REVIEW WAS COMPLETED AND SO IT WAS SATISFIED. IN THE RESOLUTION THE LIGHTING IF APPROVED. WAS THAT DISCUSSED. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME ABOUT THE LIGHTING AND IF THEY'LL HAVE TO PROCEED WITH EVENING LIGHTING OR THE LIGHTING WAS DISCUSSED AT PAB AS WELL. ESSENTIALLY THE PETITIONER DID OPT THAT THEY WILL ONLY BE DOING THE SPORT OR ANY RECREATIONAL PLAY IN THE DAYTIME, BUT THE LIGHTING CONDITION WAS INCLUDED IN THE EVENT. IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY WANTED TO ADD PERMITS FOR LIGHTING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS CONDITION. SO IT'S JUST A FORWARD SEEKING A CONDITION IN CASE THINGS CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. DO WE HAVE LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE MET WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS THE LIGHTING STANDARD IS REQUIRES THE CUT OFF SO IT PREVENTS THE ENCROACHMENT OF LIGHT ONTO A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO IT'S A POINT FIVE FOOT CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN NOTHING CAN EXTEND BEYOND. OKAY. AND THAT'S FOR ALL PROPERTIES. ALL PROPERTIES. YEAH. SO THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY LIGHTING AT THIS TIME. THE WHAT'S BEFORE YOU DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY LIGHTING, BUT THE IDEA WAS JUST THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY DID WISH TO INSTALL LIGHTING, THERE WOULD BE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE LIGHTING THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO INSTALL. OKAY. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY, I'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER. MICHAEL MCCABE. GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME, MICHAEL MCCABE. 1200 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. I'M HERE SPEAKING FOR 18 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF NAPLES UNDER THE PARADOR ASSOCIATION. AND I ASKED FOR A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, MAYBE JUST A BIT OVER. MAYBE I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE ONE, THE. ORIGINALLY WE HAD SENT IN A LETTER AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT GOT INTO YOUR PACKET OR NOT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. AND AS JESSICA PASSIDOMO SPOKE, WE MET WITH THE PETITIONER AND THE PETITIONER'S AGENT, AND WE WORKED OUT A COMPROMISE RESTRICTING PICKLEBALL FROM USE ON THIS OR ANY PADDLE SPORTS. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF NEIGHBORS WORKING WITH NEIGHBORS TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. THAT WORKED WELL, AND I THANK THEM FOR THAT. AND I THANK JESSICA FOR MOVING IT FORWARD. [00:45:06] BUT I DID WANT TO SPEAK AND SAY THAT AT THIS POINT, WE REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS. AND I THINK MANY OF THE OTHER ASSOCIATIONS, MIRACLE MILE ASSOCIATION REMOVED THEIRS, AND SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS DID AS WELL. BUT I DID WANT TO TOUCH ON BEFORE WE MOVE OFF OF THIS, THE REASON WHY THERE WAS OPPOSITION WHEN YOU LOOK AT PICKLEBALL, THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF PICKLEBALL AS A GROWING TREND THAT IS CAUSING ISSUES IN MUNICIPALITIES. THEY STATE THAT PICKLEBALL COURT WITHIN 350FT OF A PROPERTY LINE TO ANY RESIDENT IS A NO. THAT'S A FOOTBALL FIELD. THAT'S 100 YARDS. THEY GO FURTHER AND DESCRIBE THE ISSUE WITH PICKLEBALL NOISE. THEY SAY THAT PICKLEBALL IS NOT ONLY ABOUT DECIBELS, IT'S MUCH BROADER THAN THAT. IN AN ARTICLE, THEY PRODUCED ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES THAT MATTER, AND THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM IT SAYS THE GROWING CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING PICKLEBALL NOISE HAS PROMPTED FOCUSED RESEARCH INTO THE NATURE OF THE SOUND, AND REVEALED AN UNUSUAL CONFLUENCE OF INTRUSIVE QUALITIES ONE SOUND PRESSURE SLASH DECIBELS, COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD AS LOUDNESS PICKLEBALL PADDLES STRIKE AT APPROXIMATELY 20DB LOUDER THAN TENNIS. AND THAT REALLY 20DB IS MANIFOLDS INTO A FOUR FOLD LOUDER THAN TENNIS. ANOTHER ELEMENT IMPULSIVE NOISE, FAST RISE AND DECAY WITHIN TWO MILLISECONDS, FOLLOWED BY A REVERBERATING TAIL OF 20 MILLISECONDS. THIS MAKES THESE SOUNDS STARTLING AND DIFFICULT TO IGNORE. NEXT, THE ACOUSTIC FREQUENCY. EACH PADDLE STRIKE IS CENTERED AROUND 1250HZ, WHERE HUMAN HEARING IS THE MOST SENSITIVE, MAKING THEM SUBJECTIVELY MORE ANNOYING. THE NEXT HIGH RATE OF RESOLUTION EACH COURT CAN GENERATE UP TO 900 POPS PER HOUR. ANOTHER ELEMENT IRREGULARITY. THE NOISES ARE SPACED APART POP, POP POP POP POP, POP, BUT ALSO GOING UP AND DOWN IN LOUDNESS IN A HERTZ, MAKING THEM CHAOTIC AND IMPOSSIBLE TO HABITUATE TO OR GET USED TO. AND THE LAST ELEMENT FOR THIS. THIS ARTICLE WAS HIGH FREQUENCY IMPULSE SOUNDS REFLECT AND TRAVEL EFFICIENTLY. LANDSCAPING AND FENCING PROVIDE LITTLE, LITTLE RELIEF. WHILE NEARBY STRUCTURES AND PONDS PAVEMENTS CAN INTENTIONALLY AMPLIFY AND REDIRECT THE SOUND UP TO 1000FT. AND ONE ARTICLE FROM THE INDUSTRY ITSELF AN ARTICLE INSIDE DEN FROM THE US PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION. IT SAYS THE SOUND OF PICKLEBALL HITTING A PADDLE REACHES A DECIBEL LEVEL OF 70 WHEN MEASURED 100FT FROM THE COURT. HOWEVER, WHAT MAY BE MORE STRIKING THAN THE DECIBEL IS THE FREQUENCY. PICKLEBALL HAS A HIGH PITCH FREQUENCY OF 1200HZ, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE BEEPING NOISE THAT A REVERSING GARBAGE TRUCK MAKES. THE GARBAGE TRUCK IS INTENDED TO BE LOUD AND ANNOYING IN ORDER TO CATCH THE ATTENTION OF THOSE ON THE ROAD, SO THIS ANNOYING FREQUENCY IS AN ISSUE FOR PICKLEBALL. AND LASTLY, A BOB UNITECH WHO IS AN AVID PLAYER OF PICKLEBALL. HE'S ALSO AN ENGINEER. HE DID A STUDY. HE'S A RETIRED ENGINEER. HE DID A STUDY AND SAYS THE NOISE AROUND PICKLEBALL. AND. HE ADVISES COMMUNITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES ON HOW TO RESOLVE THE SOUND. HIS ADVICE IS THE PRIMARY WAY TO KEEP THE DECIBEL LEVEL DOWN IS THROUGH DISTANCE, ACCORDING TO MR. JANECEK. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SOUND IF THEY ARE AT LEAST 500FT AWAY. I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE PICKLEBALL IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES IS NOT COMPATIBLE. AND FROM JUST THE NUMBERS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT, YOU NEED AT LEAST A FOOTBALL FIELD AND THAT FOOTBALL FIELD UP TO 350FT, ACCORDING TO THE EPA. SOUND AND ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS IS A MINIMUM. ONCE YOU'RE AT 350 TO 500, YOU NEED SOUND ATTENUATION TRUE MITIGATION, NOT FENCES, NOT LANDSCAPE, BUT TRUE MITIGATION. AND THEN ONCE YOU GET TO 800FT, WHICH IS ALMOST THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS, THEN IT'S OKAY. IN WHAT NEIGHBOR, WHAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DO WE HAVE IN THE CITY THAT WE HAVE THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS BETWEEN HOUSES? VERY FEW. I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS THE PAB, AS THIS CITY COUNCIL, AND AS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT GETS PETITIONS TO DO PICKLEBALL, THESE SHOULD NOT BE LOOKED AT AS JUST ANOTHER SPORT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY NEED TO BE LOOKED AT BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC NATURE THE PICKLEBALL HAS. AND THE INDUSTRY ITSELF EVEN SAYS THERE SHOULD BE 500FT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND A RESIDENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FORMER VICE MAYOR AND HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. PETITIONER'S AGENT CLOSING REMARKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR [00:50:09] CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THE MULTI USE ADAPTIVE MOBILITY COURT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? COUNSEL A MOTION? YES, CARL. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE OF PETITION 26-CU5. PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46-34, 56-94 AND 58-143 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE ACCESSORY MULTI USE MOBILITY ADAPTIVE RECREATION FACILITY IN 1175 OLEANDER DRIVE. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. MADAM CLERK. PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU AND GOOD LUCK. THAT WAS EASY COMPARED TO BE OKAY WITH THAT. WE GO TO ITEM 11, B AND 11 C AT THE ADVICE OF THE CITY [11.B) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 26-CU6 Pursuant to Sections 46-34, 58-83, and 56-94 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Amending Resolution 94-7299 Which Granted Conditional Use Approval with Conditions for the Reconstruction of an Existing Tennis Court and the Addition of a Second Tennis Court in the R1-E Residence District Located at 2150 Gordon Drive, in Order to Relocate the Two Existing Tennis Court Facilities At-Grade on the Parcel Located at 2200 Gordon Drive, Owned by Kevin G. Coleman, Trustee of the 2200 Gordon Drive Land Trust Dated April 23, 2025, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Conditions; Providing a Disclaimer; and Providing an Effective Date.] ATTORNEY WILL BE HEARD SEPARATELY. I HAVE A QUESTION. FOR YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. IN IN LOOKING AT THE MATERIALS THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE IN 11 C THAT MIGHT BE WITH 11. B SO HOW, HOW DOES THE PETITIONER HANDLE THAT? OR HOW DOES COUNSEL HANDLE THAT? THAT'S FINE. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK YOU CAN STILL ASK THE QUESTIONS, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF CRITERIA AND TWO DIFFERENT CODES, AND THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I WOULD PREFER THE RECORD BE SEPARATE, BUT FEEL FREE TO ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU NEED. WHEN WE HEAR THE FIRST ITEM. SO ESSENTIALLY MAYOR, THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING YOU FROM ASKING WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU NEED FOR THE FIRST ITEM. EVEN IF WE HANDLE THEM SEPARATELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IF YOU'LL PROCEED WITH READING THE. ITEM. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION. DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 26-CU6 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46, 34, 58, 83, 56, 94 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 94-7299, WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT AND THE ADDITION OF A SECOND TENNIS COURT IN THE R1E RESIDENCE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2150 GORDON DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RELOCATE THE TWO EXISTING TENNIS COURT FACILITIES AT GRADE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE, OWNED BY KEVIN G. COLEMAN TRUSTEE OF THE 2020 GORDON DRIVE LAND TRUST DATED APRIL 23RD, 2025. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS, PROVIDING A DISCLAIMER AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. OH, SORRY. TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN. IF YOU COULD RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. RISE. AND PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M SORRY IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON SPEAKING IN PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU STILL NEED TO STAND AND BE SWORN IN. JUST RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND IF YOU DON'T MIND. 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. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES. I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON FAMILIAR WITH SITE AND HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF FOR CLARITY ON THIS ISSUE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH BOTH STAFF AND THE PETITIONERS. REGARDING THIS, SCHULTZ, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF MEMBER AT THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF AND ALSO RECEIVED AND READ MULTIPLE PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS, WHICH I THINK HAVE ALL BEEN ADDED TO THE RECORD BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE WITH STAFF AND READ THE EMAILS RECEIVED IN REFERENCE TO THIS PETITION. I MAY NEED TO AMEND MY. THE. BECAUSE I SPOKE WITH RESIDENTS TOO, BUT NOT REGARDING THE TENNIS COURTS PER SE. [00:55:02] DO WE NEED IT? OKAY. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU. THANK YOU, MISS PASSIDOMO. I'LL SAY GOOD MORNING AGAIN. MAYOR HEITMAN, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. WAIT ONE SECOND. DAVID, IS THERE A WAY TO I CAN SPEAK MORE LOUDLY. I'M A SOFT SPOKEN PERSON. I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT AND THAT'S GOOD. I JUST THINK THE VOLUME CAN HELP. UNDERSTOOD. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. NO, NO, PLEASE. THANK YOU. JESSICA. MY NAME IS FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO, FOR THE RECORD. AND MY FIRM REPRESENTS KEVIN G. COLEMAN AS TRUSTEE OF THE FLORIDA LAND TRUST IN THE MATTERS BEFORE YOU TODAY. BEFORE I TURN TO THE SPECIFIC PETITIONS I. SIMILAR TO THE LAST PETITION WE WALKED THROUGH. WANT TO. WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME IN THE. IN THE CONTEXT, I THINK IT'S CRITICAL. WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE SCREEN IS THE R1 DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY'S R1 SINGLE FAMILY. BEACH ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE BEACHFRONT ESTATES COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DESIGNATION. THESE DESIGNATIONS ARE THE ONLY AREA IN THE CITY OF NAPLES THAT EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATE AND DESIGNATE ESTATE SIZED LOTS. THE R1 DISTRICT CARRIES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 67,500FT², AND THE BEACHFRONT ESTATES DESCRIBES. THE DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BEACHFRONT AREA OF THE CITY, WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF ONE AND A HALF ACRES. THE GORDON DRIVE CORRIDOR, GOVERNED BY THE BEACH ESTATES DESIGNATION, IS HOME TO SOME OF THE LARGEST PRIVATELY HELD RESIDENTIAL PARCELS IN THE CITY. IT IS BOUNDED BY 21ST AVENUE SOUTH TO THE NORTH, PORT ROYAL CLUB TO THE SOUTH, THE GULF OF MEXICO TO THE WEST AND GORDON DRIVE TO THE EAST. AS NOTED, THE ESTATES IS NOT A CUSTOMARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. IT EXISTS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS RECOGNIZED, SINCE ITS ZONING CODE IN 1952 THAT PROPERTY. PROPERTIES ALONG THIS SEGMENT OF BEACHFRONT ARE OF A VERY SPECIAL CHARACTER. BOTH THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CARRY PARTICULARIZED CONSIDERATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY ESTATES TO ENSURE THAT THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE DESIGNATION IS PROTECTED. A BRIEF HISTORY. THIS ESTATE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE EARLY 1990S AS A SINGLE FAMILY COMPOUND, ASSEMBLED ACROSS THREE BUILDING PARCELS BY THE DE GROOT FAMILY. LATER IN THAT DECADE, LITTLE HARBOR, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST ON YOUR SCREEN, WAS PLATTED AND CLEARED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE COMPOUND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE CURRENT OWNER IN A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN 2024 THROUGH 2026. OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE OWNER UNDERTOOK EXTENSIVE SITE PREPARATION. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WERE RAZED. THOSE BUILDINGS WERE BELOW FLOODPLAIN. THE PROPERTY WAS GRADED AND CRITICALLY, THE MATURE VEGETATION ON THE SITE WAS DIRECTED TO BE PRESERVED. ACCORDINGLY, APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES OF MATURE SPECIMEN TREES WERE CAREFULLY RELOCATED AND REPOSITIONED ALONG THE PROPERTY'S GORDON DRIVE FRONTAGE. RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS NOT THE ACT OF SOMEONE INDIFFERENT TO THE CORRIDOR. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT, COSTLY AND DELIBERATIVE COMMITMENT TO THE CHARACTER OF GORDON DRIVE AS A PUBLIC FACING LANDSCAPE. ALL SITE WORK IS NOW COMPLETE. THE PARCELS WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY, WHICH ARE BOUNDED IN YELLOW AND IN GREEN ON THE SCREEN, ARE ESTABLISHED. WHAT DOES THIS HISTORY MEAN FOR THE BROADER PICTURE? THE LAND WITHIN THE ESTATE COULD SUPPORT SUBDIVISION INTO APPROXIMATELY SEVEN BUILDING PARCELS. [01:00:02] WHAT? THAT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? FURTHER. EACH WOULD HAVE ITS OWN CURB CUT. EACH WOULD HAVE ITS OWN FRONTAGE STRUCTURES. THE DENSITY WOULD MORE THAN TRIPLE. AND NONE OF THEM WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO RETAIN A SINGLE TREE. THAT'S ONLY CONTEXT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. THE CURRENT OWNER HAS CHOSEN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PATH. CONTINUITY WITH WHAT THE DE GROOT FAMILY CREATED. AND CONTINUITY WITH THE SPECIAL VISION FOR THE ESTATE DISTRICT. TO FURTHER EMBED THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY'S GOALS. TO THE CITY OF NAPLES. ALL PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ARE LOCAL TALENT. THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD IS TAFT COONEY ARCHITECTS. THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS ARE NEWBERRY NORTH AND THE WILLIAMS GROUP. AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS COBY KERWIN. MR. KERWIN IS HERE WITH ME TODAY, AND AS WE PROCEED INTO THE PRESENTATIONS, MR. KERWIN WILL DESCRIBE THE VISION FOR THE GORDON DRIVE FRONTAGE FOR THIS ESTATE. THE TWO PETITIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE THE FINAL LAND USE APPROVALS IN A PROCESS THAT WILL RESULT IN CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CONFIGURED TO THE HISTORIC ESTATE COMPOUND, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION THAT HAS GOVERNED THIS CORRIDOR FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY. MOVING INTO THE PETITIONS FROM A HIGH LEVEL, THE FIRST PETITION IS A CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE TWO EXISTING TENNIS COURTS. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION AGAINST THE TEN STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 46-34F, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICH WE ACCEPT. THE SECOND PETITION IS A FENCE AND WALL WAIVER UNDER SECTION 56-37G2 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PETITION AGAINST ALL OF THE SECTION 56-37G2 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL AND FIND THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. NO OBJECTIONS OR NOTEWORTHY CONCERNS WERE RAISED IN DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW AND WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THE FIRST PETITION, THE FIRST PETITION, SEEKS APPROVAL TO RELOCATE TWO TENNIS COURTS EXISTING WITHIN THE ESTATE. TO REMOVE THE FRONTAGE, PARKING AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AND TO INTRODUCE A PERIMETER BUFFER ALONG GORDON DRIVE. THE RELOCATED COURTS ARE PLANNED TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND WILL REMAIN AT GRADE LEVEL. THIS ARIEL ARIEL FURTHER ESTABLISHES THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I WILL KNOW FOR THE FUTURE THAT WHEN YOU SNIP IN A PDF, IT DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE SCREEN. HOPEFULLY. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, MR. FREILICH. THIS SLIDE EXHIBITS THE ORIGINAL 1994 CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FILED ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 1994, UNDER FILE NUMBER 94-CU8. THE PETITIONER OF RECORD WAS WESTBURY PROPERTIES, WITH MICHAEL DEGROOT SIGNING AS PETITIONER AND SMALLWOOD DESIGN GROUP SERVING AS AGENT. THE PETITION REQUESTED RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT AND THE ADDITION OF A SECOND TENNIS COURT TO THE EAST. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL 1994 STAFF REPORT TRANSMITTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THEN NAPLES CITY COUNCIL ON THE DEGROOT PETITION. THE SIDE GROUNDS THE THE THE SIDE GROUNDS. CITY COUNCIL IN THE FACT THAT THE COURTS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE REVIEWED AND FOUND CONSISTENT WITH ALL RELEVANT CITY POLICIES. THIS IS THE APPROVING RESOLUTION 94-7299. THIS SLIDE DISPLAYS SECTION TWO, SETTING OUT THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS. THESE CONDITIONS WERE. THE FACILITIES ARE FOR PRIVATE AND PRIMARILY FAMILY USE ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR TRANSIENT OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND ARE ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I SAW A LANDSCAPE OFFERS 6 TO 8FT IN HEIGHT WAS REQUIRED ALONG GORDON DRIVE TO SCREEN THE PARKING AREA WHICH WE WILL SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT. AND LIGHTING FOR THE COURTS WAS REQUIRED TO BE FORWARD THROUGH. THESE THREE CONDITIONS FORM THE BASELINE THAT THIS PETITION PROPOSES TO CARRY FORWARD WITH CONDITION TWO. THE BUFFERING CONDITION ENHANCED TO REFLECT THE ELIMINATION OF FRONTAGE, PARKING AND A NEW FOURTH CONDITION ADDED TO INCORPORATE THE CURRENT SITE PLAN BY [01:05:07] REFERENCE. YOU WILL NOTE THAT IN THE PRIOR CONDITIONS THERE WAS NO SITE PLAN, SO WE'RE HOPING TO ALSO CONFORM THIS PETITION TO THE STANDARDS OF TODAY'S CONDITIONAL USES. NOW, ON THE SCREEN IS THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS IN THE PACKET, BUT NOT MADE PART OF THE RESOLUTION IN 1994. IT ILLUSTRATES THE LAYOUT ANTICIPATED AT THE TIME. THE ORIGINAL TENNIS COURT, SITUATED TOWARD THE GORDON DRIVE FRONTAGE AND GORDON DRIVE, IS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN IN THIS. IN THIS CONFIGURATION, TOGETHER WITH THE SECOND COURT TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ITS EAST. WITH GORDON DRIVE FLANKED BY A MAINTENANCE BUILDING WHICH IS LABELED ON THE PLAN AND PARKING AREAS. IT WAS THIS COMBINATION TWO COURTS, A MAINTENANCE BUILDING, EIGHT PARKING SPACES NEAR THE ROADWAY THAT GAVE RISE TO THE CITY'S ORIGINAL CONCERN THAT THE FACILITY COULD READ AS COMMERCIAL OR TRANSIENT, WHICH IN TURN PRODUCED THE BUFFERING AND LIGHTING CONDITIONS ADOPTED IN THE 1994 RESOLUTION. THIS PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE THE CONDITION ON THE GORDON DRIVE FRONTAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE TENNIS COURT FACILITIES. IT PROVIDES A BOARD OF BASELINE IMAGE AGAINST WHICH TO MEASURE THE PROPOSED RELOCATION AND ENHANCED BUFFERING SHOWN LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. SECTION 46-34 PRESENTS THE GOVERNING LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR YOUR REVIEW. IT INCLUDES THE CODE'S DEFINITION OF A CONDITIONAL USE, A USE THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE GENERALLY OR WITHOUT RESTRICTION THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT, BUT WHICH MAY BE APPROPRIATE IF PROPERLY CONTROLLED. AS TO NUMBER, AREA, LOCATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN APPLYING THIS FRAMEWORK TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE BOARD, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, ITS PARTICULAR HISTORICAL CONTEXT, AND THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS ADVANCED BY THE RESOLUTION REPRESENT THE SORT OF CONTROLLED APPROPRIATE USE. THE ORDINANCE CONTEMPLATES. THE TENNIS COURT HAS BEEN A FIXTURE OF THE ESTATE SINCE 1947, AND TWO COURTS FOR OVER THREE DECADES, WITHOUT COMPLAINT OR OBJECTION. THE PROPERTY IS A PRIVATE BEACHFRONT ESTATE, UNIQUELY SIZED, UNIQUELY BUFFERED RELATIVE TO THE LOTS INTERIOR TO PORT ROYAL. THE USE IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, STRICTLY PRIVATE AND RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER. THESE ARE FAMILY TENNIS COURTS, ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. NOT A CLUB, NOT A COMMERCIAL OR TRANSIENT FACILITY. NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. NO USE BEYOND THE TWO TENNIS COURTS ALREADY APPROVED IN 1994, IS BEING PROPOSED TO MR. MCCABE'S POINT. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR PICKLEBALL, AND THAT'S EXPRESSLY A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL. BRIEFLY, TO THAT END, WE JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A DISTINCTION IN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION OF THE CODE. THE FIRST SENTENCE ADDRESSES AN EXPANSION OF APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE, ADDING PERMITTED USES OR ENLARGING THE USE BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING. THE SECOND SENTENCE ADDRESSES CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN OF AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE, CALLING FOR A DETERMINATION THAT A CHANGE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROJECT OR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SECOND SENTENCE IS A CITY MANAGER DECISION. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS PROPOSAL CONTINUES, THE SAME TWO COURTS AT GRADE WITH NO EXPANSION OF THE USE ITSELF, ONE COULD OBSERVE THAT THIS IS MORE NATURALLY A CHANGE IN LOCATION THAN EXPANSION. WE RAISED THAT DISTINCTION ONLY BRIEFLY. IT'S NOT THE CENTERPIECE OF OUR REQUEST, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE PROVISION MIGHT BE READ. THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO BRING THIS MATTER FORWARD OPENLY AS A FULL CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ULTIMATELY FOR REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL, REFLECTING THE PREFERENCE TO BE OPEN ABOUT THE TENNIS COURT RELOCATION FOR THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PROPOSED TENNIS COURT RELOCATION PLAN VIEW. IT DEPICTS THE COURT'S PROPOSED LOCATION RELOCATION FROM THEIR CURRENT POSITION TO THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CONSOLIDATED 2200 GORDON DRIVE. PARCEL SET BACK FROM GORDON DRIVE AND SCREENED BY A CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE. UNLIKE THE 1994 PLAN, NO PARKING AREA SHOWN BETWEEN THE COURTS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IN SOME RESPECTS FURTHERS EFFORTS BY ADJOINING R 115, A ZONING DISTRICT CODE CHANGES REQUIRING REMOVAL OF PARKING FROM RIGHT OF WAY AREAS AS AN UNATTRACTIVE EYESORE IN MANY OF THE ESTATES. [01:10:06] AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS YOU GO DOWN GORDON DRIVE, YOU'LL SEE PARKING IN THE FRONTAGE AREA THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS OCCURRING HERE. EVERYTHING IS OUTSIDE THE SETBACK. EVERYTHING WITHIN THE 50 FRONT FEET IS LANDSCAPE AND IT'S MATURE VEGETATION. THIS CROSS-SECTION ILLUSTRATES THE PROPOSED FRONTAGE CONDITION ALONG GORDON DRIVE IN PROFILE. AS NOTED, THE COURTS REMAIN AT GRADE. MOVING FROM THE COURTS TOWARD THE STREET. THE SECTION SHOWS A PLANTED 50 FOOT SETBACK. THE EXISTING 20FT OF RIGHT OF WAY UNTIL THE PAVEMENT. THERE. ARE THERE EXISTING STREET TREES THERE THAT ARE UN. IMPACTED BY THIS REQUEST? THEN A BIKE LANE AND THEN THE ACTUAL PAVEMENT FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. THIS SECTION DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION CONFORMS TO THE REQUIRED 50 FRONT YARD SETBACK UNDER 58-86 OF THE CODE. THIS FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS THE FRONTAGE AS IT WOULD BE VIEWED FROM GORDON DRIVE. THIS RENDERING ILLUSTRATES THE MATURE RELOCATED VEGETATION THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL NOW HAS INSTALLED ALONG THE FULL LENGTH OF THE FRONTAGE, ACHIEVING A CONTINUOUS GARDEN LIKE APPEARANCE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN PLACE OF THE PARKING AREA CONTEMPLATED IN THE 1994 APPROVAL. FOR THIS PETITION ENCLOSING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION AGAINST THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN 46-34FF OF THE CODE AND THE APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FINDS THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. NO DEPARTMENT RAISED OBJECTION DURING DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, AND NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC FOR THIS PETITION. FOLLOWING NOTIFICATION OF 104 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, IN A VOTE OF 7 TO 0, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING COURTS WITHIN THE ESTATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONER? I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. WHEN YOU CAME IN FOR THE LAKEFILL THERE WAS, ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE NO SUBDIVISION WITHIN THIS PROPERTY. AFTER SPEAKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY THERE'S A LOT LINE RECONFIGURATION, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE IN THE CODE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AND HOW THIS IS ON THE PROPERTY AND HOW IT WILL WORK AS FAR AS SURVEYS AND HAVING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND OR REPORTS RECORDED. I'LL SHOW IT FROM THIS GRAPHIC. WE HAVE WE HAVE SUPPLEMENTAL GRAPHICS IF NEEDED. SO THE PARCEL WAS ACQUIRED AS THREE ACRES. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, THREE PARCELS AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE THREE PARCELS AFTER. AS A MATTER OF. IT ALREADY IS. IT'S ESTABLISHED. SO THERE WERE INTERNAL LOT LINES ADJUSTED. THE THE LOT LINES WHEN ACQUIRED ACTUALLY WERE NOT CONFORMING TO CURRENT STANDARDS. THE SOUTHERN LOT LINE JOGGED WHICH YOU NO LONGER WOULD ALLOW YOU LIKE TO HAVE PERPENDICULAR OR PARALLEL TO LOT LOT LINES. WE DID NOT. IN OTHER WORDS, CREATE MORE DENSITY. WE CREATED CONFORMING BUILDING PARCELS THROUGH ADJUSTING INTERNAL LOT LINES ONLY. IMPORTANTLY, THAT DID NOT IN ANY WAY INCREASE DENSITY OR CREATE ANY NEW LOTS THAT WOULD COME INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES. OKAY. SO WHEN I, I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO DO OR A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS COMBINATION OR RECONFIGURATION HAPPENED. WHERE ARE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS NOW? AND AN UPDATED SURVEY. THOSE ARE IN AN APPROVED AND AN APPROVED CERTIFICATION FOR THE FOR THE LOTS. THEY'VE BEEN CREATED. WE HESITATED TO RECORD IT UNTIL WE CAME TO YOU TODAY. WE WILL RECORD IT. YOU KNOW, I'LL GO TO THE CLERK RIGHT AFTER THIS HEARING. [01:15:04] SO THOSE ARE THEY'RE APPROVED AND THEY'RE READY TO BE RECORDED. THOSE DESCRIPTIONS ARE APPROVED. THEY ARE NOT RECORDED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THESE PETITIONS MOVE FORWARD. AS A MATTER OF AS A MATTER OF TODAY. SO THEY'RE APPROVED. IDENTIFY THEM IN THE PACKET MATERIAL BECAUSE I HAVE MANY EXHIBIT A'S. MANY EXHIBIT B'S FROM THE FORMER AND THE CURRENT, AND HOW IT WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION. THIS IS THIS IS THE PARCEL 2200 GORDON DRIVE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. THIS IS THE PARCEL 2200 GORDON DRIVE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, BOARDED IN RED. ITS DESCRIPTION IS ON THIS SURVEY. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SLIDE AND THE SURVEYS IN YOUR PACKET. FOR PURPOSES OF A SLIDE, I JUST SCREENSHOT IT INTO THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE YOU LOSE THE GRAPHICAL DEPICTION. BUT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE ON THE THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER. AS WE MOVE FROM SOUTH TO NORTH, THE SOUTHERN LOT IS AN ADDRESS OF 2340 GORDON DRIVE. YOU CAN SEE HOW THE LOT LINE PREVIOUSLY WAS NON-CONFORMING. THE MIDDLE LOT IS 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND THAT IS ESTABLISHED IN THE NORTH LOT IS 21 HORTON. 2100 GORDON DRIVE. EXCUSE ME. AND THAT IS ESTABLISHED. THIS IS AN OLD WELL. DO YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO BE ON THIS. BECAUSE THIS THE TENNIS COURTS ARE AN ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I REALIZE A LOT OF THIS CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT IN ORDER FOR COUNCIL TO EVEN UNDERSTAND THIS PROJECT. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS VERY EASY. YES, JUST MOVE THE TENNIS COURTS. BUT YOU'RE RECONFIGURING LOTS. THERE'S NOT AN UPDATED SURVEY AND WE HAVE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINES NOW THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT MAYBE WERE NOT IN PLACE AT THE TIME. THERE'S NO NEW COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINES. AND THIS IS A SURVEY THAT'S BEEN PREPARED THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. THAT IS THE LOT LINES. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE AND I HAVE THE MOST RECENT SURVEY PRINTED AND PLANNING STAFF HAS IT ELECTRONICALLY, IS THAT THE STRUCTURES ARE DEMOLISHED. AND SO ALL THAT IS DIFFERENT IS NOT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IT'S JUST A DEPICTION IN TIME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. BUT TO YOUR POINT ON SEQUENCING, IT IS A GREAT QUESTION. THE TENNIS COURT CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL EXPRESSLY SAYS THAT PRIOR TO THE TENNIS COURT RELOCATION, A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED SO THAT THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE CITY REGULATES ACCESSORY TO PRINCIPAL. THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PERMIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, AND WE EXPECT IT TO BE ISSUED IN A MATTER OF IN A MATTER OF WEEKS. HOWEVER, THE TENNIS COURT PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE LINKED. AND THAT IS A CONDITION IN THE RESOLUTION TO PROTECT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE YOU BROUGHT TO TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION TO SEE WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL BE MOVING THE TENNIS COURTS. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S PLENTY OF ACREAGE, BUT WITH THE NEXT ITEM HAVING 50FT BACK OFF OF ON THE PROPERTY LINE WITH SETBACKS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE WITHOUT A SITE PLAN AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THE TENNIS COURTS PROPOSED. SO IS THERE A SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? THIS SITE PLAN ON YOUR SCREEN IS IS A SITE PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THE TENNIS COURTS. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING THE LOCATION OF TENNIS COURTS, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE WALLS THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT WILL BE PART OF THE RESOLUTION, IS THIS TECHNICAL PLAN THAT SHOWS NOT ONLY THE LOT BOUNDARIES, BUT EXACTLY WHERE THOSE WALL WAIVER PETITIONS WOULD BE, WHERE THOSE SEGMENTS WOULD BE WITHIN THE SITE. SO YOU HAVE EVERYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC PETITIONS IN FRONT OF YOU. ONE. A RELOCATION OF TENNIS COURTS. YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE RELOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY WITH, I GUESS WITHOUT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, SEEING IT ON A SITE PLAN. I MEAN, THIS IS A NICE DIAGRAM, BUT IT'S NOT A ANY TYPE OF A CERTIFIED BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE BOUNDARY SURVEY IS THIS DOCUMENT IN YOUR PACKET. MR. MCCONNELL IS THERE IS THERE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? AND THANK YOU. I ASKED HIM THE SAME QUESTION. [01:20:01] I DON'T MEAN TO BE RUDE, BUT I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION. AND I KNOW THAT WE AND STAFF TOLD ME WE DON'T APPROVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT YOU'RE ASKING US TO PERMIT MOVING TENNIS COURTS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS LOT LINE CONFIGURATIONS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN OUR CODE. WE DON'T HAVE AN UPDATED SURVEY. YOU'RE DOING A MINOR SUBDIVISION. ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR BY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. BUT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON ON THIS PROJECT AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE FOR TENNIS COURTS WITHOUT SEEING THAT THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH MUST BE THERE AS AN ACCESSORY TO, OR FOR THE TENNIS COURTS TO BE AN ACCESSORY FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BIG PICTURE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE HAS TAKEN AWAY ALL OF THIS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, AND WE DON'T GET TO SEE IT, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IF NOT, IT'S JUST, YEAH, WE CAN APPROVE COURTS BEING MOVED. THAT'S AN EASY THING. THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING HERE. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO. LET ME LET ME TRY TO BE VERY ORGANIZED IN HOW I ADDRESS EACH POINT. POINT ONE I. I MAY BE HEARING THAT A SURVEY WAS NOT PROVIDED. A SURVEY IS IN THE PETITION MATERIALS AND IT'S ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS THE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY THAT RELATES TO THE TENNIS COURTS. ISSUE TWO SITE PLAN. WE SPECIFICALLY SHOW WHAT IS BEING RELOCATED, WHICH IS THE TENNIS COURTS, THE, THE, THE, THE POINT OF A BUILDING PERMIT HAVING TO BE ISSUED BEFORE THE TENNIS COURT PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. THAT THAT IS HOW THE CITY REGULATES PRINCIPAL TO ACCESSORY. THAT IS IS TYPICAL AND CUSTOMARY. THAT IS NOT UNIQUE TO THIS PROJECT. THE OTHER QUESTIONS WE DISCUSSED COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE HAS NOT HAS NOT BEEN RERECORDED. THE GENERAL PERMIT LINE IS HOW MANY FEET BACK FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE, IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE HOME IS. BECAUSE IF. CAN YOU TELL ME IF THE LOCATION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S BEING PERMITTED, BUT HAS NOT. IT'S IN PERMIT BUT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. SO WHERE IT IS ON THIS LOCATION OF THE. IT WILL BE GENERALLY. SO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, IN LOOKING AT COASTAL STRUCTURES, WILL TYPICALLY LOOK AT STRUCTURES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, AND THAT IS IN GENERAL, AND I'M NOT HAMILTON AND MOORE. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE CRITERIA, BUT I WANT TO HELP US ALL GET THERE. SO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WILL LOOK AT STRUCTURES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. AND THAT WILL BE A GENERAL LINE FOR PERMITTING. SO TYPICALLY, UNLESS YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NONCONFORMITY LIKE THE BEACH CLUB AND HBS, THAT WAS A VERY SPECIFIC PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. BUT TYPICALLY THE BUILDING LINE IS DEVISED FROM WHAT IS NORTH AND SOUTH. AND THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT WAVE ACTION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO THAT'S VERY TECHNICAL. AND THE STATE IS GOING TO CONTROL PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING THAT WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY APPROVED BY THE STATE. AND THERE'S A CONCURRENT CITY PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL, FOR THE STATE TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE PERMIT. BUT THAT THAT IS ALL ABOUT ABOUT SITING, RIGHT. AND ABOUT ELEVATION. SO IT TAKES ME TO THE 50 FOOT SETBACK THAT IS IN THE NEXT ITEM. FOR THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER, HOW THAT IS LOCATED BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME MATERIALS UNLESS I DIDN'T GET MY PACKET CORRECT. THAT'S IN ITEM C AS THE NEXT ITEM. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE SETBACK OF 50FT WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S FROM GORDON DRIVE. SO WE WERE WE WERE JUST AT THE BEACH. SO WE'LL SWITCH AND WE'LL GO TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THERE IS. AND THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET AS AS IS. BUT I THINK THIS IS HELPFUL BECAUSE I AT LEAST AM GRAPHICALLY ORIENTED. OKAY. HERE'S A CROSS SECTION. SO THE 50 FOOT SETBACK IS SHOWN. THAT'S THAT PLANTED BUFFER THAT. LET ME SEE IF I CAN USE THIS. PERFECT. OKAY. I'M SORRY. JUST MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY. [01:25:02] THAT WALL IS AT WHAT PART OF THE PROPERTY A FENCE OR WALL OR BUILDING OF 35FT. COULD BE HERE, COULD BE RIGHT WHERE MY CURSOR IS. OKAY. WHICH IS EXACTLY ON THIS SIDE. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE BUFFER OF THEN WE HAVE A 50FT WIDE SETBACK, WHICH WE'VE ELECTED TO PUT NO IMPROVEMENTS IN. IN THE CODE. YOU COULD PUT WALLS IN THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK COLUMNS. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. WE'RE PLANTING THAT WHOLE 50FT. AND MISS MARTIN CAN SPEAK. SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU IF YOU'D PREFER. BUT JUST TO JUST TO CONTINUE, THEN WE HAVE WE START THE RIGHT OF WAY. THESE ARE THE CITY STREET TREES THAT ARE NOT BEING IMPACTED. THEN THERE IS BEACH PARKING. THEN THERE IS A BIKE LANE AND THEN THERE'S AN 80FT BY 80FT IN WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY. GORDON DRIVE, AND THEN THERE IS 100FT ON THE OTHER SIDE BEFORE THE FIRST SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN LITTLE HARBOR. SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THE WALLS FOR THE NEXT ITEM ARE ON GORDON AND WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE NOT WITHIN GORDON. THEY ARE NOT WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK. THEY ARE SHOWN IN BLACK BOXED BORDERS HERE. WHAT THIS REPRESENTS THIS NORTHERN SEGMENT. AND I CAN MOVE INTO THE SECOND PRESENTATION IF IT'S THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION BEFORE JUST SO I COULD UNDERSTAND WHERE THE WALLS WERE, SO I COULD UNDERSTAND THE SURVEY AND UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WAS GOING. AND UNDERSTANDING THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK THAT IS WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY OR NOT WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, LIKE ANY FRONT YARD, IS WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY. WE'VE ELECTED TO PUT NO IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT FRONT 50FT AT THAT LINE. YOU COULD HAVE YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME RATHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AT THAT LINE, THERE WILL BE A FENCE OR WALL, BUT FOR WHERE THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS, SO THE HOME WILL BE MUCH FURTHER SET BACK. SO IT RUNS PARALLEL TO GORDON. THE FRONT YARD SETBACK RUNS PARALLEL TO GORDON. YES. AND THEN THERE ARE THREE WALLS. THREE SEGMENTS. YES. ON PARALLEL TO GORDON. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THAT WAS HARD. THAT WAS THAT TOOK A LITTLE BIT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND. AND THEN THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY, THERE'S AN AFFIDAVIT THAT IS OWNED BY A BY THE LAW FIRM THAT YOU WORK WITH. IS THAT I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO OWN THIS. IT'S UP FOR RESALE. CORRECT. IT'S NOT UP FOR RESALE. THE PROPERTY IS HELD IN TITLE BY A FLORIDA LAND TRUST, WHICH IS A FLORIDA STATUTE THAT ESTABLISHES THE RIGHT TO TAKE TITLE IN A FLORIDA LAND TRUST WITH THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PRIVACY. SO WITH THE AFFIDAVITS DESCRIBE IS HOW SPECIFICALLY TITLE IS HELD AND ALL OF THE FACTORS SURROUNDING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND UNDER OATH TESTIFYING THAT THERE ARE NO THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS THAT COULD ARISE DUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. THIS IS NOT THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD BE GAINED IN PECUNIARY NATURE. BUT SPECIFICALLY DETAILING WHAT A FLORIDA LAND TRUST IS AND THE, THE INTENTION AND PURPOSE OF THE FLORIDA LAND TRUST IN, IN OWNERSHIP. RIGHT. AND THE BENEFITS FOR THAT FLORIDA LAND TRUST. YOU CAN, IF YOU HAVE A LAND TRUST, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPLAT THESE. CORRECT. THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER. AND THIS, THIS PROPERTY, THEY'RE NOT I'LL STOP THERE. I MEAN, THAT THE PLANTING IN FLORIDA LAND TRUST, THE FLORIDA LAND TRUST IS JUST A TITLE TAKE TITLE INSTRUMENT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBDIVISIONS. OKAY. AND SO THESE WILL REMAIN THREE SEPARATE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND 2100 2224, 23, 40, 2340, THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN THREE SEPARATE LOTS WITH ONE. IT COULD BE THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. CURRENTLY, ONLY TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PLANNED. THE THE NORTHERN PARCEL IS VACANT AND WOULD BE FACILITATING IN CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY HOME PLAN FOR THAT LOT. [01:30:02] SO 2100. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND BUT 2200 HAS A MAINTENANCE AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND TENNIS COURTS. TODAY THERE'S A MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND TENNIS COURTS EXISTING PENDING THIS APPROVAL ON THE PROPERTY. THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AND THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR A NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING OR THERE WILL BE THERE IS A PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THERE WILL BE PERMITS FOR CUSTOMARY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS LIKE A, A MAINTENANCE BUILDING THAT HAS EXISTED ON THE ESTATE SINCE THE 90S. THAT'S CUSTOMARY. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE FOR, FOR PROPERTIES OF THIS SIZE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE, THERE'S A MECHANICAL THAT'S SPECIAL. SO IT'S NOT UNIQUE THOUGH. IT IS JUST IT'S JUST AN ESTATE SIZED PARCEL. SO OKAY, SO WITH THE SUBDIVISIONS, HOW MANY SUBDIVISION PERMITS HAVE YOU APPLIED FOR? WE HAVE, WE HAVE APPLIED FOR, WE HAVE HAD TWO APPROVED. OKAY, SO YOU'VE APPLIED FOR TWO AND TWO ARE APPROVED. THE THE PARCEL SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE THE ESTABLISHED PARCELS. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE SIMPLEST WAY TO, I THINK ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THESE ARE THE ESTABLISHED PARCELS. AND THERE IS A SURVEY IN YOUR PACKET WITH THE ESTABLISHED PARCELS. I HAVE IT READY TO RECORD WAITING FOR US TO GET THROUGH TODAY. AND THAT WILL BE. AND I THINK STAFF OR YOU CAN JUST IDENTIFY WHICH EXHIBITS ARE THE CORRECT EXHIBITS THAT WILL GO WITH THE RESOLUTION. THE UPDATED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR THE SURVEY THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN WILL BE THE SURVEY THAT IS RECORDED WITH THE RESOLUTION, BECAUSE IT DEPICTS THE PARCELS AS THEY ARE APPROVED TODAY. AND SITE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WILL NOT BE RECORDED WITH THE RESOLUTION. WHAT WE WILL BE RECORDED WITH THE RESOLUTION WILL BY REFERENCE IS THE SURVEY THAT IS ON YOUR SCREEN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AND FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE IT WILL BE THE TENNIS COURT SITE PLAN. AND THEN FOR THE FENCE AND WALL, IT WILL BE THE FENCE AND WALL SITE PLAN. AND JUST LEGALLY, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT THE CODE REQUIRES TO BE ON THE PREMISES FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE. I UNDERSTAND WE SPOKE AND THAT THEY CANNOT BUILD OR MOVE THE TENNIS COURTS UNTIL THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS. IT IS APPLIED FOR BUT PERMITTED. AND THAT'S CONDITION NUMBER TWO IN THE CONDITION TWO IN THE RESOLUTION SAYS THAT. NOT CODE. NOT CODE. OKAY. ISSUED. ISSUED. YOU CAN BUILD BOTH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THE TENNIS COURT SIMULTANEOUSLY. YOU CANNOT GET A PERMIT FOR THE TENNIS COURT WITHOUT A PERMIT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BECAUSE THE TENNIS COURT IS ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY USE OF THE HOME. HOWEVER, IF YOU RECEIVED THE PERMIT FOR THE HOME, YOU ALL GRANT THIS CONDITIONAL USE AND SHE RECEIVES THE PERMIT FOR THE TENNIS COURT. BOTH CAN BE BUILT AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. THAT IS NOT IN THE RESOLUTION AND I GUESS THE PERMIT RUNS OUT WITHIN A YEAR. THERE IS A DATE ON THE PERMIT. SO YEAH, BUILDING PERMITS. IF I THINK THERE'S A ONE YEAR EXPIRATION DATE ON A BUILDING PERMIT. BUT THAT'S IF YOU DON'T COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION. SO IF THERE'S NO ACTIVITY, THERE'S A BUT NOT CONDITION NUMBER TWO IN THIS RESOLUTION SAYS THE RELOCATION OF THE TENNIS COURT FACILITIES MUST BE ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. COUNCIL. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR. YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOUR DESIRE TO GET INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE ENTIRE PROJECT. BEFORE US TODAY IS THE TWO TENNIS COURTS. MOVING THIS TO THIS PARTICULAR THING, AND I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THAT, BUT I HAVE TO ASK JUST FOR YOU ONE THING, BECAUSE THE MAYOR SAID THAT WE HAVE A SURVEY HERE THAT SHOWS LOT LINES THAT ARE NOT COMPLIANT WITH OUR CITY CODE. MAYBE SHE MISSPOKE. WELL, THAT'S I MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THESE LOT LINES ARE IN FACT, THEY'RE FIXING LOT LINES. YES. AS SHOWN IN THE SURVEY THAT YOUR PACKET ARE CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS. SORRY. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. BUT UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE, THE CONDITIONAL USE LOT LINES WERE APPROVED. SO WE'RE USING OLD CONDITIONAL USES AND AN OLD SURVEY THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WERE THAT WHERE THOSE THAT THE OLD TENNIS COURTS WERE NOT WHERE THE NEW TENNIS COURTS WILL BE. [01:35:03] SO IT'S NOT AN UPDATED SURVEY, SIR, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I'LL CONFIRM THAT WITH STAFF, I THINK. YEAH, I THINK THE CONFUSION HERE IS THIS, THIS SURVEY AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY SHOWS YOU WHERE THE NEW LOT LINES ARE. THAT'S RIGHT. IT JUST ALSO SHOWS EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. I SAY EXISTING AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS TAKEN. THEY'VE BEEN DEMOLISHED AT THIS POINT. YEAH. SO THE STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE SURVEY, IT SHOWS THE OLD STUFF AND THE NEW STUFF. AND IT'S IT'S SO WE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AND SEE HOW IT'S BEEN CORRECTED. SO I'M, WHICH I'M GRATEFUL FOR. YEAH. DOES IT SHOW THE NEW STUFF? IT SHOWS THE IT SHOWS THE CORRECT PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, BUT IT ALSO SHOWS THE OLD, THE OLD, OLD, BUT STRUCTURES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO THE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. THERE'S NO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERLAYING NEW PROPERTY LINES ON OLD STRUCTURES. THE STRUCTURES ARE GONE. THERE'S NO NONCOMPLIANCE. CORRECT. BUT IF I MAY, MAYOR. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SURVEYS ARE A TIME STAMP, RIGHT? WHEN YOU GET A SURVEY ON A CERTAIN DATE, SOMEONE'S GOING OUT THERE AND DETERMINING WHAT IS ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME IN WHICH THEY ARE PERFORMING THE SURVEY. WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOES NOT SHOW NEW STRUCTURES. IT SHOWS STRUCTURES THAT WERE THERE AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY, THOUGH, IS TO DEPICT THE NEW LOT LINES. SO TECHNICALLY, IF YOU DID A SURVEY TODAY, A LOT OF THESE STRUCTURES WOULD PROBABLY BE GONE. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR YOUR INDULGENCE AND MY QUESTIONS. AND WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. TASHIMA LEWIS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BEFORE YOU USE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 2066. THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IS TO AMEND RESOLUTION 94-7299, WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT AND THE ADDITION OF A SECOND TENNIS COURT IN THE R1E RESIDENCE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2150 GORDON DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RELOCATE THE TWO EXISTING TENNIS COURT FACILITIES AT GRADE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE, THIS ITEM WAS NOTICED ON AUGUST 10TH, 2026, WITH A TOTAL OF 104 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. AS OF TODAY, STAFF HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS REQUEST. WESTBURY PROPERTIES, INC. ORIGINALLY CONTROLLED 18 CONTIGUOUS ACRES ALONG GORDON DRIVE, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS INDIVIDUAL PARCEL, FORMERLY ADDRESSED AS 2150 GORDON DRIVE, FEATURED A TENNIS COURT, A SINGLE TENNIS COURT AND IN 1994, VIA CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 94 Q EIGHT. THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RESOLUTION 94-7299 AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL TENNIS COURT, ALONGSIDE THE ADDITION OF A SECOND. DUE TO THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS VIA MINOR SUBDIVISIONS. PETITION 25, MSD SIX AND 26 MSD TWO. THE EXISTING TENNIS COURT FACILITIES ARE NOW SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 2200 GORDON DRIVE, FORMERLY IDENTIFIED AS 2150 AND 2170 GORDON DRIVE. THE PETITIONERS REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO RECONSTRUCT AND REPOSITION THE TENNIS COURT FACILITIES WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF 2200 GORDON DRIVE, CONFORMING TO THE 50 FOOT FRONT AND 15 FOOT SIDE SETBACKS PURSUANT TO SECTION 58-86, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THAT ALTHOUGH THE TENNIS COURTS ARE RELOCATING CLOSER TO GORDON DRIVE, IT IS STILL PLACED WITHIN THE BUILDING'S ENVELOPE. THE CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY EXTERIORS BY COLBY KERWIN DATED JULY 28TH, 2026, ILLUSTRATES THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION. THE PETITIONER IS PROPOSING TO RETAIN AND ENHANCE THE THREE CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION 94, 72, 99 AND A FOURTH CONDITION WAS ADDED AS INDICATED IN THEIR APPLICATION. THIS ITEM WAS REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND NO NOTEWORTHY COMMENTS WERE RAISED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026 AND VOTED 7 TO 0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CONDITION SUGGESTED BY STAFF PURSUANT TO SECTION 46-34F OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS TO THE REQUEST AMENDING RESOLUTION 947299, WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT AND THE ADDITION OF A SECOND TENNIS COURT IN THE R1 E RESIDENCE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2150 GORDON DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RELOCATE THE TWO EXISTING TENNIS COURT FACILITIES AT GRADE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUGGESTED BY STAFF. ONE. THE APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION PETITION 26 MSD TWO IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE RELOCATION OF THE TWO TENNIS COURT FACILITIES, [01:40:07] WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AT THIS TIME. NUMBER TWO, THE RELOCATION OF THE TENNIS COURT FACILITIES MUST BE ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED, RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TENNIS COURT FACILITY SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUT AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THREE THE TENNIS COURTS FACILITIES ARE FOR PRIVATE FAMILIAL USE AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR TRANSIENT OR COMMERCIAL USES IN ANY WAY. FOR A SOLID, CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPE BUFFER SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG GORDON DRIVE TO SUBSTANTIALLY SCREEN THE TENNIS COURT FACILITIES FROM PUBLIC VIEW FOR LIGHTING USED FOR THE TENNIS COURT. FACILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A MANNER WHICH PREVENTS NUISANCE GLARE AND POLLUTION ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND COMPLIES WITH SEA TURTLE PROTECTION LAWS AND ORDINANCES. SIX. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL PROVIDE AN UPDATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASED UPON THE PENDING SUBDIVISION APPLICATION DEPICTING THE NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR INCLUSIVE INCLUSION AS EXHIBIT A PRIOR TO THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION. AND SEVEN THE TENNIS COURT FACILITY SHALL NOT BE RETROFITTED TO BE USED FOR PICKLEBALL USE OR SIMILAR LIKE SPORTS, FULL BASKETBALL COURTS OR ANY OTHER RECREATIONAL SPORTS FACILITIES WITHOUT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PETITION. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. COUNCIL QUESTIONS ON THE PEARL, AND THEN BLANKENSHIP IS THE RIGHT OF WAY, FULLY PROTECTED WITH ALL THESE PLANTINGS AND WHAT'S THERE, AND HAS THAT BEEN LOOKED AT? AND I THINK SHE, MISS PASSIDOMO TESTIFIED THAT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY ALTERATIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO RETAIN THE STREET TREES THAT ARE THERE, AND ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE WITHIN THE PROPERTY, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. OKAY. IF THEY DID INTEND TO DO ANYTHING THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. OKAY. IF THERE WERE PRIOR BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN THE PAST OR PAST OWNERS STUFF THAT WAS PUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, COULD WE REQUEST TO GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF WITH THIS? IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AND SEE? I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, BUT WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT. THE OTHER THING AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING HERE IS A BIG ESTATE. WHY WOULDN'T THEY COMBINE THE LOTS VERSUS KEEP THEM NOW? I THINK THEY WANT WENT THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. PROBABLY THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST ANSWER BY THE PETITIONER. COMBINATION OF LOTS. COULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT EVEN WE REQUIRE AS PART OF THIS OF THIS PROPOSAL? I DON'T THINK YOU COULD COMPEL THEM TO COMBINE THE LOTS. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS PROPOSED FOR THIS PROPERTY IS CONTAINED WITHIN A ONE SINGLE PARCEL AND MEETS THE SETBACKS AND THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PARCEL. WELL, I'M JUST NOT KNOWING WHERE THE AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL THE NEW ITEMS ARE GOING, YOU KNOW, ON THE SURVEY, YOU KNOW, AND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, BUT THAT'S BEING USED. I'M WONDERING IF THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT, THAT I MEAN, A PRIVATE PROPERTY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN COMPEL THEM TO COMBINE IF THEY HAVE LAWFUL PARCELS, THEY HAVE SEPARATE. SO WE DON'T. PARCELS UNDER THIS BECAUSE EACH SUBDIVISION HAS THEIR DIFFERENT CODES. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO COMBINE IN PORT ROYAL. YOU ARE. SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, THROWING THIS OUT THERE. WE CAN'T, SO WE CAN'T SAY IF SOMEONE'S PROPOSING TO BUILD ONE BIG ESTATE, WE CAN'T MAKE IT CONDITIONED UPON THAT, MAKING THEM COMBINE IT. THAT'S SOMETHING WE CANNOT DO. WE CANNOT, THEY CAN KEEP IT SEPARATE LOTS EVEN THOUGH BE NONCONFORMING. THE CONSTRUCTION, THAT MEANS THEY'D HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN IF THEY WANTED TO SELL THOSE LOTS. WE WOULD NOT ISSUE A CONDITION WHEN WE REVIEW THESE MINOR SUBDIVISIONS TO ADJUST THE LOT LINES. THE CONDITION OF THAT IS THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE DEMOLISHED. WE WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO CREATE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, SO WE WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO MOVE A LOT LINE THAT WOULD BECOME TWO. THAT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE. SO WHATEVER THEY BUILD ON, IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THE THREE SEPARATE LOTS, WHATEVER THEY BUILD ON, IT HAS TO BE CONFORMING TO THREE SEPARATE LOTS. EXACTLY. YES. YEP. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK THANK YOU. MY QUESTIONS FOR CITY ATTORNEY AND HE AND I HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS ALREADY. MY CONCERN IS MY COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ETHICS CODE. AS I REMEMBER MR. AND MRS. PENNYMAN WERE VERY INVOLVED IN ADVOCATING FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT SET UP OUR ETHICS COMMISSION AND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY PROPOSED. [01:45:02] AND WE ADOPTED COUNCIL AT THAT TIME ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO IMPLEMENT THE ETHICS CODE. AND AS I RECALL, DURING THE PROCESS WHERE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, THAT ONE OF THE DRIVING CONCERNS WAS TRANSPARENCY, PARTICULARLY IN CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PETITIONS THAT. THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT ANY POTENTIAL. PERCEIVED OR REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PARTICULARLY BETWEEN A COUNCIL MEMBER AND A PETITIONER, WAS KNOWN AND DISCLOSED, AND THE PUBLIC HAD NOTICE OF THAT. AND THAT WAS ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED. AND MY CONCERN HAS BEEN THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT THAT'S PROVIDED DOESN'T DO THAT. IT SAYS AN ATTORNEY IS THE TRUSTEE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S A LAND TRUST. AND ITEM EIGHT SAYS ONE INDIVIDUAL HAS A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS. ITEM 12 AND 13 SAY THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL HAS NOT MET WITH ANYBODY IN THE CITY AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH ANYBODY IN THE CITY. HOW DO I KNOW THAT? NOBODY INTERVIEWED ME. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CHECKED MY FINANCIAL RECORDS OR ANYTHING ELSE. HOW AM I ABLE TO VOTE IF I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE AN ETHICAL ISSUE OR NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? AND I THOUGHT WHEN WE, WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL THE FIRST TIME AND WE DISCUSSED THE ETHICS ORDINANCES, I THOUGHT WE HAD A ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CODE REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF WHO COUNTS WAS REALLY DEALING WITH SO THAT WE COULD MAKE HONEST AND TRANSPARENT, FREE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT DECISIONS. SO I'D LIKE TO START WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE US SOME ADVICE ON HOW. IF WE PROCEED TO VOTE ON THIS, HOW WE CAN DO THAT IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR OWN ETHICS CODE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO A FEW THINGS TO UNPACK THERE. FIRST OFF, CHAPTER 112 TALKS ON VOTING CONFLICTS. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE UNLESS YOU HAVE A VOTING CONFLICT. AND WHAT THE STATUTE READS IS PUBLIC OFFICER MAY NOT VOTE ON ANY MATTER THAT THE OFFICER EMPHASIS ADDED KNOWS WOULD INURE TO HIS OR HER SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS. SO UNLESS YOU ARE SITTING HERE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU VOTE ON WILL LEAD TO A SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS, MY OPINION IS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE. NOW, VICE MAYOR BRINGS UP SOME VERY GOOD INQUIRIES, AND I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO MR. MORAWSKI AS WELL. THE DISCLOSURE OF PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERSHIP IS UNDER 2977 SUBPARAGRAPH E OF THE ETHICS CODE. IT IS HIS OPINION THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I WAS NOT HERE FOR WHEN THE ETHICS COMMISSION WAS CREATED. IS THE DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A MATERIAL INTEREST? IT DOESN'T SAY DISCLOSURE OF BENEFICIARIES OF A TRUST, ETC.. IF WE WANT IT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC IN THE FUTURE, I WHOLLY BELIEVE THE ETHICS COMMISSION WILL DO THAT, ESPECIALLY IF THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PROVISION. BUT HIS OPINION IS BASED ON WHAT WAS PROVIDED. IT DOES SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. THAT BEING SAID, IF IT DIDN'T SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. THE ONLY REMEDY OR CONSEQUENCE FOR VIOLATING THAT IS A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE, NOT PART OF THE CRITERIA OF THE CONDITIONAL USE BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO I WOULD CAUTION COUNSEL FROM DENYING THIS BASED ON A POTENTIAL ETHICS VIOLATION I WOULD PREFER IF THAT'S THE WAY THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO. DIRECTION INTO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN ETHICS VIOLATION. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO MAKE THIS THE REASON FOR DENIAL, BECAUSE AS THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF HAVE LAID OUT, THERE ARE CRITERIA IN CHAPTER 46 THAT YOU ARE TO EVALUATE BASED ON THE USE BEING REQUESTED, WHICH IS THE TENNIS COURTS. SO I HAVE A FEELING THAT THAT PROBABLY DID NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT'S THE BEST I COULD DO, I THINK, RIGHT NOW. DID MR. MORAWSKI PROVIDE THAT OPINION IN WRITING? NO. I SPOKE WITH HIM THIS MORNING. HE DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO THEIR GENERAL COUNSEL, [01:50:02] BECAUSE THE ETHICS COMMISSION OPERATES AS A SEPARATE ARM OF THE CITY. BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD, THEN I CAN FACILITATE THAT REQUEST IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT IN WRITING. I'M JUST PERSONALLY, I WOULD BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR ETHICS CODE. I'M SURE MISS PASSIDOMO WANTS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE ALSO, BUT I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH HOW DO I VOTE ON A MATTER NOT KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE A CONFLICT OR NOT? OKAY. I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT. DO YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD JUST ONE COMMENT? CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE? KRAMER, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW. IF WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT. IT'S NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT BY OUR DEFINITION, THAT'S WHY WE DO OUR DISCLOSURES. AND WE'RE SAYING, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO CONFLICT. AND I'M I MEAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR ATTORNEY OR OUR STAFF. HOW MANY BLIND TRUSTS, HOW MANY OFFICIATED TRUSTS EXIST ON PROPERTIES IN OUR. LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. ARE THERE ANY THAT EXIST IN OUR CITY? YES. I MEAN, YOU JUST HAD ONE FOR THE RECREATIONAL COURT AND WE DIDN'T IDENTIFY THE BENEFICIARIES. THAT'S MY POINT. LIKE I MY WIFE'S FAMILY HAS IT. ARE YOU GOING TO WHEN THEY GET THEIR POOL DECK? I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE DOING? THAT'S UP TO US ON THE ETHICS. THE ETHICS BINDS US. IT DOESN'T BIND OUR PETITIONERS. AND IF WE WANTED IT TO BIND OUR PETITIONERS, IT'D BE WE HAVE TO WRITE IT COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. THERE ARE ETHICS CODES THAT IT DOES APPLY TO PETITIONERS. OKAY I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. LET ME REPHRASE. WHEN WE ARE RESPONDING, WHEN WE CHOOSE TO VOTE OR NOT, THAT'S BASED ON OUR OBLIGATION. IF YOU WANT TO VOTE, THAT'S YOUR DECISION. I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN HOW I FEEL. YEAH. BUT IF WE DO THIS NOW, THEN THAT MEANS I MEAN, GOING FORWARD. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT US GOING FORWARD? WE'RE GOING TO ALL OF A SUDDEN SAY, I'M NOT SURE. AND NOW I DON'T VOTE BECAUSE IT'S HELD IN A IN A TRUST. I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT PRECEDENT THAT SETS. POTENTIALLY I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS PARTICULAR ONE WAS SET UP AND DESCRIBED THE FAMILY TRUST WHERE A FAMILY MEMBER. THAT'S A COMMON THING WHERE IT'S A REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST THAT THE FAMILY MEMBER IS THE TRUSTEE FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED AS A TRUSTEE FOR SOMEBODY THAT WE DON'T KNOW. I'M SAYING THAT'S VERY COMMON. WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I'M JUST SAYING I HAVE A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING WHETHER I CAN VOTE ON IT OR NOT. IF YOU IF THAT'S FOR ME, YOU CAN DECIDE FOR YOURSELF IF I'M OKAY AGAIN GOING FORWARD, THEN THAT WOULD APPLY TO YOU FOR EVERY TIME THAT THIS APPEARS OR JUST APPEARED THAT WE JUST APPROVED ONE POSSIBLY DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S HOW THE TRUST IS DESCRIBED AND SET UP AND HOW WHETHER HOW THE DISCLOSURE OF PROPERTY INTEREST IS PROVIDED TO US. AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE ONE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. AND FOR THE NEXT ITEM, IT'S I THINK IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME. OKAY. I SO IF. SO I'M OKAY WITH HOWEVER IT GOES, I JUST WANT, I WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY GOING FORWARD. THAT'S ALL I WANT. EVERY PETITION IS ALWAYS DIFFERENT. SO IT'S AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE A WRITTEN OPINION. SO I KNOW WHAT'S OKAY AND WHAT ISN'T. THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND MY RESPONSIBILITIES. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S FAIR TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU CAN ABSTAIN FROM VOTING THOUGH, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING. SO YOU DON'T YOU MAY NOT WANT TO VOTE WITHOUT THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT THERE IS NOT A KNOWN OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT. IS THAT A FAIR SYNOPSIS? THAT CONFIRMATION FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT SATISFIES THE ETHIC CODE ETHICS CODE THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW ME TO VOTE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES. IT DOES. SATISFYING THE ETHICS CODE THOUGH, DOES NOT THE TRIGGER FOR WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN VOTE TRIGGER OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN VOTE IS IF YOU HAVE A KNOWN CONFLICT OR A POTENTIAL CONFLICT. RIGHT. SO IF THEY SAY THIS MEETS THE ETHICS CODE, YOU STILL KNOW THE INFORMATION, YOU KNOW NOW, BUT I'M TRYING TO JUST GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE UNLESS ONE OF THESE TWO THINGS HAPPEN. [01:55:07] I HEAR YOU, BUT WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS THE ATTORNEY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER SAYING, DON'T WORRY, YOU DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT. AND I WANT TO KNOW, IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH? OKAY. DO I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK? PLEASE, MISS. THANK YOU. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE PECUNIARY GAIN OR LOSS. WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. TO MOVE TENNIS COURTS FROM HERE TO HERE. UNLESS YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH NEWBURY NORTH, THE CONTRACTOR. WHO'S THE ONE WHO'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE PAID TO RELOCATE THE COURTS? I CANNOT CONSTRUE IN MY IMAGINATION HOW YOU BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM THIS RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION. THAT'S A FACTUAL POINT THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY TOUCHED UPON. BUT I ALSO THINK WE'RE LOSING TRACK OF VERY SPECIFIC ENUMERATED POINTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IT IS NOT JUST TRUST US. IF I NEED TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD, I CAN. I ONLY WANT TO BRING UP THOSE TWO POINTS. I DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE INTERPRETATION FROM MR. MCCONNELL. BUT BUT WE HADN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT. THIS IS NONCOMMERCIAL. AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARISE, BY DEFINITION FROM PECUNIARY GAIN OR LOSS. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON THE RESOLUTION AND COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTION. AND THAT IS ON WHEREAS JULY 1ST PAGE OF THE RESOLUTION. AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PETITION 26 MSD 20 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO COMBINE PARCEL A AND PARCEL B TO CREATE 2200, A NEW GORDON 2200. SO THAT'S WHAT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO ME THAT IT WAS. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THAT MEANS? A LOT COMBINATION AND THEN A LOT CONFIGURATION AND A SUBDIVISION AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT I'LL ADDRESS THIS QUESTION TO YOU MISS PASSIDOMO, THAT IF IF THESE PROPERTIES ARE IN A TRUST THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES AND THEY SIMPLY CAN BECOME PROPERTIES UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. SO. WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? GO AHEAD. THEY DON'T HAVE TO. SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TITLE AND WHAT A BUILDING LOT IS. A BUILDING LOT IS REGULATED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A BUILDING LOT THERE'S A PROCESS THAT WAS, THAT WAS THAT WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES IN 2004. THAT ESTABLISHES A PROCESS FOR HOW TO ESTABLISH A BUILDING LOT OF RECORD THAT IS THAT IS REGULATED. HOW TITLE IS TAKEN IS A, IS A PRIVATE MATTER. AND SO TO ESTABLISH A BUILDING LOT, EVEN IF I, IF I OWNED 100 ACRES, IF I WANTED TO CREATE THREE BUILDING LOTS FROM THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, EVEN IF IT'S UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. SO THERE'S OWNERSHIP IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF I OWNED THE 100 ACRES IN 100 DIFFERENT ENTITIES, THEN CREATING THE BUILDING LOT WOULD WOULD RUN WITH THE TITLE TO WHAT I OWN, BUT THEY'RE NOT ONE'S NOT NECESSARILY A CONDITION OF THE OTHER IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. SO I NO OFFENSE TO ROYAL HARBOR, I THINK IT'S BEAUTIFUL. I MEAN, LITTLE HARBOR AND TO PALMER ESTATES, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY COULD EVENTUALLY BECOME A SUBDIVISION WITH SIX HOMES OR EIGHT HOMES ON IT. THE BEST THING ABOUT US BEING IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS THAT WE'RE SHOWING WALL SEGMENTS, AND WE'RE WE'RE TALKING INTO THE RECORD ABOUT THIS BEING A TOTAL OF A THREE PARCEL CONFIGURATION CONSISTENT WITH THE DE GROOT FAMILY ESTATE. YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THIS COULD BE 7 TO 8 PARCELS, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THIS ESTATE. [02:00:05] WE'RE ACTUALLY RETAINING WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED 30, 40 YEARS AGO. AND IF THAT'S A BENEFIT, I THINK IT IS HAVING THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL SIDE NOTE. I GREW UP RIGHT HERE. I GREW UP WITH THIS ESTATE. I KNOW THIS ESTATE. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED SPECULATIVELY, THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE SPLIT INTO EIGHT PARCELS, THAT IT'S RETAINING WHAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 40, 30, 40, 50 YEARS. AND THANK YOU, BECAUSE I SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENT, WHICH IS WHY I WAS CONCERNED WHEN I YOU CAME FOR THE LAKEVILLE AND I MENTIONED THAT. AND WHEN I READ ABOUT WHAT A TRUST COULD DO. AND THAT'S AGAIN, A TRUST CAN BUY SIX ADJOINING PIECES OF PROPERTY WITHOUT CHANGING ANY LEGAL BOUNDARIES AT ALL. THEY SIMPLY BECOME CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES UNDER UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. BUT IF THIS TRUST CHANGES TO A DIFFERENT TRUST THIS POSSIBLY COULD HAPPEN. SO I'M GLAD WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. AND IF I LOOK AT THE UN RESOLUTION, THE ONE QUESTION IS, IS THAT I WILL GET OR WE WILL GET AFTER THE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF 26 MSD TWO IS THAT APPROVED? THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. THIS RESOLUTION DUE TO JUST THE PUBLISHING OF AGENDAS. THIS RESOLUTION WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO FINALIZING THAT, BUT IT HAS BEEN FINALIZED. IT'S IN FRANCESCA'S HANDS. OKAY. AND THAT THERE WILL BE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SUBMITTED AFTER THIS APPROVAL. NO. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. SO WHAT WE HAD GOING INTO THIS IS THE PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION BECAUSE THAT MINOR SUBDIVISION HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED. SO NOW THERE WILL BE A RECORDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ONCE THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED MOST RECENTLY. ONCE THAT IS RECORDED, WE WILL HAVE A RECORDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS PARCEL, 2200 GORDON DRIVE. AND THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL BE WHAT IS REFERENCED IN THE RESOLUTION. OKAY, SO UNDER SECTION TWO OF THE RESOLUTION NUMBER TWO GO TO NUMBER SIX. IT SAYS THE PROPERTY SHALL PROVIDE AN UPDATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASED UPON THE PENDING SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. IT'S NO LONGER PENDING BOTH OF THEM. RIGHT. IT'S NO LONGER PENDING. IT'S APPROVED NOW. OKAY. SO THIS WAS WRITTEN IN ADVANCE OF THAT APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION. SO THOSE THINGS WILL NEED TO BE CHANGED OR NOT. WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT AND, AND UPDATE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT'S IN THE RESOLUTION, AND THEN CLARIFY WITH ME THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS. SO WHAT YOU WILL SEE IN SECTION ONE NOW OF YOUR RESOLUTION, WHICH IS THE WHICH PROVIDES THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S PAGES TO PAGE STARTS ON PAGE TWO, GOES ON TO PAGE THREE. THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT'S WRITTEN THERE WILL BE AMENDED BECAUSE IT'LL REFLECT WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. AND WE WILL AMEND THAT AND TAKE OUT NUMBER SIX NUMBERS. CONDITIONS ONE AND SIX ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. IT'S NO LONGER PENDING. OKAY. AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOCK COMBINATION VERBIAGE AND WITHIN THE RESOLUTION. WHEREAS THAT WAS JUST GIVING A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT. WHAT HAS THE 26 MSD TWO THAT WAS APPROVED WAS ADJUSTING THE LOT LINES IN BETWEEN THE THREE EXISTING PARCELS. SO YOU HAVE 23, IS IT 50 OR 40? 2340 2220 100 GORDON DRIVE. THOSE ARE THE THREE PARCELS. IT SHIFTED THE INTERIOR LOT LINES. ADJUSTING THE DIMENSIONS OF THOSE THREE PARCELS. BUT THEY ARE STILL THREE PARCELS. OKAY. SO AND HOW DOES THE SUBDIVISION TIE IN TO LOT LINE CONFIGURATION. SO I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. FAIR. THE ONLY HOUR, THE ONLY APPLICATION TYPE THAT WE HAVE IS A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION THAT COVERS LOT SPLIT LOT COMBINATION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS. THAT'S JUST THE THE APPLICATION, THE PROCESS AS IT'S DEFINED IN OUR CODE IS IN THE SUBDIVISION SECTION OF OUR CODE. [02:05:05] BUT THERE IS A DISTINCTION CLEARLY BETWEEN A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, A LOT SPLIT AND A LOT COMBINATION. WHAT THEY DID WAS ADJUST THE LOT LINES. THEY DIDN'T SUBDIVIDE THE PARCELS, THEY ADJUSTED THE LOT LINES. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR LINE ADJUSTMENT. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. IT'S NOT ADDRESSED SEPARATELY IN THE CODE. NO. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCIL I MISS YOU CAN MOVE LOT LINES ADMINISTRATIVELY AND NOT GO THROUGH LIKE A FORMAL SUBDIVISION. WELL, CONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AS MOST RECENTLY AMENDED, ALL SUBDIVISIONS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE COMBINATIONS. LOT SPLITS REPLATTING. EVERYTHING IS ADMINISTRATIVE. BUT THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. NO, BUT IF I MAY, BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBER IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THE DISTINCTION IS, IF YOU ARE MAINTAINING PREVIOUSLY PLATTED LOTS OR CREATING A NEW ONE, RIGHT. SO IF I HAVE TWO LOTS AND I'M MOVING LOT LINES AND CREATING A THIRD LOT THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY PLATTED, THEN THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT REQUIRES A REPLAY. BUT IF YOU ARE TAKING THREE LOTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLATTED AND SIMPLY ADJUSTING LOT LINES, BUT MAINTAINING THE LOTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLATTED, THEN NOT ONLY DOES YOUR CODE NOT REQUIRE IT, BUT THE STATUTE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT, SO THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A REPLAY. IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL THOUGH, IF THESE THREE LOTS WERE SPLIT INTO EIGHT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A REPLAT. IF THESE THREE LOTS WERE SPLIT INTO FOUR. CITY'S POSITION IS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A REPLAT BECAUSE YOU'RE CREATING A LOT THAT WASN'T ALREADY PREVIOUSLY PLATTED. HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. I. THERE IS A SECTION IN THE CODE UNDER REPLAT AND THAT I. IT DIDN'T MAKE. I AGREE. IT'S ON YOUR NOVEMBER WORKSHOP. WE NEED TO CLEAR UP THE REGULATIONS AND WE NEED YOUR. YEAH, WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THIS VERY SOON. SO THERE WILL NOT BE A REPLAT. I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OR NOT FOR THIS. NO. CORRECT. SO ONE QUICK QUESTION. SO HOW ARE THESE TWO NEW TENNIS COURTS AFFECT THAT LOT. I MEAN IS THERE ROOM STILL BUILDING ENVELOPE THERE. I MEAN WE AGAIN, WE DON'T SEE ANY. SO THE ONLY LOT IN QUESTION THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IS THE ONLY PARCEL IN QUESTION IS 2200. GORDON. THAT IS THE ONLY PARCEL THAT IS AFFECTED HERE. THOSE TENNIS COURTS ARE RELOCATING THERE. THEY'RE ENTIRELY ON 2200. GORDON. THE ONLY REASON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER PARCELS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. BUT THE ONLY AFFECTED LOT HERE TODAY, YOU'RE YOU'RE LOCATING TWO TENNIS COURTS ONTO 2200 GORDON DRIVE. MAY I CLARIFY SOMETHING? BUT THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES 21, 70 AND 2200. BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE THAT WAS ISSUED WAS FOR 2170 GORDON DRIVE. SO THAT WAS A SEPARATE PARCEL THAT IS NO LONGER A PARCEL. SO I COULD TAKE A LOT AND BUY A LOT AND JUST PUT TWO TENNIS COURTS ON IT. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO DO. NO, YOU'D HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF P, A, B AND COUNCIL BUT YEAH, IT HAS TO BE A PART. WAIT ONE SECOND. YOU CAN'T JUST BUY A LOT AND PUT A TENNIS COURT. NO, YOU HAVE A TENNIS COURT, IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. ACCESSORY. WELL, YOU TENNIS COURT IS ACCESSORY TO A PRIMARY USE, WHICH IN THIS DISTRICT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE LOT. IT'S NOT. SO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMBINING AGAIN. BUT I MEAN, I THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE DICEY FOR ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WILL BE GREAT IF IT WAS JUST COMBINING THE WHOLE LOTS AND WE DO THE WHOLE PROVE THE WHOLE THING AND MAKE IT. THAT'S EASY. BUT NOW, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, SHE WANTS TO LIQUIDATE THESE LOTS SEPARATELY AND MAKE MORE MONEY, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE. SO DO YOU WANT TO KEEP BOTH OPTIONS OPEN? YOU WANT TO HAVE THE ESTATE WITH EVERYTHING COMBINED, BUT YOU WANT THE OPTION TO SELL IT ALL DIVIDED UP. AND IF YOU WANT TO LIQUIDATE IT, THE SINGLE FAMILY PERMIT THAT'S IN RIGHT NOW, IT'S IN REVIEW, IT'S IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND IT'S CURRENTLY IN REVIEW BY ALL APPLICABLE CITY DEPARTMENTS IS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 2200 GORDON DRIVE. SO THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ESTABLISHES THE PRIMARY USE. AND THIS THE TENNIS COURTS THAT ARE IN QUESTION TODAY WOULD BE ACCESSORY TO THAT PRIMARY USE. ALL ON 2200 GORDON DRIVE. OKAY, SO THERE'S THE RESIDENTS GOING TO FIT ON THAT LOT WITH. YES. ENTIRELY. OKAY. YES. MAYOR I HAVE. BARTON. DID YOU WERE YOU COMPLETE? I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IT HAS TO BE AN ACCESSORY TO A MAIN DWELLING. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. EXACTLY. MY POINT OF ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS EARLIER, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PETITION, [02:10:04] BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO WALK IN HERE AND SAY, FINE, BUT THERE IS A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO UNDERSTAND IT. THERE WERE LOTS COMBINED. THERE WILL BE NO REPLAT, AND THERE'S A LOT RECONFIGURATION. THAT WAS A SUBDIVISION. SO IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. AND IT WAS A LOT OF WORK TO FIGURE IT OUT. I COULD, IF THE MATERIALS OF ALL THOSE PERMITS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND I COULD HAVE SEEN THE BIGGER PICTURE, IT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE. SO, KRAMER, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR IT, BUT WHAT? THEY COULD HAVE SOLD THE THREE LOTS AND MADE THREE DIFFERENT HOMES ANYWAY, RIGHT? THEY STILL CAN. RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THAT. IN FACT, IT WAS FOUR WASN'T THE NORTHERN BEFORE THEY COMBINED IT. WASN'T THERE A WHILE WHEN YOU HAVE 2100 GORDON 2200 GORDON AND 2340 GORDON. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER, I CAN'T REMEMBER. IT'S ACTUALLY A GUY WHO PLAYED. DO THEY. IT WAS THERE WAS A FOURTH. THERE WAS. YES. SO THEY AT ONE POINT IT COULD HAVE BEEN FOUR DIFFERENT. YES, YES. SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY POINT. THEY'VE ACTUALLY CONDENSED IT TO THREE FROM FOUR ORIGINALLY. YEAH. ORIGINALLY. THAT'S RIGHT. WAY, WAY BACK. WAY WAY BACK. THAT'S CORRECT. AND AND SO NONE OF THAT HAS CHANGED. LIKE WHOEVER THE OWNER IS, I DON'T KNOW. HE SAID SHE, HE WHOEVER THEY COULD HAVE ALREADY DONE WHAT. YEAH. I MEAN, YOU CAN CREATE A LOT IN THIS. THIS IS THE ESTATE DISTRICT. SO IT'S A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 150FT, A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF, I THINK, 67,500FT². SO AS LONG AS YOU MEET THAT, YOU CAN CREATE LOTS THAT MEET THOSE DIMENSIONS. THIS OBVIOUSLY THESE PARCELS EXCEED THAT. YOU HAVE THREE PARCELS THAT EXCEED THOSE STANDARDS, BUT THEY COULD CREATE MULTIPLE PARCELS THAT THAT MEET THOSE STANDARDS. OKAY. JUST QUICK QUESTION STAFF. THANKS. DOES THE REAR LOT LINE GO INTO THE WATER IN THE GULF? INTERESTINGLY, I DON'T KNOW THE CONDITION. THEY DON'T HAVE A REAR LOT LINE ON THIS ONE. THIS, THESE LOTS ARE CONSIDERED DOUBLE FRONTED BECAUSE THEY FRONT ON THE BEACH WHICH IS CONSIDERED A FRONT AND THEY FRONT ON GORDON DRIVE WHICH IS CONSIDERED A FRONT. THEY HAVE 50 FOOT SETBACKS FROM THE BEACH, THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE BEACH AND 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON GORDON DRIVE. AND THEN THEY HAVE SIDE SETBACKS. SO IT'S 50FT ON THE LATERAL PART OF THE LOT THAT THEY HAVE. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LINE IS. A LINE IN THE WATER OR IS IT? I'M NOT SURE. IT'S IT'S LANDWARD. AND IT'S IF YOU LOOK AT THE FENCE LAYOUT PLAN THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, IT DOES SHOW WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE IN ORANGE DASHED LINES DEPICT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT'S YOUR PROPERTY LINE MINUS YOUR REQUIRED SETBACKS. SO THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS, IS THAT, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT TO HAVE PUBLIC EGRESS IN THE BACK, IN THAT BACK AREA OF THE LOT THAT NO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS PRIVATE PROPERTY FURTHER NORTH ON YOUR ON YOUR BEACHES IS PLOTTED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S PLATTED AS GULF STREET. THERE'S NO RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT BACK AREA. THERE'S NO RIGHT OF WAY IN THE BACK AREA. NO. BUT THEY THEIR PROPERTY DOES NOT GO TO THE WATER. THEIR PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT. SO IT'S WELL MAYBE COULD USE THAT. I ALSO AM A TITLE LAWYER. SO THIS IS UNIQUE. THE THE PROPERTY LINE DOES EXTEND TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE EXCEPT FOR AS YOU GO NORTH, THE STATE DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AN EROSION CONTROL LINE WHICH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. FIXED. SO RATHER THAN MEAN HIGH WATER LINE FLUCTUATING, THE EROSION CONTROL LINE IS FIXED. YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN WHERE IT BECOMES FIXED. IT IS A FLAT LINE, RIGHT. I THINK COUNCILMAN KRULL, YOU'RE ASKING WHAT HAPPENS ON THE BEACH? THE BEACH IS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS AS A MATTER OF COMMON LAW. THAT'S NOT IMPACTED WHATSOEVER. WHETHER THE WHERE THE THE SETBACK STARTS IS IN THIS CASE, REALLY DICTATED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. SO IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN 50FT. IT'S GOING TO BE HUNDREDS OF FEET FROM THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. OKAY. I KNOW THAT DOESN'T RELATE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, BUT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I CLARIFY THE TITLE ASPECT. CURIOUS ON THAT. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RESOLUTION FOR THE PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD WAS THAT IN BETWEEN 2120 OR 2200. THIS PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE BEACH. NO. THERE IS A ROAD. PUBLIC ROAD AS YOU MOVE NORTH TO MISS MARTIN'S POINT. THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF NAPLES PLATTED GULF STREET, WHICH IS WHY PROPERTIES KIND OF. AS YOU GET INTO OLD NAPLES AREA, STOP AT THE BEACH BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY THE PLATTED LOT LINE THAT THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GULF STREET [02:15:08] AND THE PLATTED LOTS. THIS WAS THIS WAS CREATED DIFFERENTLY. THIS WAS ACTUALLY CREATED SUCH THAT THE LOT LINES EXTENDED TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. SO THERE IS NO GULF STREET IN THIS SEGMENT OF THE CITY OF NAPLES ON ANY PLAT MAPS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THIS PETITION. I HAVE IT ON THE NEXT PETITION. MISS PASSIDOMO, YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENTS OR COMMENTS? THIS IS THIS IS THE THE CONCLUDING IMAGE. I'LL SHOW YOU ON THE ON THE EXISTING FRONTAGE, YOU'LL SEE THE TENNIS COURTS WITH THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND THE PARKING ON THE LEFT. ON THE RIGHT YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION FROM STREET VIEW. FINALLY, THIS SITE PLAN WILL BE MADE BY WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RESOLUTION BY REFERENCE. AND AND SO THIS ORIENTS YOU TO THE PROPERTY AND WHERE THE TENNIS COURTS WILL BE CONFIGURED WITHIN THE PROPERTY. WITH THAT, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL ON THIS PETITION, WHICH IS TO RELOCATE TENNIS COURTS WITHIN PRIVATE ESTATE LANDS, AND THOSE TENNIS COURTS WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED. THEY ARE STILL THERE. THEY'RE PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION SET UP. THEY'RE KIND OF BURIED UNDER EQUIPMENT. I DID NOT WANT THOSE TO BE REMOVED UNTIL WE GOT UNTIL THIS. TODAY WAS DETERMINED BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE RETAINED ON THE PROPERTY, SO THAT IF ANYBODY WANTED TO VISIT THE PROPERTY, THEY COULD SEE THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TENNIS COURTS. SO THAT THAT WAS AT MY RECOMMENDATION. VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING THAT'S BEHIND IT WILL BE REMOVED OR RETAINED. IT WILL BE RAISED. IT WILL BE RAISED. AND THAT, THAT LIKEWISE WAS TO HELP SHOW THE PICTURE OF THE 1994 APPROVAL, WHICH SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED A MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND THE PARKING. SO ALL OF THAT IS A PERIOD IN TIME THAT I THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ANYBODY, AGAIN, VISITING THE SITE TO SEE WHAT WAS APPROVED. SO WE UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S CHANGING. THAT EXPLAINS WHY THERE IS A PERMIT OUT FOR A MAINTENANCE BUILDING. FOR A DEMOLITION OF A MAINTENANCE BUILDING. I THOUGHT IT WAS. IT MIGHT BE OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO CLARIFY REAL QUICK. WHEN SHE USED THE WORD RAISED, THAT'S WITH A Z, NOT AN S. IT'S NOT BEING RAISED. IT'S BEING DEMOED. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON IS CORRECT. NOT LIFTED. IT'S ELIMINATED. IT'S BEING ELIMINATED. IT'S BEING DEMOED. NOT. NOT LIFTED HIGHER. IT'S BEING RAZED. YES. YES. I'LL NOT USE THAT TERM GOING FORWARD. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. COUNCIL. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION TWO SIX DOT CU6 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46-34, 58-83 AND 56-94 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES AMENDING RESOLUTION 94-7299, WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TENNIS COURTS AND THE ADDITION OF A SECOND TENNIS COURT IN THE R1-E RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2150 GORDON DRIVE TO TO LOCATE TO 2200 GORDON DRIVE. AND WITH THIS I'D LIKE TO ADD THE CONDITIONS FROM STAFF. THIS. SEVEN CONDITIONS THAT STAFF MENTIONED AS AMENDED AS AMENDED DURING DISCUSSION TODAY. DO WE NEED TO. THERE WERE FOUR THAT WERE THAT WERE ALREADY INCLUDED. DO WE NEED TO MENTION THOSE OR NO. SO THERE ARE SEVEN. SORRY, SEVEN CONDITIONS IN YOUR RESOLUTION. WE DISCUSSED AMENDING THOSE CONDITIONS, REMOVING NUMBER ONE BECAUSE THAT HAS THE MINOR SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN APPROVED AND REMOVING NUMBER SIX WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UPDATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION. THOSE WERE THE SEVEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BUT THERE WERE FOUR THAT WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THOSE ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE SEVEN. THAT'S FINE. WE DON'T NEED IT. THEY WERE PART OF THE SEVEN. YEP. OKAY. YOU NEED TO READ THE SEVEN INTO THE MOTION. YOU COULD DO THAT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. YEAH. I'LL SECOND THAT. AND THE EXHIBIT A. [02:20:03] EXHIBIT A AS AMENDED AS A RESULT OF 26 MSD TWO. BUT NOT WITHIN THIS PACKET. IT IS. BUT IT'S IT WILL NOW BE RECORDED. IT WILL BE A RECORDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOW. OKAY. AND IF YOU'LL AFTERWARDS SHOW ME THE AMENDED DOCUMENT THAT'S IN HERE. GOT A LOT OF A'S AND B'S. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. NO. BUT IT PASSES 4 TO 2. THANK YOU. AND WE SHOULD TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK, BUT WE SHOULD COME RIGHT BACK TO 11 C. YES. OKAY, WE'RE. WE'RE BACK ON 11 C. MR. MCCONNELL. MAYOR. MY APOLOGIES. THE IPAD IS LOADING. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 26-FWW2 RELATING TO A FENCE AND WALL WAIVER PURSUANT TO SECTION 5637 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, [11.C) A Resolution Determining Petition 26-FWW2, Relating to a Fence and Wall Waiver Pursuant to Section 56-37 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow the Installation of Three Walls at Approximately 11.5 Feet, Exceeding the Maximum Height of 6 Feet Within the 15-Foot Minimum Required Side Yards of Adjoining Parcels Within the R1-E Residence District, for the Properties Owned by Kevin G. Coleman, as Trustee of the 2200 Gordon Drive Land Trust Dated April 23, 2025, and Located at 2200 Gordon Drive and 2340 Gordon Drive, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Conditions; Providing a Disclaimer; and Providing an Effective Date.] CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THREE WALLS AT APPROXIMATELY 11.5FT, EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET WITHIN THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS OF ADJOINING PARCELS WITHIN THE R1E RESIDENCE DISTRICT. FOR THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY KEVIN G. COLEMAN AS TRUSTEE OF THE 2020 GORDON DRIVE LAND TRUST DATED APRIL 23RD, 2025 AND LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND 2340 GORDON DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS, PROVIDING A DISCLAIMER AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT EVERYONE WAS PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN. FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND NOTICED NO COMMUNICATION BESIDES WITH ERIKA. FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND SPOKE TO ERIKA STAFF. VICE MAYOR, SAME AS BEFORE. FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. SPOKE WITH STAFF AND READ THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM RESIDENTS. FAMILIAR WITH PROPERTY. SPOKE WITH STAFF, SPOKE WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT, AND SPOKE WITH SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS AND AND READ THE CORRESPONDENCE. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH WITH MISS MARTIN, READ THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE RESIDENCE AND NO FURTHER DISCLOSURES WITH THAT. MISS. OOPS, SORRY. GOOD MORNING AGAIN. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. I DROPPED MY PEN. SORRY. FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO, FOR THE RECORD, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, KEVIN G. COLEMAN OF THE 2204 GORDON DRIVE, FLORIDA LAND TRUST. JUST TO REORIENT YOU. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF 21ST AVENUE SOUTH, BOUNDED BY THE GULF OF MEXICO TO THE WEST AND GORDON DRIVE TO THE EAST. AS WE MOVE THROUGH THESE SLIDES, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE APPLY THE CORRECT CODE ANALYSIS. THIS IS A WAIVER PROVISION, NOT A VARIANCE. THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS ASK WHETHER A SPECIAL OR SPECIAL FACTORS ARE PRESENT AND THOSE ARE CATALOGED AS LOT SIZE, LOT ORIENTATION AND THE ORIENTATION OF THE WALL OR FENCE AND WHETHER THE APPROVAL CRITERIA RELATED TO THE WAIVER ARE SATISFIED. [02:25:01] THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER PETITION COVERS THREE SEGMENTS. AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PETITION MATERIALS. NONE OF THE WAIVER SEGMENTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 50 FRONT FOOT SETBACK ALONG GORDON DRIVE. ALL THREE SEGMENTS ARE INTERIOR TO ESTATE PROPERTIES RUNNING PARALLEL TO GORDON DRIVE THROUGH SIDE YARDS WHERE LOT LINES BETWEEN ESTATE PARCELS ARE CROSSED. THIS PLAN VIEW IDENTIFIES THE THREE WALL SECTIONS SUBJECT TO THE WAIVER PETITION AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. THE THREE SEGMENTS ARE BORDERED IN RED ON THE SCREEN, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE ARE. THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY WHERE WE DISCUSS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOTS AT LENGTH. PERHAPS IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO, TO TAKE ONE MOMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IF THIS WAS A CONSOLIDATED SINGLE PARCEL, THE INTERIOR WHERE YOU CAN SEE SEE ENLARGEMENT TWO FOR DETAIL. THIS WOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF YOU. SO THIS IS A THIS IS A PETITION THAT ONLY RELATES TO THE LOT LINES THEMSELVES. HERE HERE AND HERE. BUT AGAIN IF THIS WAS CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE PARCEL THEN THIS WOULD NOT BE REQUESTED. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT THIS WOULD NOT BE REQUESTED. IN MORE DETAIL. WALL SECTION ONE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE 2200 GORDON DRIVE. 2100 GORDON DRIVE PARCEL BOUNDARY. HERE, WHILE SECTION TWO. AND THIS IS A TOTAL OF 15FT IN LINEAR WIDTH, NOT IN WIDTH IN LINEAR WIDTH. WHILE SECTION TWO RUNS THROUGH THE ESTATE'S INTERIOR AT THE SHARED 2200 2340 GORDON DRIVE PARCEL BOUNDARY. BECAUSE AT THIS INTERSECTION THERE IS A SIDE YARD AND SIDE YARD. THIS LINEAR WIDTH IS NOW 30FT THAT IS AGGREGATING A 15 FOOT SIDE YARD AND A 15 FOOT SIDE YARD. WALL SECTION THREE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE 2340 GORDON DRIVE PARCEL HERE. THIS IS ONE SIDE YARD, SO THAT IS A LINEAR WIDTH OF 15FT. ALL THREE SECTIONS ARE PROPOSED AT A CONSISTENT HEIGHT OF 11.5FT. WHERE THE VEGETATION LINE ENDS IN THIS PLAN VIEW. A 35FT TALL BUILDING COULD FRONT GORDON DRIVE THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER SUPPORTS PLACEMENT OF. INSTEAD, A MODEST FENCE OR WALL SCREENING AT THAT LINE FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PRIVACY, AND RETAINS THE ENTIRE 50FT FRONT SETBACK AS OPEN SPACE. THIS EXHIBIT ILLUSTRATES THE LOT DIMENSIONS THAT ESTABLISHED THE FIRST AND MOST SIGNIFICANT SPECIAL FACTOR UNDER SECTION 56-37G2. THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL. THE CONSOLIDATED STATE MEASURES OVER 800FT IN DEPTH FROM GORDON DRIVE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO AND OVER 1000FT ALONG ITS GORDON DRIVE FRONTAGE. THIS COMBINED AREA, AS WE DISCUSSED, OF OVER 18 ACRES. WHEN ONE GOES TO THE HISTORY, THE CITY HAS RECOGNIZED THE EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY THROUGH APPROVALS IN THE 1980S, GRANTING A 15 FOOT ENTRY STRUCTURE. IN THAT CASE, WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. THE ENTRY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AND WILL NOT BE CONTINUED. WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR TODAY IS NARROWER INTERNAL RELIEF AT LOCATIONS WITH NO STREETSCAPE IMPACT. THE SECOND SPECIAL FACTOR IS LOT ORIENTATION AND LOCATION. THIS IS A DOUBLE FRONTED BEACHFRONT ESTATE MANAGED. CONSISTENT WITH ITS HISTORY AS A UNIFIED COMPOUND, THIS ESTATE OCCUPIES A SINGULAR POSITION AT THE ENTRY OF PORT ROYAL, [02:30:07] A BEACHFRONT CORRIDOR THAT IS BY ITS NATURE BOTH AN INTENSELY PRIVATE AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS. THE ADJACENT SEGMENT OF GORDON DRIVE CARRIES NOT ONLY RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC, BUT THE PUBLIC TRAVELING TO AND FROM THE BEACH. THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF GORDON DRIVE, PARTICULAR TO THIS SEGMENT. THAT DUAL CHARACTER PRIVATE ESTATE FRONTING A PUBLIC ACCESS CORRIDOR CREATES SITE SPECIFIC PRESSURES. A CONTINUOUS PERIMETER BUFFER. CONSISTENT WITH THIS PETITION IS A MEASURED AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THAT CONDITION. IT PROVIDES THE PRIVACY APPROPRIATE TO AN ESTATE OF THIS CHARACTER WHILE LEAVING THE PUBLIC FACING STREETSCAPE ENTIRELY DEFINED BY LANDSCAPE. THE THIRD SPECIAL FACTOR IS ORIENTATION OF THE WALL OR FENCE. THE WAVER SEGMENTS ARE PARALLEL WITH THE 50FT BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE WAIVER APPLIES ONLY TO 15 TO 30FT OF INTERIOR SEGMENTS, WHERE A WALL OR FENCE CROSSES A SIDE YARD OF SHARED LOT LINE BETWEEN ESTATE PARCELS. THESE SEGMENTS ARE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 300 TO 500 LINEAR FEET APART. I LEARNED FROM MR. MCCABE IN HIS REMARKS IN THE INITIAL PETITION THAT THAT'S MULTIPLE FOOTBALL FIELDS. THE CONTINUITY OF THE WALL OR FENCE LINE THROUGH THIS WAIVER PETITION SECURES DEPTH. RATHER THAN PLACING A 35FT TALL BUILDING AT THE FRONT ENVELOPE AND MAXIMIZING SETBACKS. THE DESIGN INTENTIONALLY PLACES A PRIVACY WALL OR FENCE AT 11.5FT, SCREENED BY THE FULL DEPTH OF 50FT PLANTED SETBACK AND THE 20 AND THE 20FT OF CITY TREES BEFORE REACHING THE PAVEMENT OF GORDON DRIVE. MR. KIRWIN WAS SWORN IN AT THIS POINT IN THE PRESENTATION. I'LL TURN THE PODIUM OVER TO MR. KIRWIN JUST TO EXPLAIN THE INTENTIONALITY IN CREATING A UNIFIED EXPERIENCE ALONG GORDON DRIVE, MATCHING THE GARDEN EXPERIENCE AND THE LITTLE HARBOR BUFFER SIDE. WOULD COUNSEL. RESPECT THAT REQUEST THAT HE PROVIDES SOME SOME CONTEXT. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WEBSITE IS COMING, GOING DOWN AND COMING BACK UP. GRANICUS. GRANICUS IS HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES, SO IT'S BEING NAVIGATED. BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS AND WE HAVE TO STOP AND AND CONTINUE. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOOD MORNING. WELCOME. IF YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. KOBY KIRWIN I'M A REGISTERED FLORIDA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR 2340 AND 2200 GORDON DRIVE. SO OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY AND THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY. AND WHEN WE WALKED ON TO IT FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE WERE JUST GREETED WITH A NURSERY FULL OF PLANT MATERIAL, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS TO KNOCK DOWN AS MUCH AS WE COULD FOR EXPEDIENCY OF CONSTRUCTION. RIGHT? THAT'S THE EASIEST THING. GET EFFICIENCY. GET THIS THING BUILT AS QUICKLY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. FORTUNATELY, THE FAMILY DIDN'T WANT THAT. THEY LIKED HOW THE BACK LOOKED LIKE THE PACIFIC, AND THEY WANTED TO RELOCATE MORE PALM TREES INTO THE BACK. SO WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN FOR THEM, WHERE THE 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK THAT RUNS ALONG 2340 MAJORITY OF THAT EXISTING MATERIAL THAT WE COULD SALVAGE GOT PICKED UP AND PLACED ALONG THE SOUTHERN BUFFER ANY PALMS THAT WERE EXISTING, THAT RAN ALONG THE WESTERN BUFFER ALONG THE BEACH. IF WE HAD OTHER APPLICABLE COCONUT PALMS, WE PICKED THOSE UP AND MOVED THEM TO THE WEST. SIMILAR BUFFER WAS RUN ALONG THE PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS, AND WE FILLED THAT IN WITH ALL APPLICABLE PLANT MATERIAL. AND THEN WE CHOSE THE LARGEST TREES TO RUN ALONG GORDON DRIVE. SO ROUGHLY ALONG GORDON DRIVE, WE HAVE AN ACRE WORTH OF PLANT MATERIAL THAT'S BEEN RELOCATED. THE SMALLEST TREE THAT WE PICKED UP BY CRANE. WEIGHED 65,000 POUNDS. THE LARGEST WEIGHED 170,000 187,000 POUNDS. SO THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DOING SOMETHING THAT IS UNUSUAL. [02:35:03] I'VE BEEN THE BENEFACTOR TO WORK ON SIX LOTS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I DON'T HAVE ONE CLIENT IN THOSE SIX LOTS THAT DEDICATED 50FT TO A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. TYPICALLY, I HAVE 3 OR 4FT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. I DO A HEDGE. I DO THE MAXIMUM WALL THAT'S ALLOWED. WE DO A BUFFER. AND THEN INSIDE THAT 50FT, WE'RE TYPICALLY DOING AMAZON DROP OFF AND DELIVERIES. WE'RE DOING GUEST PARKING, WE'RE DOING SERVICE PARKING, AND THEN THE HOUSE BEGINS. THE FAMILY RECOGNIZED WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING WITH THE WALL, PUT THE WALL INSIDE THE BUILDING SETBACK, AND THEN DEDICATED THAT FIRST 50FT TO LANDSCAPE. IF YOU STAND OUT ON GORDON DRIVE, YOU'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE LITTLE HARBOR DID THE EXACT SAME THING. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT 20 FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY. THEY'VE GOT A LINEAR PLANTED BUFFER, AND THEN THEY START IN WITH THEIR COMMUNITY. SO IF YOU LOOK HARD, RIGHT, IF YOU STOP, YOU CAN SEE A HOUSE IN LITTLE HARBOR, BUT YOU REALLY GOT TO LOOK AT IT TO, TO FIND IT. AND WE'RE ESSENTIALLY PROPOSING THE SAME TYPE OF FEELING AS YOU DRIVE ALONG GORDON DRIVE THAT WE HAVE OUR, OUR BUFFER THAT WE'RE MANAGING AND THEN THE HOME AND THEN THE AND THEN THE PROPERTY. SO THEY'VE WORKED REALLY HARD OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS TO ESTABLISH THAT BUFFER. WE HAD A A DEADLINE TO HAVE IT DONE PRIOR TO THIS MEETING SO THAT EVERYBODY COULD UNDERSTAND THEIR INTENTIONS AND THAT IT WASN'T HYPERBOLE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WOULD GET AROUND TO IT, THAT IT'S DONE. AND IF YOU GO DOWN THERE TODAY, YOU CAN SEE THE LINEAR BUFFER THAT'S CREATED. AND THAT'S JUST THE BEGINNING OF IT, BECAUSE WE GOT WORK TO DO TO MAKE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, TIE IN TO TIE INTO THE TOWN, SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHAT. IF YOU NEED ME, I'M RIGHT IN THE BACK AND CAN SPEAK AGAIN. THANK YOU. BEFORE CONCLUDING, IN MY OPINION, IT'S OF A TRANSPARENT BENEFIT TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS. WE DID MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF LEADERSHIP OF THE LITTLE HARBOR ASSOCIATION, THE AQUA LYNN SHORES ASSOCIATION, THE PORT ROYAL ASSOCIATION ON SITE AT THE PROPERTY. WE WALKED THE GROUNDS TOGETHER. WE DISCUSSED THE NATURE OF THE PETITIONS, THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, AND THE OWNER'S VISION FOR THE CORRIDOR, SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. KERWIN JUST DESCRIBED. THOSE CONVERSATIONS, IN MY VIEW, WERE GENUINELY NEIGHBORLY, AND I BELIEVE THEY CLARIFIED THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST AND DISPELLED CONCERNS THAT HAD ARISEN FROM MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE TIME THOSE REPRESENTATIVES GAVE, AND WE DO REMAIN OPEN TO CONTINUE DIALOG. IN ADDITION, WE MET WITH THE OWNER OF 2370 GORDON DRIVE. THAT IS THE OWNER OF THIS PARCEL. AND THAT OWNER HAS PROVIDED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS PETITION. AND THAT LETTER IS IN THE RECORD BEFORE YOU. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PETITION AGAINST ALL OF SECTION 56-37G2 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL, INCLUDING FULL DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW AND FIND THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THIS FENCE AND WALL WAIVER PETITION. REMAIN OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS FOR. THE 2100. NOT RECEIVING ANY TYPE OF WALL? NO, MA'AM. SO THIS THE 2100 IS UP HERE. SO THIS IS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF 2200. IT'S SIDE YARD. THIS IS A SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF 2200. IT'S SIDE YARD. THIS IS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF 2340. IT'S SIDE YARD. AND THEN THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF 2340. AND IT'S SIDE YARD. OKAY. QUESTIONS. STAFF REPORT. [02:40:25] THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEFORE YOU IS FENCE AND WALL WAIVER PETITION 26FWW. TWO THIS FENCE AND WALL WITH REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THREE WALLS OR THREE WALL SEGMENTS AT APPROXIMATELY 11.5FT, EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET WITHIN THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS OF ADJOINING PARCELS WITHIN THE R150R1E RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON THE PARCELS LOCATED AT 2223 40 GORDON DRIVE. THIS ITEM WAS NOTICED ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 20, 2026, IN WHICH A TOTAL OF 104 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF TODAY. STAFF HAVE RECEIVED 12 CORRESPONDENCE, ONE EMAIL, AND ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT. ONE OF THE LETTER OF SUPPORT CAME FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AT 2370 GORDON DRIVE AND TEN EMAILS IN OPPOSITION. ONE OF THE OPPOSING EMAILS WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE PUBLIC AGENDA, WHICH WAS JUST PLACED ON YOUR DAIS. THE LOT LINES OF PARCEL A, 2170 GORDON DRIVE, FORMERLY 2150 GORDON DRIVE, PARCEL B 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND PARCEL C 2340 GORDON DRIVE, WERE ADJUSTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION 25, MSD SIX, WHICH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONALLY APPROVED ON MARCH 11TH, 2026. THEN, ON JULY 27TH, 2026, A NEW APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PETITION 26 MSD TWO WAS RECEIVED TO COMBINE PARCEL A, 2170 GORDON DRIVE AND PARCEL B 2200 GORDON DRIVE INTO A NEW PARCEL CONSISTING OF 10.34 ACRES, REFERRED TO IN THE SURVEY PREPARED BY JAMES GORDON AND NEWBURY NORTH ASSOCIATES AND DATED JULY 27TH, 2026, AS THE NEW 2200. THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, WITH EXCEPTION OF THE MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS, HAVE SINCE BEEN DEMOLISHED. THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A FENCE AND WALL WAIVER TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THREE WALLS AT APPROXIMATELY 11.5FT WITHIN THE SIDE YARDS OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES. LOCATED AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND 2340 GORDON DRIVE. THE SHARED WALL LAYOUT PLAN, PREPARED BY EXTERIORS BY COLBY CURRAN AND DATED JULY 22ND, 2026, DEPICTS THE WALL SECTIONS. WALL SECTION ONE IS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF 2200 GORDON DRIVE. THE WALL WILL BE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND APPROXIMATELY 115FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF GORDON DRIVE WALL. SECTION THREE IS ALSO COMPLETELY WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF 23. I'M SORRY, 2300 GORDON DRIVE. HOWEVER, THE WALL WILL BE. I'M SORRY. 2340 GORDON DRIVE. HOWEVER, THE WALL WILL BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. SIDE PROPERTY LINE PARALLEL TO GORDON DRIVE AND SET BACK 5052FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THEN WALL. SECTION TWO INTERCEPTS THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. SIDE PROPERTY LINE OF 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF 2343 GORDON DRIVE, WHICH IS PERPENDICULAR TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES BUT PARALLEL TO GORDON DRIVE, AND THAT IS ALSO SET BACK 52FT FROM GORDON DRIVE. SO THE REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE FOR A LEVEL HEIGHTS FOR WALL FENCES. THE CODE OF SECTION 56-37 STATES THAT THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET. THE FRONT YARD CAN BE NO MORE THAN THREE FEET, BUT THE WALLS, MEASURING 11.5FT IN HEIGHT, WILL BE 15FT IN WIDTH AND WILL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT FRONT. SETBACK PURSUANT TO SECTION 58-86 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE WALLS WOULD ALSO BE APPROXIMATELY 700FT FROM THE GULF AND MORE THAN 200FT FROM THE RESIDENCES OF THE LITTLE HARBOR SECTION 5637 G TWO REQUIRES THAT CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY, CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL IN ITS DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING THE GRANTING OF A FENCE AND WALL WAIVER. THIS ITEM WAS REVIEWED BY THE DEPARTMENT REVIEW, AND NO NOTEWORTHY COMMENTS WERE RAISED PURSUANT TO SECTION 56S37G. TWO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW FOR FENCE AND WALL WAIVER AT 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND 2340 40 GORDON DRIVE, [02:45:01] AND FIND THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING CONDITION IS SUGGESTED BY STAFF. THE PETITIONER AND THE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL ABIDE BY THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER GRANTED VIA PETITION 26FWW2 ANY FURTHER ENLARGEMENT OR MODIFICATION BEYOND THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN THIS FENCE AND WALL WAIVER SHALL REQUIRE REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR A NEW FENCE AND WALL WAIVER PETITION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP. VICE MAYOR. THANKS. SORRY I LET YOU DOWN SO I CAN'T PULL UP THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. BUT YOU SAID STAFF REVIEWED THEM AND FOUND THEM TO BE MET. CAN YOU DISPLAY THEM ON THE SCREEN AND WALK THROUGH THEM AND HOW THEY WERE MET? OR IS YOURS ALSO DOWN? LET'S SEE. WELL, WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. NOT USE EYELID OR I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL FILE. YES. MADAM MAYOR. WELL, WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THERE'S INTERNET COMPANIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE KIND OF SHUTTING SOME THINGS DOWN FOR SECURITY REASONS. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS WHAT WE HAVE. WHEN THIS ITEM WAS OVER, I WAS GOING TO BRIEF YOU, BUT SINCE WE'RE TAKING A BREAK, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS CERTAIN THINGS HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT. SO I JUST NEEDED TO PREFACE THAT IN CASE YOU CAN'T BRING IT UP. SO YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. READ IT ON YOUR LOCAL. I CAN READ THEM TO YOU. YEAH. OKAY. SO THE CRITERIA FOR THIS IS FOR A STANDARD WAIVER. IT SAYS STANDARDS OF APPROVAL. WHEN DETERMINING A WAIVER TO FENCE AND WALL REQUIREMENTS THE CITY WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING. ONE SAFETY IN REGARD TO THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTIES STREETS, ALLEYWAYS AND WATER BODIES. TWO VISUAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES STREETS, ALLEYWAYS AND WATER BODIES. THREE DESIGN IN RELATION TO OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SAME LOT. ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOUR IMPACT ON INGRESS AND EGRESS, IF APPLICABLE. FIVE SCREENING, BUFFERING OR SEPARATION OF ANY NUISANCE OR HAZARDOUS FEATURES AND SIX COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES. I WAS JUST GOING TO OFFER AN EVEN BETTER. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT, THAT WOULD HELP ME. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE MAY HAVE PRINTED THEIRS. THEY USUALLY DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM. DO YOU WANT COPIES MADE? I HAVE A COPY. I'D LIKE ONE. YEAH. CAN WE TAKE A BREAK? AND I'LL GET COPIES MADE? YES. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. OKAY, WE'RE BACK IN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WITH SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WE'RE HAVING, NOT JUST WITHIN CITY, BUT IN SURROUNDING AREAS. WITH THAT, WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH THE STAFF REPORT. I THINK WHERE WE LEFT IS MR. BLANKENSHIP HAD ASKED FOR THE TO REVIEW THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR OR CRITERIA FOR REVIEW IN THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER. SO WE DID PRINT THE STAFF REPORT. THE STANDARDS ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT. BEGINNING ON PAGE SIX OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. APPLICABILITY ON PAGE SIX. STANDARDS ON PAGE SEVEN. SORRY. THANKS FOR PROVIDING. I'VE JUST READ THROUGH IT REAL QUICKLY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW YOU ASSESS THE THIS PROPERTY AND THE WALL IN CONNECTION WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY? SO LIKE ITEM ONE SAFETY IN REGARD TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. NUMBER TWO, VISUAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. [02:50:02] THREE DESIGN IN RELATION TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE WHAT KIND OF PROCESS YOU GO THROUGH AND ASSESSING THE IMPACT. AND THE LAST ONE SIX COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES. HEY. WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THAT AND WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT. SO THIS WALL IS SET BACK 52FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THE LOCATION WHERE THIS WALL IS LOCATED IS WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. ESSENTIALLY THE HOUSE ITSELF COULD BE IN THIS LOCATION. SO AN 11 FOOT WALL WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. I UNDERSTAND THE WALL WAIVER IS FOR THE THE AREAS WHICH IT CROSSES OVER THE SIDE SETBACK THE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES, BUT THE WALL ITSELF ADJACENT. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF GORDON, THEY. THIS WALL IS SET BACK. SO FAR, IT'S IN THE LOCATION WHERE THE HOUSE COULD BE. SO AN 11 FOOT WALL. VISUALLY, THE VISUAL IMPACT OF AN 11 FOOT WALL IS NO GREATER THAN THE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED THERE ANYWAY. AND THE DIFFERENCE THAT YOU WOULD SEE APPROVING THIS WALL IS EITHER AN 11.5FT WALL CONSISTENT ALONG THE PROPERTIES, OR AN 11.5FT WALL THAT DROPS DOWN TO SIX FEET FOR A SHORT DISTANCE AND THEN GOES BACK UP TO 11.5. SO THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THAT DIFFERENCE AT THE LOCATION BEING 52FT OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO COMPARING IT TO THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING THAT COULD BE BUILT, BUT THEY COULDN'T BUILD A BUILDING ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF CROSSING LOT LINES, COULD THEY? NOT CROSSING THE LOT LINES, NO, BUT WITHIN THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE. SO THE LOCATIONS OF THIS WALL WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ARE WHERE THE BUILDING ITSELF COULD BE. THE ONLY PORTIONS THAT REQUIRE THE WAIVER ARE WHERE IT CROSSES THAT SETBACK. AND THE WALL THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT AREA IS SIX FEET. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIX FOOT WALL THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, AND THE 11.5FT WALL JUST IN THOSE LOCATIONS, PROVIDED THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT THEY'RE OFFERING HERE. THE VISUAL IMPACT WOULD BE MINIMAL, IF ANY. OKAY. AND HOW LONG AGAIN, IS THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE WALL FROM NORTH TO SOUTH CROSSING THE WHOLE WHOLE THING. THE TOTAL COMBINED LENGTH OF THE PROPERTIES IS ABOUT 800FT. THAT'S NOT THE WALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THE ENTIRE. IF YOU COMBINE THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE ALONG GORDON, OF ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES, IT'S ABOUT 800FT. BUT THE WALL DOESN'T GO ALONG ALL 800FT. THE WALL IS ONLY 2223 40. SO IT'S NOT ENCAPSULATING 20. IT'S NOT ENCAPSULATING THE 2100. GORDON. HOW LONG IS THE WALL ITSELF ACROSS THOSE TWO PARCELS THEN THE WALL THE WAIVER AREA OR THE ENTIRETY OF THE WALL THING. I CAN'T PULL ANYTHING UP SO I CAN'T LOOK AT ANYTHING. I'M SORRY, I MEMBERS. THE SO THE WALL ITSELF IS NOT 800FT LONG. IT'S SOMETHING LESS. SO A FENCE OR WALL AT THE 50 FOOT LINE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 800FT. IT WILL. IN LINEAR LENGTH IT WILL BE BROKEN UP BY THE DRIVEWAY. INTERSECTION. THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE WAIVER SEGMENTS. SO THE BIG PICTURE, VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP, YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, WHICH I WANT TO RESPOND TO WHICH IS ALONG THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. WE HAVE GRAPHICS THAT WE, WE PROVIDED TO THE ASSOCIATION AND STAFF. IF WE WANT TO PULL THEM UP, WE CAN. I UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PULL THEM UP, BUT IF WE WANT TO, WE CAN. THE ALONG THE SETBACK 50FT THERE IS PLANNED TO BE SOME SORT OF PERIMETER MATERIAL, WHETHER IT'S A WALL OR A FENCE OF 11.5FT IN HEIGHT. AND THEN THAT WILL EXTEND INTO THE WAIVER SEGMENTS, THE 15FT IN LINEAR WIDTH OR 30FT, WHERE BISECTING TWO PROPERTY LINE LINEAR WIDTH. SO FROM A BIG PICTURE STANDPOINT, YES, THERE WILL BE A WALL OR FENCE GENERALLY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF 2340 AND 2200. BUT FOR WHERE THERE ARE ACCESS CONNECTIONS. BUT REALLY, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS NOT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE SIDE YARDS. BUT I DID WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CONTINUITY QUESTION. WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS HOW SIMILAR IN MY MIND TO HOW WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON LENGTH OF BUILDINGS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE VIAS OR OTHER THINGS TO BREAK IT UP SO YOU DON'T HAVE THIS LONG WALL. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. HOW LONG IS THE WALL SO THAT WE KNOW IF IT'S 11.5FT OR HOWEVER HIGH IT ENDS UP BEING, HOW LONG IS IT IN TOTAL? THAT'S. AND MY MY RESPONSE IS THE TOTAL LENGTH BETWEEN THE WAY. SO IF I AGGREGATED THE TOTAL LINEAR LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 800FT. [02:55:02] NOT ALL OF THAT WILL HAVE PERIMETER MATERIAL BECAUSE THERE WILL BE ACCESS CONNECTIONS, BUT THERE WILL BE PERIMETER MATERIAL FOR MOST OF THAT LINEAR LENGTH. IT MAY BE A FENCE OR WALL. SO THE ACCESS CONNECTIONS YOU'RE REFERRING TO LIKE A GATE OR A DRIVEWAY. SO THERE'S JUST A DRIVEWAY. NO, THERE'S NO GATES. LIKE, LIKE WE'VE, LIKE WE MENTIONED, THERE'S NO GATES. THERE'S NOTHING THAT GOES INTO THE 50FT. THE ONLY THING THAT THERE WILL BE IS PHYSICALLY FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS, A DRIVEWAY. AND THERE OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT BE A FENCE OR WALL AT THOSE CONNECTION POINTS. DO YOU KNOW WHERE IN THAT 800FT THAT BREAK OCCURS? IN TERMS OF WHERE THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS WILL BE, THOSE ARE STILL BEING CONFIGURED AND LIKELY WITHIN 2200, THERE WILL BE A TWO CONNECTIONS. SO THAT'S ALL BEING AND ACTUALLY WE'RE DEVELOPING THAT WITH, WITH RIGHT OF WAY PERMITTING RIGHT NOW. BUT, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. PROBABLY TO THE CRITERIA. DO WE ARE WE LOOKING AT A CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WHAT IS ALLOWED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT? ARE WE LOOKING AT WHAT CITY COUNCIL IS APPROVING AS A MATTER OF THE WAIVER PETITION? SO I'M LOOKING AT THE PETITION. BUT A BIG PART OF IT TO ME IS THESE CRITERIA IN RELATION TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND JUST TRYING TO VISUALIZE IT. I CAN'T PULL ANYTHING UP. YEAH. I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE GOING YET. SO IT'S HARD TO VISUALIZE WHAT'S THE LENGTH, ANY PARTICULAR SEGMENT? WELL, THE 800FT IS WHAT THE SCENARIO WOULD BE IN THE MOST CONSERVATIVE. THERE'S NO ACCESS POINTS SO THAT YOU HAVE THE DIMENSION AS MY TESTIMONY. OKAY. VICE MAYOR. CAN I JUST, I, I THINK I MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARITY TO YOUR QUESTION. THE. THERE ARE TWO SEGMENTS OF THE WALL THAT'S CLOSEST TO GORDON, BUT IT'S 52FT. SETBACK FROM GORDON DRIVE. THE WIDTH OF THAT IS 15FT WIDE. SO THERE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY FENCING THAT IS EXCEEDING THE CODE REQUIREMENT ALONG THE ENTIRE 800FT OF LINEAR OF THE FRONTAGE. SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A TOTAL OF 45FT IN WIDTH FOR THE SEGMENTS COMBINED FOR SEGMENT TWO AND SEGMENT THREE. I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT THE THE SECTION THAT'S PROVIDED BY MR. CORBYN SHOWS THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE 15FT AND THE HEIGHT IS 11.5. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CONTINUES WILL REMAIN WITHIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. WHEN YOU SAY WE, YOU MEAN THE LENGTH OF IT, THE LENGTH OF IT. SO ESSENTIALLY, AS A PRODUCT OF THIS WEATHER, THE FENCE AND WALL WAIVER IS GRANTED OR NOT. THE LENGTH. THE LINEAR LENGTH OF THIS FENCE ALONG GORDON IS UNCHANGED. THE ONLY FACTOR THAT'S IN QUESTION TODAY IS WHETHER THOSE SMALL SECTIONS EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE IS CODE PERMITTED. THEY CAN GO PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE. IT'S JUST WHETHER RIGHT AT THREE FEET FOR FRONTAGE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE THEY CAN EXCEED. THEY CAN. THERE IS NO LIMITATION, NOT ON THE LOT LINE. THE WITHIN THE BUILDING LOT LINES. SO BEYOND 50 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY IS NOT THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE. IT'S WHETHER IN THESE TWO LOCATIONS, THE FENCE CAN EXCEED THE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, THREE LOCATIONS. RIGHT? WELL, THREE. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING LINEAR ALONG. GORDON. OKAY. THE OTHER ONE IS INTERNAL. IT'S ON THE INTERNAL SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND I THINK I THINK I KNOW WHAT OUR VICE MAYOR IS GETTING OUT HERE. HE'S HE'S. IF WE'RE LOOKING IF WE'RE STANDING ON GORDON LOOKING AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND WE'VE GOT THIS FENCE GOING FROM POINT A TO POINT B, YES. AND WITHIN THAT SPOT, THERE ARE TWO AREAS THAT WE ARE VOTING ON TODAY AS TO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THE 11.5FT SECTION RIGHT THERE IN THOSE TWO LITTLE SPOTS, OR IF WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THEM TO THE SIX FEET. YES, THAT THAT THAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE. CORRECT. THE VICE MAYOR IS WONDERING, HOW DOES THAT LOOK? IF WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING AT 11.5FT AS OPPOSED TO THE TWO BREAKS, AND I THINK HE'S TRYING TO HE'S TRYING TO VISUALIZE, DOES IT MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE, VISUALLY SPEAKING, WITH HAVING THE TWO LITTLE BREAKS WHERE IT DROPS TO SIX FEET? OR IS IT IS IT FINE WITH IT'S A FULL 11.5FT ACROSS THE GORDON STRETCH. SURE. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO. IF WE COULD PULL UP THE RENDERINGS, I. MY ANSWER TO THAT. IT WILL LOOK LIKE TREES. YES, IT WILL LOOK LIKE LANDSCAPING. YEAH. THAT THAT MAKES IT REALLY HARD TO DO APPROVAL IF WE HAD THE RENDERINGS TO BE ABLE TO SHOW. SO CAN YOU, FOR THE RECORD, TELL ME THAT THE TYPICAL WALL SECTION IT'S LABELED AS ONE. [03:00:10] THAT SAYS BASE OF WALL GRADE, 50 FOOT SETBACK AND THEN TOP OF THE WALL ELEVATION AT 17. SO THE ELEVATION THAT LOOK AT THE DIMENSION BETWEEN THE BASE OF THE WALL AND THE TOP. I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING. BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL IS 11FT. THE TOP OF WALL ELEVATION IS A PRODUCT OF THE NABBED MEASUREMENT. THAT'S NOT A VERTICAL DISTANCE. SO THAT'S AN ELEVATION POINT. SO THE DIFFERENCE IS LOOK AT THE ELEVATION MEASUREMENT. AT THE BASE OF THE WALL. THERE'S 11.5FT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASE OF THE WALL AND THE TOP OF THE WALL. SO IT MUST BE SIX FEET. IF IT GOES UP TO 17. CAN'T SEE IT, BUT ALL RIGHT. HERE I HAD THE RIGHT. THAT'S THE YES OR RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. MR. KERWIN, WHO DREW THIS CAN PROBABLY VERIFY THAT FOR YOU. BUT THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THAT'S THE BASE OF THE WALL IS AT SIX FOOT ELEVATION. THEN YOU GO UP 11.5FT. SO YOU GET TO 17.5. THAT'S WHY. SO WHAT'S THE HEIGHT? IT'S NOT THOUGH JUST BECAUSE THESE ARE REALLY TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL PLANNING DETAILS. BUT WHEN YOU MEASURE A FENCE OR A WALL UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT IS MEASURED FROM GRADE. AND THERE'S ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT POINTS OF MEASUREMENT AND CROWN OF ROAD, ETC.. BUT I NEEDED TO CAUTION ANYONE THINKING IN THEIR HEAD THAT THIS IS A 17.5FT INTO THE AIR, WHEN YOU'RE AT NAVY, THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN REALITY. NOBODY EXPERIENCES NAVY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMENT. BECAUSE PRESUMABLY GORDON DRIVE ITSELF IS. THAT'S CORRECT. SIX FEET OR MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE HIGHER. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IN MY HOUSE, IF I HAVE A THREE FOOT WALL IN THE FRONT, WHICH WAS THAT'S THE CODE THERE. AND I HAVE BUILDING ENVELOPE IN FRONT, YOU KNOW, STILL AND I MOVE IT BACK TEN FEET TO GET INTO THAT. I CAN PUT 11 FOOT WALL UP THERE. IF YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR BUILDING ENVELOPE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. SO YES, YOU MAY, BUT IT'S STILL A WALL. SO IF I MOVE IT BACK, IS IT STILL A WALL? WHAT ARE YOU CALLING IT? IT'S STILL A WALL. OKAY. SO. SO WHY DO WE BREACH THE CODE? WE ARE. IF IT'S A WALL. THE WALL CODE IS THREE FEET. WHY ARE WE ALLOWED TO GAME IT AND SAY, OH, I'LL MOVE IT BACK TEN FEET. NOW YOU CAN PUT. NOW IT'S. BUT IT'S STILL A WALL. BUT NOW YOU CAN SAY 11FT. THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. SO WE PRESCRIBE LIMITATIONS ON THE HEIGHT OF A WALL WITHIN FRONT SETBACKS, SIDE SETBACKS AND REAR SETBACKS. THIS WALL IS NOT. YOU'RE NOT REALLY CALLING A WALL ANYMORE THOUGH. WE ARE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT WITHIN A SETBACK. WE ONLY PRESCRIBE THE HEIGHT WITHIN A SETBACK, NOT WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. SO IT'S ALL IN WHERE YOU LOCATE IT. I HAVE ISSUE WITH THAT. WELL, THE IDEA IS THAT IT'S A WALL, BUT NOW, BECAUSE WE'RE SETTING IT BACK IN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, IT'S A WALL, BUT IT CAN BE AS HIGH AS YOU WANT IT. IT COULD BE AS TALL AS 30FT BECAUSE IT CAN'T GO 30FT. IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR YOUR STRUCTURE. GIVE ME 30FT. THEN WHY NOT BUILD A HOUSE IN THAT LOCATION? YEAH. YOU COULD BUILD YOUR HOUSE RIGHT THERE. YEAH, I KNOW, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WALL, NOT A HOUSE. SO I DON'T WANT HYPOTHETICALS. WHAT YOU COULD DO. BUT IT'S A WALL. YEAH, BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING OUR CODE AND THAT'S THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. WHAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER THEY CAN HAVE THIS 11.5FT WALL. THEY CAN. WE ARE NOT HERE TO DECIDE THAT TODAY. THEY CAN HAVE THAT 11 FOOT, 11 HALF FOOT WALL. PERIOD. END OF STATEMENT. THAT'S WHAT OUR CODE ALLOWS. WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE TODAY IS WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM HAVE THOSE LITTLE SECTIONS HIGHER THAN SIX FEET THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINES, HIGHER THAN SIX FEET TO 11.5. THE POINT IS, AND I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU COUNCILMAN KROLL, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD REVISIT THE 11.5, OR IT COULD BE 30. HOW? IT COULD BE 34FT. WHAT'S OUR HEIGHT RESTRICTION OVER THERE? SEE IF I CAN PULL ANYTHING UP. BUT YOUR BEST GUESS IS FINE. IT'S A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. NO IT'S NOT. NO, SIR, IT'S NOT INTERPRETATION. OUR CODE IS VERY SPECIFIC. OUR CODE SAYS THAT YOU CAN BUILD A WALL AS HIGH AS. AS YOU COULD BUILD A STRUCTURE. AS LONG AS YOU'RE DOING IT, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT DOING IT WITHIN THE SETBACK. THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE SETBACK. THEREFORE THEY CAN HAVE A WALL. NOW WITH THAT SAID, SHOULD WE REVISIT OUR CODE AND MAYBE CHANGE IT? POSSIBLY. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND SPECIFICALLY THOSE LITTLE SECTIONS OF THE WALL, AS TO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO GO FROM 6FT TO 11FT. [03:05:01] WE ARE NOT HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT 11.5FT WALL IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT, BECAUSE OUR CODE SAYS IT IS. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EXCESSIVELY HIGH WALL THAT'S NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, ISN'T THAT A VIOLATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? I'M GLAD YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WALL CODE. I MEAN, I JUST I MEAN, I JUST A WALL TO WALL ART. I THINK WE SHOULD FOLLOW OUR CODES AND THEY SHOULD APPLY FOR WHAT IT IS, WHETHER YOU MOVE IT BACK 10FT OR 5FT. I THINK YOU'RE KIND OF GAMING IT IN MY OPINION, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T DISAGREE. MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT OUR CODE AND CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AND SAY A STRUCTURE CAN BE BUILT THERE FOR WHATEVER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS OVER THERE. IT'S 34FT OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, BUT A WALL CANNOT. I MEAN, MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR CODE SO THAT THEY THEY GIVE US MORE SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN REFERENCE TO A WALL VERSUS A STRUCTURE. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S NOT THE DISCUSSION HERE TODAY. WE'RE NOT CHANGING. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING OUR CODE FOR STAFF. THE REQUEST IS THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A FENCE AND WALL WAIVER TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THREE WALLS AT APPROXIMATELY 11.5 WITHIN THE SIDE YARD OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES LOCATED. SO ARE WE NOT? IT'S THREE PORTIONS OF A WALL. WHAT ARE WE APPROVING? YOU ARE APPROVING. AND I CAN'T PULL UP THE PLAN BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. YEP. YOU. YEAH. ERRONEOUSLY YOU ARE APPROVING THREE SECTIONS OF A WALL. SO ONLY THE SECTIONS OF THE WALL THAT ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIRE A WAIVER. THE PORTIONS OF THIS WALL, THIS PERIMETER WALL THAT ARE WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE DO NOT REQUIRE A WAIVER. IT'S ONLY WHERE THAT WALL CROSSES THOSE SIDE SETBACKS, THE ADJOINING SIDE SETBACKS. IT'S ONLY WHERE THE WALL GOES INTO THOSE SETBACKS THAT THEY REQUIRE A WAIVER. AND THE WAIVER IS TO ALLOW THAT WALL TO CONTINUE AT 11.5FT, WHERE THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE THAT WALL TO DROP DOWN TO SIX FEET IN THOSE LOCATIONS. IT'S 15 FOOT SECTION AT THE VERY SOUTH EDGE OF THIS GROUP OF PROPERTIES. IT'S A 30 FOOT SECTION, WHICH IS 215 FOOT SETBACKS IN THE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE. THEN THERE IS A THIRD SECTION OF A WALL, AND THAT'S AT THE NORTH SECTION OF THE THE NORTH PROPERTY. AND THAT IS PERPENDICULAR TO GORDON. SO THIS IS NOT THE PERIMETER WALL ANYMORE. IT'S PERPENDICULAR TO GORDON. IT'S SET BACK 115FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT IT IS WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK BETWEEN THIS 2200 AND THE 2100 PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THAT AND THE. NO NEED FOR US TO REVIEW A SITE PLANS. IT. BESIDES THE SKETCH THAT WAS GIVEN FOR US TO HAVE THAT BETTER UNDERSTANDING. THE THE SITE PLAN DEPICTING THE WALLS IS IN YOUR PACKET. IT'S LABELED SHARED WALL LAYOUT PLAN. I GOT IT WAS ON THE SCREEN BEFORE IT WAS. YES. OKAY. SO JUST SORRY, PART OF THE WAIVER THING IS BECAUSE PART OF THIS WALL IS BUILT OUTSIDE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. CORRECT. SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM. SO IT'S NOT COMPLIANT WITH OUR CODE. YES. IF IT WAS COMPLIANT THEY WOULDN'T NEED A WAIVER. BUT OKAY. I THINK THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR WAS THAT THE WHOLE WALL DOESN'T REQUIRE A WAIVER. IT'S JUST THE THREE SECTIONS THAT REQUIRE THE WAIVER. TO CLARIFY THAT, IT'S NOT THAT THE WALL THE WALL CAN BE COMPLIANT. IT WOULD STILL BE A CONTINUOUS WALL, BUT THE 45FT 15 AND 30 WOULD DROP DOWN TO WOULD DROP DOWN TO SIX FEET. SO IT WOULD BE A CONTINUOUS WALL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 800FT OF WALL HERE, THAT WHAT WE'RE DECIDING ON IS THE 45FT FRONTING GORDON FRONTING GORDON, JUST 45FT OF IT. IS IT GOING TO BE SIX FOOT OR IS IT GOING TO BE 11 FOOT LIKE THE REST OF IT IS BY RIGHT. AND THAT IS WHAT STAFF ANALYZED AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY IT'S ACTUALLY ONLY 30FT FRONTING GORDON. IT'S TO THE LOT LINE GOES SEPARATES 2224 7020 2340 AND 2200. THERE'S A LOT LINE THAT RUNS DOWN THERE THAT SEPARATES THOSE TWO. AND WHAT'S PARALLEL TO GORDON IS 15FT ON THIS SIDE AND 15FT ON THIS SIDE. BUT THEN AT THE SOUTH END AT THE SOUTH END. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THREE FEET THOUGH IF YOU IT WAS COMPLIANT. I MEAN, IN THAT AREA, WITHIN SIDE SETBACKS, YOU'RE LIMITED TO SIX FEET OF HEIGHT. SO IN THOSE LOCATIONS IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DROP DOWN TO SIX FEET INSTEAD OF CONTINUING THE 11.5. THREE. VOICE FROM ABOVE. I COULD NOT HEAR YOU. SCROLL LIKE. COULD I CLICK ON THE AGENDA? DID HE SAY IT'S BACK UP? BUT YOU HAVE TO CONTROL. FINE. COOL. OKAY. I'LL SEE IF I CAN GET THERE. [03:10:06] YES. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT TILL SHE FINISHES THIS, OR DO YOU WANT TO ASK HER QUESTION? WELL, I NEED HER ATTENTION, SO I HAVE TO WAIT. SORRY. OH, YEAH, I GOT YOU. THIS WILL TAKE ME A MINUTE SO I CAN. I CAN SCROLL AND PAY ATTENTION. SCHULTZ? YEP. IN CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND HAVING THE MANY, MANY LETTERS AGAINST, I THINK YOUR COMMENT WAS THAT THERE'S MISCONCEPTIONS BY THE LETTER WRITERS ABOUT WHAT THIS IS. COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHAT MISCONCEPTIONS THE FOLKS THAT WERE AUTHORING THE LETTERS AGAINST. CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHAT. WHAT MISCONCEPTION DO THOSE FOLKS HAVE VERSUS WHAT YOUR THE REALITY THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO OUTLINE NOW? COULD YOU HELP ME WITH THAT? I THINK YEAH. AND SO THE STATEMENT I MADE WAS, I THINK THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDING. AND I RECEIVED A LOT OF EMAILS AND STUFF TOO ABOUT WHAT THE REQUEST ACTUALLY IS. THAT'S BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TODAY BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE ENTIRE WALL AT 11.5FT ALONG GORDON DRIVE. AND SO MY CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE REQUEST BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY, THE WAIVER THAT IS REQUESTED OF YOU IS NOT FOR THE ENTIRE WALL AT 11.5FT. IT'S ONLY FOR THOSE SMALL SECTIONS. THE WALL WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE 11.5FT EVERYWHERE EXCEPT IN THOSE SETBACK AREAS. AND THAT WAS WHAT. SO IT'S MY IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY. THE THE MISCONCEPTION BASICALLY IS HEIGHTS AT DIFFERENT JUNCTURES. NO, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT THAT COUNCIL WAS ASKED TO APPROVE THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE AN 11.5FT WALL RUNNING THE LENGTH OF GORDON DRIVE, WHEN IN REALITY, BECAUSE THE WALL IS SET BACK 52FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE WALL IS ALLOWED TO BE IN THAT LOCATION 11.5FT TALL EVERYWHERE, EXCEPT IN THOSE SMALL AREAS WHERE IT INTERSECTS LOT LINES. SO THEN IT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THE LETTER WRITERS HAVE THAT THEIR VIEW. IT'S NOT CORRECT THAT THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING ASKED. I WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF TIMES WHAT THE REQUEST WAS. SO THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WAS THE CLARIFICATION THAT WAS ASKED OF ME WAS WHAT WAS THE REQUEST EXACTLY FOR. THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE. WE'RE ON STAFF QUESTIONS. OKAY. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT UNDER DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS. AND THE FLOODPLAIN THAT THIS. COULDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT PROPERTY HAS MULTIPLE FLOOD ZONES. FENCE AND WALLS WOULD BE WITHIN THE EIGHT A EIGHT ZONE ON THE PROPERTY. AND THAT WOULD HAVE NO FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. FOR A FENCE AND WALL. IS THAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. IS THAT OUR CODE. AND THAT'S FLORIDA BUILDING CODE BECAUSE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL. DO WE HAVE A CODE ON THE BOOKS THAT ADDRESSES THIS? ADDRESSES SPECIFICALLY, THE CODE THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSING WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IS 56-37. OKAY. AND SO WHAT IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION VERSUS. I DON'T I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MR. BECKMAN. I'M SORRY. I JUST I ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THE WAVE ACTION, WIND ACTION AND THE WATER THAT COULD FORCE BECAUSE OF THAT WALL TO GO TO OTHER SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AT A FULL FORCE. OKAY. UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T I CAN'T ANSWER THE BUILDING CODE QUESTIONS. I'VE GOT A QUESTION BASED ON WHAT SHE JUST MENTIONED. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY BUILT. THIS WALL IS BEING BUILT ON THE ELEVATED PORTION OF THE LOT, WHICH MAKES IT EVEN LOOK HIGHER. RIGHT? SO WE'VE GOT WE GOT THIS, I DON'T KNOW, THIS SAYS 17FT, BUT WHATEVER THE ACTUAL. SO IF THAT LAND IS ELEVATED DIFFERENTIAL AND THAT'S GOT ANOTHER SIX SEVEN FEET MORE FROM JUST THE ELEVATED LAND FOR THE BASE LAND IS RIGHT. I, I CAN'T OPEN THE MAYBE I CAN NOW I WOULD ASK MAYBE THE PETITIONER COULD TESTIFY WHAT IS THE. VISUALLY, IT WILL LOOK A LOT HIGHER THAN THE 16 OR 17FT. YEAH. BECAUSE THE LAND IS ELEVATED IN THAT PORTION. [03:15:01] I THINK WE SAID GORDON GORDON DRIVE IS ALSO ELEVATED SO THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT. I THINK WE JUST SAID THAT LIKE 15 MINUTES AGO. IS THAT THE CASE? THAT IT COULD BE IF GORDON DRIVES SIX FOOT ELEVATION AND THAT LOTS ELEVATED AT 14FT WHERE THE WALL IS GOING, THEN YOU HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT WALL AT THE BASE OF WALL IS AT SIX. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE CROWN OF ROADS, ABOUT THREE. SO CROWN OF ROAD ON GORDON DRIVE IS AROUND THREE FEET AND THE BASE OF THE WALL ELEVATION IS AT SIX. SO IT'S A THREE FOOT DIFFERENCE. WHAT DOES IT SAY. KNOW IN YOUR THING. OH NO NO NO NO I'M JUST I'M JUST I'M JUST SAYING BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THREE IN A HIGHER FLOOD ZONE. FLOOD ZONE. SO THAT THAT'S ELEVATED LAND THERE. THAT'S NOT BASE. RIGHT. SO IT'S VERY HARD TO ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS. WE CAN'T OPEN ANYTHING. I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING. I CAN'T SEE THE SURVEYS. I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE INFORMATION. WELL WE COULD BE ADDING POTENTIALLY ANOTHER SIX FEET IF WE COULD OPEN THIS BACK UP TO THE PETITIONER. WE DESIGNED THIS AND HAVE THE INFORMATION. WE'LL PROVIDE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S COMPLETELY FAIR. AND WE'LL ALSO ADDRESS MAYOR HEIDEMANN'S QUESTION ON THE IT'S NOT A FLOODPLAIN QUESTION. IT'S MAYBE A STORMWATER QUESTION. I DID GET A LOT OF EMAILS, TOO. I WILL ADDRESS THOSE TWO, THOUGH. WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE TWO QUESTIONS INTO THE RECORD. OKAY, GREAT. SO ONCE THE ACTUAL HEIGHT AND ONCE HOW. YEAH, SURE. THE CROWN OF ROAD OF GORDON DRIVE, THERE IS ROUGHLY 3.5FT. SO IT GRADES FROM THE EDGE OF PROPERTY THROUGH THE RIGHT OF WAY, THROUGH OUR 50 FOOT BUFFER UP TO AN ELEVATION OF SIX. THEN WE PUT THE WALL OR FENCE THERE. THAT'S 11.5FT TALL, RIGHT. SO THAT'S BASED OFF OFF THE SIX FOOT ELEVATION. THE 17.5 IS BASED OFF SEA LEVEL, WHICH YOU WILL NEVER STAND AT SEA LEVEL ON GORDON DRIVE. SO THAT'S WHERE THE 17.5. AND I'VE HEARD THE RUMORS THAT WE'RE PUTTING A 17.5FT WALL. NO, IT'S JUST THE ELEVATION, YOU KNOW, AS IT LANDS ON THE EARTH. SO THE ELEVATION IS GOING TO CONTRIBUTE LIKE ANOTHER PERCEIVED THREE THREE FEET HIGHER PERCEIVED IF YOU'RE. YES. IF YOU'RE STANDING ON GORDON DRIVE AT 3.5FT, THAT'S GOING TO BE PERCEIVED AS A 14.5FT. YEAH. IT'LL BE PERCEIVED AS A 14.5FT WALL. ALSO UNDERSTAND IN THAT 50FT THERE ARE 35 TO 40 FOOT TREES THAT WILL THEN BE PERCEIVED AT 43 TO 45FT TALL. YOU KNOW, IN FRONT OF THAT SAID WALL. SO IT WORKS HAND IN HAND WITH ALL OF IT. IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AT THE HOUSES AT LITTLE HARBOR, THOSE HOUSES ARE SET AT 34, 35FT. THOSE WILL BE THEN PERCEIVED AT THE TOP OF THE ROOF AT 3839. SO IT GOES IN ALL SORTS OF DIRECTIONS FROM THAT CROWN OF ROAD. IS THERE ANY PURPOSE THIS SERVES TO HAVE SUCH A HIGH WALL IN THOSE SPOTS? IS THERE SOME REASON FOR IT THAT THE FAMILY WOULD REALLY JUST LIKE THEIR PRIVACY? OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEP. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS DRAINAGE? NOT YET. I'LL FIGURE THAT OUT. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT. DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THE SECOND PART OF THAT? LATER? SECOND PART. SO JUST HOW HOW? DRAINAGE FUNCTIONS. OH. DRAINAGE WILL FUNCTION. SO IT DEPENDS, I GUESS, ON WHICH DIRECTION YOU'RE ASKING THE THE WATER TO COME FROM. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IAN WRIGHT, IT CAME FROM THE BACK WATER. IT CAME DOWN GORDON DRIVE AND IT ALSO COMES IN OFF OF OFF OF THE BEACH AT ROUGHLY GIVE OR TAKE EIGHT AND A HALF, NINE ELEVATION THAT THAT WATER WAS AT AT IAN WEATHER. THAT WAS 11.5FT TALL OR THAT WAS SIX FEET TALL. THAT WATER IS IS BEING STOPPED. YOU CAN CONVERSELY GO DOWN TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES DOWN THE ROAD WHERE THE WALL IS NOT LOCATED 50FT IN. IT'S LOCATED RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THOSE WALLS CAN BE ROUGHLY 5 TO 6FT TALL. THAT WATER IS STOPPING THERE AS WELL, RIGHT? SO THE WATER IS GOING TO GET INTERRUPTED BY ANY OF THESE WALLS, THOSE THAT ARE APPROVED, THOSE THAT ARE ASKING FOR A WAIVER, A WALL IS A WALL, AND THAT WATER IS GOING TO GET MITIGATED BECAUSE OF IT. OH. OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON WITH STAFF? OKAY. I WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. OUR FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS JOHN ALLEN. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR COUNCIL. 100 KINGSTOWNE DRIVE, JOHN ALLEN. I'VE LIVED HERE FOR 28 YEARS AND FOR 28 YEARS. I CAN TELL YOU I'VE DRIVEN DOWN GORDON DRIVE, AND THERE'S BEEN NOTHING INTENSELY PRIVATE ABOUT THE DEGROOT ESTATE. YOU COULD SEE THROUGH IT TO THE BEACHES. YOU COULD SEE THROUGH THE LANDSCAPING. IT DIDN'T HAVE A 11.5FT WALL. AND SO, EXCUSE ME, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A REAL MEASURED RESPONSE FOR A NEW PERSON COMING INTO NAPLES. [03:20:09] NOW I'M HEARING AFTER READING YOUR QUOTE AND I'LL TELL YOU THIS, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE OF AN ORDINANCE. THEN IF THIS CAN BE BUILT IN THAT SETBACK, WE HAVE A FAILURE OF AN ORDINANCE. IF THIS NEW MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY WANTS TO EXPLOIT THAT, LIKE DRIVING A SEMI THROUGH A HOLE, SHE'S DOING IT PERFECTLY BECAUSE I'VE READ THIS CODE AND IT'S BEEN 45 YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN IN LAW SCHOOL AND I'VE HAD PAST PLANNING COMMISSIONER CHAIRS TELL ME WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT MEANT. AND I'VE HAD ARCHITECTS TELL ME WHAT THEY MEANT AND NOBODY SAID, AND IT DOESN'T SAY IN THE CODE, EXCEPT FOR IF YOUR WALL IS IN THE BUILDING SETBACK. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT A 11.5FT TALL FOOT WALL IN THAT. THERE. SO I'LL SPOT YOU THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF LAW TO THIS WALL. I'LL BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY THERE. IF THEY ARE, THEN I DON'T THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THIS CITY COUNCIL TO DO ANYTHING TO ESCORT THEM FOR MORE PRIVILEGES. THERE IS NO ARTICULATION IN THIS WALL. THERE'S NO HUMAN SCALE TO THIS WALL. AND SO DON'T ALLOW THEM TO KEEP IT 11.5FT AND A CONSTANT LENGTH ACROSS 800FT. AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE LANDSCAPE THERE HIDING THE WALL BECAUSE THERE WILL BE LANDSCAPING UNTIL THERE ISN'T. WHEN WE HAVE ANOTHER HURRICANE, THE MOST VISUAL THING ON AN ENTIRE GORDON DRIVE WILL BE THIS CONCRETE MAMMOTH WALL. AND THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING DOWN OUR PICTURESQUE GORDON DRIVE WILL SEE THAT. AND SO MY SUGGESTION, RECOMMENDATION AND PLEA IS DON'T GIVE THEM THE EXTRA HEIGHT ON THAT WALL. GIVE IT SOME HUMAN SCALE AT SOME COMPONENTS OF IT. GIVE IT SOME ARTICULATION AT SOME COMPONENTS OF IT. ANY ARCHITECT WILL LOOK AT THIS AND THINK, IT IS A SHAME TO HAVE THIS IN THE CITY OF NAPLES. I ASKED THIS QUESTION WHERE ELSE IS THERE A WALL LIKE THIS IN ALL OF NAPLES? THERE ISN'T. SO WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY COMING IN AND THEY WANT TO CREATE AND DESECRATE GORDON DRIVE WITH THIS WALL BECAUSE THEY WANT SOME PRIVACY. I WANTED PRIVACY WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE. I COULDN'T BUILD A GATE OVER SIX FEET HIGH. I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS THE RULES OF THE COMMUNITY. SO YOU'RE ASKED TODAY TO FACILITATE MORE OF AN OBNOXIOUS WALL ON GORDON DRIVE BY A NEW MEMBER WHO HAS NEVER SPENT A DAY HERE. AND I THINK YOUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS SITTING HERE TODAY ARE SAYING WE'VE HAD ENOUGH. IF THIS IS WHAT IT IS, WE WANT TWO THINGS. DON'T GIVE HIM ANY MORE BENEFITS. AND TWO, CHANGE THE CODE SO THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT WE AREN'T VICTIMIZED BY AN INAPPROPRIATE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I I'M SORRY. WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN ORDER. I'M SORRY. IF YOU WANT TO CLAP, GO LIKE THIS, THEN WE GOT IT. THANK YOU. DECORUM IS IMPORTANT. KATHY HAHN. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KATHY HAHN, AND I LIVE AT TWO TWO, FIVE LITTLE HARBOR LANE. AND I JUST WANTED TO READ SOME COMMENTS THAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. AFTER LITTLE HARBOR BOARD MEMBERS MET WITH THE REPRESENTING COUNCIL, IT APPEARED SHE WAS RATHER AMBIGUOUS REGARDING THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED 11.5FT WALL, ASSERTING THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLACE IT ANYWHERE WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, REGARDLESS OF LOCAL CODES. IF CORRECT, THE BUILDING ENVELOPE DICTATES WHERE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE MAY BE PLACED, BUT IT DOES NOT GRANT A BLANKET EXEMPTION TO EXCEED STANDARD HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR WALLS AND FENCES. BY ACCEPTING HER PREMISE, IT GRANTS THE HOMEOWNER A BLANK CHECK TO BUILD A MASSIVE NON-COMPLIANT BARRIER UNDER CITY OF NAPLES. SECTION 5637. THE RULES FOR FRONT YARD STREET FRONTAGE ARE EXPLICITLY CLEAR. THE FENCE OR WALLS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE MAIN BUILDING ENVELOPE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK ARE RESTRICTED TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE FEET. FENCES OR WALLS LOCATED INSIDE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ARE RESTRICTED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET, AND AN 11 HALF FOOT WALL IS NEARLY FOUR TIMES THE LEGAL HEIGHT ALLOWED ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. FURTHERMORE, IT'S UNCLEAR IF THE COUNCIL HAS REFUSED TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE OWNER INTENDS TO APPLY FOR AN EXTENSION OF THIS WALL IN THE FUTURE. IF APPROVED, THE INITIAL APPROVAL OF THE 11.5 WALL MAY BE USED TO JUSTIFY EXTENDING IT TO SHARED PROPERTY LINE FOR THE SAKE OF CONTINUITY. ONCE THIS NON-COMPLIANT HEIGHT INSIDE THE PROPERTY, THE OWNER CAN EASILY USE THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE TO JUSTIFY EXTENDING IT ALL THE WAY TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE UNDER THE GUISE OF CONTINUITY OR ARCHITECTURAL SYMMETRY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, BEYOND THE APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL HEIGHT ORDINANCES, FROM WHAT WE CAN DETERMINE ON THE INTERNET, THIS PROPERTY SITS SEAWARD OF THE KCL COASTAL LINE. INTRODUCING A MASSIVE NON-COMPLIANT 11 HALF FOOT VERTICAL MONOLITH MAY CREATE SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY HAZARDS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DIRECTLY [03:25:10] SUSTAINED BY LITTLE HARBOR'S REAL WORLD HISTORY. AS EXPERIENCED WITH IAN DURING A MAJOR COASTAL STORM OR HURRICANE EVENT. WOULD AN 11.5FT STRUCTURAL WALL ACT AS AN IMPERMEABLE BARRIER, VERTICAL BARRIER TO RISING OCEAN WATER? INSTEAD OF ALLOWING TIDAL SURGE AND WAVE ENERGY TO NATURALLY WASH OVER AND DISSIPATE ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE. THE STRUCTURE COULD ABRUPTLY HALT AND DEFLECT THE FORCES OF WAVE RUNUP. THIS REDIRECTED ENERGY WILL BE FUNNELED DIRECTLY OUTWARD, SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING THE VELOCITY AND DEPTH OF FLOOD WATERS RUSHING ONTO GORDON DRIVE. WE ALREADY KNOW HOW VULNERABLE OUR IMMEDIATE VICINITY IS IN HEAVILY FLOODED PARTS OF LITTLE HARBOR, AND MILTON TURNED INTO OUR. MILTON TURNED 21ST 21ST AVE SOUTH INTO A RUSHING RIVER. ADDING A MASSIVE WAVE DEFLECTOR AT 22 GORDON DRIVE WOULD X POTENTIALLY WORSEN THESE EXACT HAZARDS DURING THE NEXT INEVITABLE STORM? A WALL OF THIS UNPRECEDENTED HEIGHT WOULD COULD SEVERELY DISRUPT LOCALIZED AERODYNAMIC FLOW DURING HIGH WIND EVENTS. AS EXTREME HURRICANE FORCE WINDS HIT THIS MASSIVE VERTICAL FORCE, IT MAY CREATE SEVERE LOCALIZED TURBULENCE, INCLUDING HIGH PRESSURE STAGNATION ZONES ON THE WINDWARD SIDE AND A VIOLENT DOWNDRAFT EFFECT. THIS COMPRESSES AND ACCELERATES WIND VELOCITIES AROUND THE EDGES AND OVER THE TOP OF THE WALL, CREATING A LOCALIZED WIND TUNNEL EFFECT. THESE SEVERE AERODYNAMIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC DYNAMIC DEFLECTIONS COULD CAUSE THE HOMES WITHIN LITTLE HARBOR COMMUNITY BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF THESE ARTIFICIAL FORCES BY ELEVATING LOCALIZED WIND SPEEDS AND PROJECTING CHANNELIZED STORM SURGE DURING STORMS TOWARDS LITTLE HARBOR. THIS UNAUTHORIZED STRUCTURE ACTIVELY INCREASES THE VULNERABILITY OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO SEVERE STRUCTURAL AND FLOOD DAMAGE. I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY BY NOT ALLOWING. INCREMENTAL ENCROACHMENTS OR VALIDATE ZONING VIOLATIONS FROM WHAT WE CAN DETERMINE. AND COMPROMISE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY. ALLOWING AN 11.5FT WALL SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT WILL UNDERMINE THE CITY OF NAPLES TO ENFORCE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON ANY OTHER LOT IN THE FUTURE, ANY COASTAL LOT. I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A COMPREHENSIVE COASTAL ENGINEERING STUDY SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE WITH THE FLORIDA DEP KCL CRITERIA, ALONG WITH PRECISE BINDING ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT SPECIFY THE EXACT FOOTPRINT OF THE WALL. UNTIL SUCH TRANSPARENCY AND SCIENTIFIC SAFETY ASSURANCE IS PROVIDED, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL PURSUE THE DENIAL OF ACCEPTING THE 2200 GORDON DRIVE LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS BY REQUESTING THAT THE CITY MANDATE THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT A COMPREHENSIVE INDEPENDENT COASTAL ENGINEER WAVE IMPACT STUDY AND MICROCURRENT WIND TUNNEL ANALYSIS, DEMONSTRATING ZERO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE LITTLE HARBOR COMMUNITY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES BEFORE THIS VARIANCE IS CONSIDERED FOR A VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KIM GERMAIN. HI, I'M KIM GERMAIN. GERMAIN MOTOR COMPANY. BEEN HERE FOR, I THINK, JUST SHY OF 50 YEARS. BEEN COMING DOWN HERE SINCE THEN. I LIVE HERE NOW IN LITTLE HARBOR. I'M TOTALLY APPALLED AT WHAT'S HAPPENED TODAY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY VAGUE. EVERYTHING WE'VE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT AND LEARN HAS BEEN EXTREMELY VAGUE. OBTUSE? THE DRAWING OR THE. YOU CAN'T TELL. HARDLY. WHAT'S GORDON DRIVE? WHAT'S THE OCEAN, ANY OF THIS STUFF. SO. AND I'M TOTALLY BEHIND KATHY. SHE HAS DONE SO MUCH RESEARCH. SHE IS LIKE A RESEARCH SCIENTIST OF LITTLE HARBOR. AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT JUST FOR LITTLE HARBOR, IT IS FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S ALSO NOT WHAT WE'RE USED TO. YOU GO DOWN GORDON DRIVE, YOU GO DOWN GULF SHORE. YOU CAN SEE THE OCEAN IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES. WHO HAS A BIG WALL? I JUST ASK YOU TO SAY NO AND DO DUE DILIGENCE AND YOU KNOW. AND LET'S CHANGE OUR LAWS IF IF IT'S ALLOWED. SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DEBORAH AXLINE. I'M SORRY. HI, I'M DEBORAH AXLINE, 1755 THIRD STREET SOUTH. AND I CAME BECAUSE I HEARD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON A WALL. AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU. I AGREE WITH MR. ALLEN AND THE WOMEN WHO SPOKE. AND IT WAS ALWAYS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE WALLS IN OUR FRONT YARD. [03:30:05] BUT I UNDERSTAND THE LAW NOW. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR WHEN I'M LOOKING AT WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING AND I'M LOOKING AT THE TOP CORNER, HOW COME YOUR RECTANGLE IS SET BACK SOME AND ISN'T THAT CORNER PIECE? AM I ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS? YEAH. NO. ALL RIGHT. SO MY QUESTION IS CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS? HOW COME ISN'T THIS QUARTER HERE AND HOW COME IT'S ONLY RIGHT HERE? AND I WOULD SAY I WOULDN'T I DON'T LIKE MR. ALLEN. I THINK WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND DON'T GIVE ANY MORE THAN WHAT OUR CODE SAY. THAT'S ALL. MISS HASKELL, COULD YOU GIVE THAT COPY OF WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING US TO THE CLERK, PLEASE? I JUST WANT TO. IT'S THOSE LITTLE RECTANGLES. IT'S IN THE PACKET. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO PLANNING STAFF. EXCUSE ME. WHEN WE STARTED RECEIVING CLEAR CONFUSION, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIALS PUT TOGETHER. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO PLANNING STAFF. THERE'S ALWAYS A RISK THOUGH OF. AND I'VE SUGGESTED WE PULL THEM UP. BUT THEN WE'RE ACCUSED OF THEM NOT BEING IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION. SO THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND PRESENTED TO THE REPRESENTATIVES WHO DID WHO WOULD MEET WITH US. BUT ONCE WE GET THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT I'M I'M READING THE ROOM. I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS. I THINK THAT THERE'S. SOME OF THE CODE CITATIONS ARE ARE IRRELEVANT, AND I THINK WE NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH OUR, WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AND AND, AND SPEND A LOT MORE TIME INFORMING THEM. I THOUGHT WE DID THAT ON SITE. I WAS ACCUSED OF NOT DOING THAT, AND I NEVER WANT MY REPUTATION TO TO BE THAT. SO I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS, MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. I WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO GET UP AND SPEAK, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY SENSE OF THE RIGHT THING TO DO AT THIS POINT. OUR FINAL SPEAKER SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT. IF WE COULD GO TO MISS PASSIDOMO THAT PARTICULAR. OH, WAIT. I'M SORRY. COULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? OH, NO. WE SHE WASN'T GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US. IF SHE WANTS TO PRESENT THAT INFORMATION AND WE CAN VOTE TO ACCEPT THAT INFORMATION. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. BUT I HEAR HER ASKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE. I JUST HEARD HER ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE, WHICH I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GRANT IF THE COUNCIL AGREES THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I NEED TO ASK HER IF SHE IS FORMALLY. ARE YOU ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE? I'M I I AM FORMALLY ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE. DO WE NEED. OH, SORRY. MR. MCCONNELL, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DOING WRONG? NO. OKAY. BUT BUT BUT I DO THINK WE SHOULD FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES, SINCE THIS WENT TO THE PAB ALREADY. TALK ABOUT A TIMELINE SO WE CAN CONTINUE IT TO A DATE. CERTAIN. I WAS GOING TO DEFER TO YOU GUYS FOR THAT INFORMATION. I THINK IT'S I MEAN, THE HOLIDAYS ARE APPROACHING. IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANTS AGENT ON HOW MUCH TIME SHE THINKS SHE NEEDS TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. MAYOR WAS THAT THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENT? IT WAS. I WOULD THINK THE MEETING IN DECEMBER WOULD BE FAIR. I'M JUST GOING TO LOOK FOR A NOD FROM THE RESIDENTS TO SEE IF YOU ARE HERE AND COULD MEET BETWEEN. I KNOW THIS IS VERY AWKWARD FOR ME TO ASK THIS PUBLICLY, BUT YES, IT'S NOT. SO WE'RE SETTING A TIME CERTAIN. AND. AND I'M NOT. IN SOME RESPECTS, THE ONLY DECISION MAKER. WE WANT TO INVOLVE OUR NEIGHBORS. SO IS THAT A FAIR TIMELINE? DECEMBER TO JUST MEET A. BUSY. I THINK THAT WE BETTER. OKAY, I THINK WE BETTER CHECK THE SCHEDULE. OKAY. WE KNOW WE JUST. WE DON'T WANT IT. YEAH. OKAY. I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT. SO DECEMBER 2ND SOUNDS GREAT. THIS WAS. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. MOTION TO CONTINUE AS TO THE DATE CERTAIN DECEMBER 2ND. WELL, I NEED TO KNOW THAT THAT AGENDA. I WILL MAKE IT ACCOMMODATE EITHER ONE OF THE MEETINGS, MA'AM. SO DECEMBER 2ND IS PERFECTLY FINE. SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON TO CONTINUE THE ITEM AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CRAMER. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. DO WE REALLY NEED IT? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE. I MEAN, THE ODDS OF GETTING PEOPLE TOGETHER. I MEAN, I THINK I THINK THE INFORMATION IS PRETTY CLEAR. [03:35:02] WHAT WE HAVE HERE, OUR OUR PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED IT. WE WE HAVE, WE HAVE WE HAVE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THAT THAT REQUEST. IF CAN WE VOTE ON THAT? BUT ANYBODY CAN REQUEST ANYTHING. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ALL HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. HE IS MAKING A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND I'M JUST HAVING DISCUSSION. RIGHT. WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PERIOD. SO I DON'T I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY CAN GET TOGETHER OR NOT AND FIGURE THINGS OUT AMONGST THEMSELVES IS BETWEEN THEM. IT'S NOT BETWEEN US. OUR THE PETITIONER WANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, TO TRY TO HAVE MORE COMMUNICATION WITH THE WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THE NEIGHBORS MAY SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THAT'S OKAY. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. AND THEN SHE CAN COME BACK ON DECEMBER 2ND AND SAY, WE DIDN'T GET TOGETHER. WE DIDN'T. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. NOW WE NEED TO HAVE THIS, THIS VOTE AGAIN AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN AS TO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO GET TO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE LITTLE SECTIONS OF THE WALL FROM SIX FEET TO 11.5. NOW, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GIVE OUR PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION, WHETHER THE NEIGHBORS, THE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORS HERE ARE SUGGESTING THEY WANT TO OR DON'T WANT TO IS, IS FINE. THEY CAN HAVE THAT OPINION, BUT I'D LIKE TO GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY OUTSIDE OF THIS CHAMBER TO TRY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM. AND THAT'S WHAT OUR PETITIONER HAS CHANGED ANYBODY'S MIND UP HERE. YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE, THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A VIEW ON THIS THING OR NOT. I MEAN, IS THAT I MEAN, DO WE REALLY NEED TO BE DOING THIS? SHE MAY COME BACK WITH AN ALTERED PROPOSAL THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT TODAY. SO CHANGE THE DESIGN. IS THAT IS THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO? OKAY. WE WON'T DISCUSS THAT NOW. OKAY. SCHULTZ. I'M OF THE OLD SCHOOL THAT FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS. AND SO TO DELAY. WHAT IS THERE IN PRINT? UNLESS IT'S GOING TO BE ALTERED SIGNIFICANTLY, I WOULD SEE NO REASON TO CONTINUE IT. MY THOUGHTS. OKAY. THEY COULD ALWAYS COME BACK WITH AN ALTERED PLAN IF THIS IS DENIED. THEY COULD ALWAYS COME BACK WITH A NEW PLAN, A NEW ONE. SO WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I HAVE TO ASK LEGAL FOR THAT QUESTION. IS THERE A IS THERE A TIME FRAME IN THE CODE IN WHICH SOMEONE CAN REAPPLY? GENERALLY, I KNOW THE VARIANCE IS LIKE A YEAR. IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE REQUEST. NO, NO. OKAY. THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE THE DELIBERATION IS IS ALLOWED. WE HAVE A MOTION. WE DO HAVE A MOTION. SO WE DO NEED A VOTE. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MADAM CLERK, THIS IS ON A CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 11 C. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. THE SECONDER WAS. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. DULL. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. NO. MAYOR. HEITMANN. NO. THAT'S A TIE. SO NOW WHAT? IT FAILS. THAT WAS INTERESTING. WE NEED A DISPOSITIVE MOTION. SO NOW I NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE OR A MOTION TO DENY. YEAH. YOU CAN DO A MOTION TO. THAT'S WHAT HE JUST SAID. CORRECT. I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOTION. CAN I ASK SOMETHING OF THE PETITIONER? MAYOR. I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. OKAY. SO THEN, SINCE I THINK WE'RE HEADING THAT WAY, I'M WONDERING IF THE PETITIONER, IF YOU'RE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU EVEN KNOW THIS. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE COULD BE A DIFFERENT DESIGN THAT OF THE ENTIRE THING THAT THAT DOES GIVE SOME CONTRAST INCLUDE? I'M NO ARCHITECT, MAN. FENCING BETWEEN THE CONCRETE, SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT MORE ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, EVEN THOUGH WE SHOULDN'T IN THE EVENT THAT A HURRICANE COMES THROUGH AND THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NO FOLIAGE LEFT ON OR THAT SORT OF THING THAT WAS MENTIONED, IS THERE? SO PERHAPS THE BEST OUTCOME IS THAT THIS BECOMES A BASE FENCE, A BASE WALL WITH A FENCE. AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE THAT PROTECTS WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. AND THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING THOUGH. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE YOU. I HEAR THE RESIDENTS DISCUSSING WHAT'S WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. IF THIS BECAME A BASE WALL SO A FENCE COULD TIE INTO IT, THEN. THEN WHAT? WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS A COMMITMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES TO THAT CONFIGURATION. RATHER THAN SUBJECTING THIS JUST TO THE WAIVER SEGMENTS THEMSELVES. IN OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD BE COMMITTING TO A DIFFERENT DESIGN. [03:40:04] AND THAT WAS ONE REASON I WANTED TO MEET. AND I UNDERSTAND WE NOW HAVE A DISCUSSION ON WHAT THAT COULD BE OPINING AND DISCUSSING THE PETITION WHEN WE HAVE A MOTION. OKAY. WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER MOTION TO CORRECT FROM THE LAST MOTION THAT FAILED. IT IS A WALL. AND THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY AND I HEAR YOU IS IT'S A WALL OR FENCE WAIVER PETITION. AND SO AT ANY TIME, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A WALL OR A FENCE, AND I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO CLARIFY AS A COMMITMENT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A WALL. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING AS THE CONCERN. AND YOU GET GREATER PROTECTION BY THIS, BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A COMMITMENT WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AS WELL. IF THIS WANTS TO BE DENIED, THAT'S FINE. COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL BUT IT IS SOMETHING I WANTED TO AT LEAST STIPULATE. IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE A DIFFERENT APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION. CORRECT? YEAH, BUT BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT SHE'S DOING, WHICH RESPECTFULLY SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO DO, IS, FOR THE RECORD, MAKING A COMMITMENT TO MAKE CHANGES TO SOMETHING THAT IF YOU DENY SHE COULD BUILD BY. RIGHT. ANYWAYS. SO THAT'S JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT SHE'S DOING. I MEAN, IT'S HER PREROGATIVE TO DO SO, BUT WE MAY NOT SEE ANOTHER APPLICATION, ESSENTIALLY. THAT'S MY POINT. WE COULD GO FROM 45FT AT SIX FOOT AND EIGHT, 700 AND WHATEVER FEET AT 11 FOOT, AND WE'D NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT. WHAT SHE'S PROPOSING. THAT'S BY RIGHT. RIGHT NOW. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT. ANY ANYONE THAT. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE 45FT. YEAH. SHE'S SUGGESTING THAT THEY COULD THE ENTIRE THING COULD BE REDESIGNED TO ALLOW FOR FENCE ABOVE WALL. WE'VE ALL SEEN THAT. BUT I'M NOT TELLING ANYONE TO DO THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND SOME CONSIDERATION, THAT'S ALL. OKAY. SO I'VE HAD A MOTION TO CONTINUE, WHICH WAS DENIED AND OR WAS A NOT DENIED. IT WAS FAILED. FAILED. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. AND CARL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT THAT YOU SAID THEY COULD BUILD IT ANYWAY. BUT THE FACT THAT THIS GOES BEYOND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD BE. COULD WE HAVE A MOTION? SO. SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, IT DOESN'T GO BEYOND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE TOWARDS GORDON. IT GOES BEYOND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY. SO TO YOUR QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING, WHERE WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST COMBINE IT IF THEY WOULD HAVE COMBINED IT, THIS PETITION WOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO SIDE SETBACKS. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT THE FRONT YARD BUILDING ENVELOPE. IT'S THE SIDE YARD BUILDING ENVELOPE BETWEEN THE THREE PARCELS THAT THEY OWN. CONTIGUOUSLY. NO. OKAY. WITH THAT, WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS PETITION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT US ALL TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE VOTING ON IF WE VOTE THIS DOWN, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN 11 FOOT WALL WITH 45FT OF IT AT SIX FOOT. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE VOTE NO RIGHT NOW. WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT THEY COULD BUILD A CODE COMPLIANT WALL, BASICALLY. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THAT'S RIGHT. I KNOW THERE WAS QUESTION ABOUT THAT CODE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO CONFIRM. IF WE IF IT GOES TO ANOTHER HEARING OR IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. I THINK THAT'S IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS COULD BE IS IF THIS IS DENIED, THEY COULD SIMPLY PULL A FENCE AND WALL PERMIT. AND IF THAT FENCE AND WALL PERMIT IS COMPLIANT WITH CODE, IT WOULD BE APPROVED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED THROUGH THIS BODY. YEAH. WHAT? SORRY. YES. IF WE'RE DONE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. OH I'M SORRY. YES. SO IF THEY DROP THE SECTIONS IN THE SETBACK, IF THEY DROP THOSE DOWN, IF THEY DROP ALL THE PORTIONS OF THE WALL WITHIN SIDE SETBACKS DOWN TO SIX FEET AND PULL A BUILDING PERMIT THAT WILL BE APPROVED THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, AND IT WILL NOT BE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD OR COUNCIL. SORRY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND I PROPOSE I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY PETITION 26-5FWW2 RELATING TO A FENCE AND WALL WAIVER PURSUANT TO SECTION 56-33, SEVEN OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF THREE WALLS AT APPROXIMATELY 11.5FT, EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET WITHIN THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS ADJOINING THE PARCELS WITHIN THE [03:45:01] R1E RESIDENCE DISTRICTS FOR THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY KEVIN COLEMAN TRUSTEE, AND THE ADDRESS IS 2200 GORDON DRIVE AND 2340 GORDON DRIVE. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CARL. SECOND. THANK SECOND BY COUNCIL. BY VICE MAYOR. MAYOR BEFORE ROLL CALL. BECAUSE THIS IS A DENIAL. IF. IF COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL COULD IDENTIFY WHICH ONE OF THE SIX CRITERIAS. HE BELIEVES THIS DOES NOT MEET AS THE BASIS FOR HIS DENIAL. I'D APPRECIATE THAT. FOR THE RECORD, AND I HAVE IT ON PAGE SEVEN IF YOU'D LIKE TO REFERENCE IT. WELL, ONE OF THEM IS BUILDING BUILDING OUTSIDE THE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OUTSIDE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. SO VISUAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY. YES. AND ALSO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES, YOU KNOW, WHERE SO COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES. YEAH. OKAY. SO TWO AND SIX. THANK YOU. SO HOW DO YOU WANT TO TWO AND SIX. OKAY. TWO AND SEE IF ANY OF THIS APPLY. YEAH THAT'S GOOD. IT'S GOOD FOR SODA. DOES THE SECONDARY AGREE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. SURE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. I JUST WANT TO SAY THE REASON YES IS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. AND I THINK IT'S OKAY THAT WE HAVE A SECTION OF THAT AT SIX FEET. SO YES. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. MAYOR HARTMAN YES. THE DENIAL IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. AND IT IS 1253. WE NEED TO TAKE 20 MINUTES FOR LUNCH BREAK. OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM LUNCH, AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON ITEM 11 D, MR. [11.D) A Resolution Determining Nonconformity Petition 26-N1 Pursuant to Section 46-35 and 58-448 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow for a Change to an Existing Nonconforming Condominium Building to Accommodate a Rooftop Generator Exceeding the Maximum Allowable Height on Property Within the R3-18 Multi-Family District Owned by The Whitehall of Napless, INC., DBA - Whitehall Condominiums and Located at 1255 Gulf Shore Boulevard North, More Fully Described Herein; Providing for Scrivener's Error's; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.] MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. RESOLUTION DETERMINING NON-CONFORMITY PETITION 26 DASH ANYONE PURSUANT TO SECTION 46-35 AND 58-448 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMITY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE A ROOFTOP GENERATOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE R-3 18 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT OWNED BY THE WHITEHALL OF NAPLES, INC.. DBA WHITEHALL CONDOMINIUMS AND LOCATED AT 1255 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO, THANK YOU. AND DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF ON THIS ITEM JUST FOR CLARITY. CRAMER COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF ON THIS ITEM FOR CLARITY. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER PEARL, COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF AND WHERE THE LOCATION. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. WATCH THE MEETING AND SPOKE ABOUT THE PETITION WITH STAFF. WITH THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON SIR. YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON, ZACK LOMBARDO. I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHITEHALL CONDOMINIUM, AND I'M JOINED TODAY BY MR. PARRISH FROM MERIDIAN CONTRACTING. AND WE HAVE MR. RICHARD POWELL IN THE BACK HERE, WHO'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE WHITEHALL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. JUST FOR REFERENCE POINT, THERE'S AN AERIAL SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE WHITEHALL. THIS IS ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH. IT'S ON THE BEACH. AND TODAY THIS APPLICATION REPRESENTS A POSITIVE CHANGE TO IMPROVED RESILIENCY WITH A HEAVY FOCUS ON COMPATIBILITY. BUT IT ALL STEMS FROM AN INTERESTING BASE PERMIT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO HERE. BECAUSE THE WHITE HALL IS CURRENTLY A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING. IT WAS BUILT IN 1972. AT THE TIME, IT WAS IN WHAT WAS CALLED THE G ZONING DISTRICT, AND IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT TO A HEIGHT OF 82FT ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR, AND IT HAD PORTIONS EXTENDING ALL THE WAY UP TO 90FT ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. THAT COULD NOT TAKE PLACE UNDER THE CURRENT CODE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, TO GET THE ADDITIONAL 12FT OF HEIGHT ABOVE 75 IN THE CURRENT CODE, THE BUILDING CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. THIS BUILDING IS. THAT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE 1970S. [03:50:02] SEPARATELY, YOU ALSO HAVE A CAP ON ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ABOVE THE ROOF LINE OF SEVEN FEET THAT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE 1970S CODE AT THE TIME. SO THERE'S TWO NONCONFORMITIES PRESENT, AND YOUR CODE ALLOWS FOR APPLICANTS TO COME IN AND CHANGE NON-CONFORMITIES PRIMARILY AS LONG AS THEY CAN SHOW COMPATIBILITY ISSUES, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO IN THIS APPLICATION. THE REQUEST THEN, IS TO TAKE THE NONCONFORMING ABOVE ROOF STRUCTURES AND ADD A GENERATOR. AND THE PURPOSE OF THE GENERATOR, OF COURSE, IS FOR RESILIENCY. THIS IS TO ALLOW THE BUILDING TO FUNCTION WITHOUT POWER FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL THE RESIDENTS. TO HELP FOCUS IN ON WHY THIS NONCONFORMING. I'VE EXCERPTED THIS PIECE FROM THE ORIGINAL PERMIT. WE WENT DIGGING THROUGH YOUR RECORDS ROOM, WHICH I APPRECIATE YOU FOR MAINTAINING BECAUSE IT IS QUITE A NICE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK EXPERIENCE. AND IN THE MICROFICHE, WE FOUND THIS PERMIT PAGE AND I WANT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT SOME INTERESTING FEATURES HERE. THE THE, THE TALLEST PIECE OF THIS THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IS 89FT, SIX INCHES ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT ON THE RIGHT. I WANT TO NOTE A CURIOSITY. YOU SEE THERE'S THIS ADDITIONAL PIECE HERE UP TO 98FT. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT SAID YOU DID A SITE VISIT, I ASSUME YOU DID NOT SEE THIS ON TOP OF THE BUILDING. THIS THIS WAS, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, AFTER EXTENSIVE PERMIT REVIEW AND AERIAL REVIEW NEVER ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED. INTERESTINGLY, THERE'S NO SUBSEQUENT PERMIT THAT MODIFIES AND REMOVES THIS. THIS IS IN THE PERMIT FILE. IT WAS CODE, BUT IT WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED. WE FIND THAT TO BE SORT OF AN ODD CURIOSITY. AND MAY I POINT THAT OUT, BECAUSE IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY IN THIS APPLICATION TO CLEAN UP THE RECORD A LITTLE BIT AND CAP THE HEIGHT AT AN APPROPRIATE PLACE, WHICH WE WOULD SUGGEST IS 89FT, SIX INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. TO SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHAT WE PLAN TO DO. I WANT TO CALL UP MR. PARRISH, WHO IS MANAGING THE PROJECT, TO SHOW YOU THE, THE RENDERINGS OF, OF HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK, AND THEN I'LL GET INTO THE FACTORS. SO, MR. PARRISH, IF YOU COULD HOP ON UP HERE. AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MATTHEW PARRISH. I'VE BEEN MANAGING THE PROJECT, AND YEAH, JUST TO SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT. WE DO PLAN ON USING A CANTILEVERED PLATFORM THAT ATTACHES TO THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROTRUDING ELEVATOR SHAFT THAT IS ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. AND USING THE STRUCTURAL ATTACHMENTS TO HANG THE GENERATOR ON THE ROOF ABOVE THE PLATFORM OF THE ROOF AND ATTACHED TO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. SO IT DOESN'T INTERRUPT THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE ROOF DECK. AND THEN AS YOU SEE HERE, THIS IS JUST A GRAPHIC SHOWING THE HEIGHT AND IT'S THE TOP OF THE GENERATOR AND THE SCREENING THAT WILL ENCLOSE THE GENERATOR FROM ALL SIDES NOT REACHING ABOVE THE 896 MARK ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. THAT IS THE EXISTING HIGHEST POINT IN THE BUILDING. AND THEN THIS IS A RENDERING THAT WAS CREATED AS A VISUAL LOOKING FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. SO THE GENERATOR IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, SO IT IS CLOSEST TO THE WATER. AND THEN ON THE GULF SHORE DRIVE SIDE OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT IS WHERE THE HIGHER EXTENSION OF THE PARAPET IS BETWEEN THE GENERATOR AND THE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE STAIRWELL ACCESS TO THE ROOF. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY YOUR STAFF AND WE BELIEVE IT FITS IN WITH THE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH FOCUSES ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMITTED USE. THIS GENERATOR IS SPECIFICALLY TO FACILITATE THE BUILDING ITSELF, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MORE FUNCTIONAL IN TIMES OF STORM AND LOSS OF POWER. WHICH TIES INTO PROVIDING THE STABLE CHARACTERISTICS YOU EXPECT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE. IMPORTANTLY, WE RECEIVED LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION FROM THE TWO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AND ARE GRAPHICALLY DEMONSTRATED ON THE SCREEN. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WE COULD DO THIS. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THINKING ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS, TO ADD A GENERATOR TO THIS FACILITY. WE COULD PUT IT LOWER ON THE SITE, MAYBE ON TOP OF ONE OF THE FRONT BUILDINGS, OR JUST ELEVATED ABOVE FLOOD ON THE GROUND. IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, I DO NOT THINK WE WOULD BE GETTING LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, BECAUSE WE'D BE TAKING THIS NOISY AND VISUALLY OBSTRUCTIVE OBJECT AND PUTTING IT TOWARDS THE GROUND. SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO THE NON-CONFORMING ROUTE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO REALLY HIDE THE GENERATOR AGAIN, BACK BEHIND THE MANSARDS PRIMARILY. AND THEN IT'S SCREENED EVEN FURTHER WITH WITH DOORS AROUND THE OUTSIDE EDGES OF IT. SO WE THOUGHT THIS WAS THE MOST RESPECTFUL AND COMPATIBLE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE LOCATION OF THE GENERATOR, WHICH GIVES US THE TWO FOLD GOAL OF IMPROVING THE RESILIENCE OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, [03:55:04] THE SIDE NEIGHBORS, BY THE WAY, ARE CERTAINLY MORE IMPACTED THAN ANYONE FROM GULFSHORE BECAUSE LOOKING STRAIGHT ON, IT'S NOT TALLER THAN THE MANSARD, SO YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM FROM THE STREET. IF IT WERE TO BE INSTALLED. YOUR CODE PROVIDES SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE CHANGES, EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND CHANGING, AND THEY ARE ANALYZED IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH YOU HAVE A COPY OF. BUT SOME OF THE THINGS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE IS THAT THE KEY ELEMENT, THE FIRST ELEMENT IS THAT IT WILL NOT DAMAGE THE CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE THIS CANNOT BE SEEN FROM MOST OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S OUR POSITION THAT IT CAN'T POSSIBLY DAMAGE THE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT, AND THEN BECAUSE IT PROVIDES ENHANCED RESILIENCY FOR THE BUILDING, IT'S ACTUALLY AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE BUILDING IN THE LONG RUN FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE NUISANCE FEATURES ARE PART OF THE ANALYSIS. AND HERE AGAIN, HEAVILY SCREENED, LOCATED SUFFICIENTLY HIGH ENOUGH ON THE BUILDING FOR A NOISE PURPOSE. AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY ISSUE THERE. ITEMS THREE AND FOUR, WE AGREE WITH YOUR STAFF THAT THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE SENSE THERE IS NO IMPACT ON EXCESSIVE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC TO THE BUILDING. IT DOESN'T CREATE ANY PARKING OVERLAY AT ALL. IT TALKS ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S THE RIGHT DRIVES AND WALKS AND BUFFERS. WE ARE BUFFERING IT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE MANSARDS AND THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING. SO WE BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN MET. AND THEN WE AGREE WITH STAFF THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT HERE ON HISTORIC OR NATURAL RESOURCES, BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING MORE BUILDING ON TOP OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. STAFF TOOK A LOOK AT THIS AND OBVIOUSLY I'LL LET STAFF SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES THAT THE FINDINGS WERE WERE ADDRESSED. AND THEY PROPOSED TWO CONDITIONS THAT WE DO NOT OBJECT TO IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AND I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE HAS OR PUT ANY OTHER OF THESE IMAGES BACK ON THE SCREEN FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO JUST TO CLARIFY SOME OF WHAT I READ OR WHAT YOU MAY HAVE SAID. SO WILL IT BE PLACED WITHIN A NEW STRUCTURE OR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT WILL BE ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT GOES ABOVE THE ROOF LINE, AND IT WILL BE CANTILEVERED OFF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. AND THE HEIGHT OF THE NEW PART WILL BE BELOW THE HEIGHT OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. IT WILL BE SLIGHTLY UP ANY HIGHER. IT WILL BE SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, BUT IT WILL BE WELL BELOW THE FRONT MANSARD. OKAY. IS THERE ANY SORT OF SOUNDPROOFING IN THE ENCLOSURE? YES. THE ENCLOSURE AROUND THE GENERATOR HAS SOUND ATTENUATION. SO IT IS A WEATHER AND IMPACT AND SOUND ATTENUATED ENCLOSURE AROUND THE GENERATOR ITSELF. AND THEN THE SCREENING AND HOW OFTEN AND WHEN DOES IT GET TESTED? IT IT CYCLES. I THINK ONCE A WEEK I BELIEVE IS CORRECT. CAN YOU SET IT SO THAT IT'S BEING TESTED DURING LIKE DAYTIME HOURS. SO IT'S NOT. YEAH. THAT THE CYCLING IS YOUR NORMAL PRACTICE BY THE MAINTENANCE. YEAH. IT'S NOT GOING TO CYCLE AT NIGHT. BUT YEAH IT DOES CYCLE JUST TO STAY MAINTAINED. YEAH. YEAH. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T GOING OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT UNLESS THERE WAS A POWER OUTAGE. YEAH. IT'S ACTUALLY REQUIRED IN OUR CODE AS WELL. SO WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES AUTOMATIC CYCLING OF GENERATORS SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 9 A.M. AND 4 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. AWESOME. IN WHICH CASE WE SHALL ABIDE WITH THE CODE. IS THAT ALSO FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? BECAUSE I HEAR SOME THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH THAT. THAT'S APPLICABLE TO ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THAT'S IN THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SECTION OF YOUR CODE. GOOD TO KNOW. IT'S A GOOD TEACHABLE MOMENT. DOES IT APPLY TO. GENERATORS. WHAT'S IT CALLED? MOBILE. PORTABLE. SO IF YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, PULL YOUR WHEEL, YOUR GENERATOR OUT OF YOUR GARAGE. NO. BUT ANY PERMANENTLY INSTALLED GENERATOR THAT REQUIRES THE AUTOMATIC CYCLING. WE DO HAVE HOURS REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. OKAY. VICE MAYOR, DO YOU NEED THE NUMBER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT? I THINK I CAN FIND THAT ONE. AND IT HAPPENS TO BE PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY AREN'T HERE YEAR ROUND, SO THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS. THE FUEL SOURCE. IS IT NATURAL GAS OR PROPANE GAS OR IS IT WHERE'S THE PROPANE. IS THERE A TANK? NATURAL. NATURAL GAS. NATURAL GAS. SO YEAH. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. JEFF BRAMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF NONCONFORMITY TO INSTALL A ROOFTOP GENERATOR AND SCREENED ENCLOSURE ON A [04:00:05] NON-CONFORMING CONDO BUILDING ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH. ACCORDING TO THE PLANS, THE GENERATOR ENCLOSURE WILL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT LOCATED NEAR THE CENTER OF THE ROOF. AS PROPOSED, THE EQUIPMENT WOULD REACH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 89.5FT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR, WHICH IS ABOUT 7.5FT ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE FLAT ROOF. BASED ON APPLICATION DOCUMENTS AND CITY RECORDS, IT APPEARS THE BUILDING WAS LAWFULLY PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED IN 1972. THOSE RECORDS SHOW THE STRUCTURE PERMITTED TO BE BUILT TO 82FT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR, WITH ADDITIONAL PORTIONS EXTENDING UP TO 89 OR 98FT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. ALTHOUGH THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WAS PERMITTED, THOSE HEIGHT ALLOWANCES FOR CERTAIN APPURTENANCES WERE NEVER FULLY REALIZED. TODAY, THE WHITEHALL CONDOMINIUMS ARE ZONED IN THE R3 18 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. PURSUANT TO CODE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THIS DISTRICT IS 79FT. HOWEVER, AN ADDITIONAL 12FT IS PERMITTED ONLY IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE MET. NUMBER ONE AT LEAST 75% OF THE GROUND FLOOR IS DEVOTED TO AUTOMOBILE PARKING. NUMBER TWO, THERE ARE NO DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR EXCEPT ONE MANAGER'S DWELLING. AND NUMBER THREE, THE STRUCTURE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. THE WHITEHALL CONDOS ARE LOCATED WEST OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THOSE REGULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR CERTAIN APPURTENANCES ARE NOW CAPPED AT SEVEN FEET. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER'S AGENT, AS YOU'VE HEARD, THE PETITIONER OWNER DID CONSIDER OTHER LOCATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED A NON-CONFORMITY PETITION. HOWEVER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THOSE LOCATIONS MAY HAVE PRESENTED GREATER ADVERSE EFFECTS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THEREFORE THE OWNER OPTED FOR THE ROOFTOP INSTALLATION. I WILL NOTE THE PETITIONER HAS ALSO OBTAINED LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION FROM BOTH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ASSOCIATIONS. PETITION WAS NOTICED ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF CONCERN FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER. THAT EMAIL IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA PACKETS. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REVIEWED THE PETITION DURING ITS MEETING SEPTEMBER 9TH. PAB FOUND THAT IT MET THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE OF NONCONFORMITY AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS SEVEN TO NOTHING VOTE. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE PETITION, STAFF AND PAB RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF TWO CONDITIONS. ONE, THE PETITION INVOLVES A CHANGE TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE A ROOFTOP GENERATOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE REBUILDING OF NEW STRUCTURES IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED OR THE NONCONFORMITIES ARE REMOVED. AND NUMBER TWO, SHOULD THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURES BE DEMOLISHED, EVEN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD. THIS APPROVAL DISSOLVES IN. THE PETITIONER MUST OBTAIN VARIANCE APPROVAL TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED PLANS, OR THE NEW STRUCTURES MUST BE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF COMMENTS. WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAFF REPORT. COUNCIL QUESTIONS. CARL. I'M READY. OKAY. I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. PETITIONER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY CLOSING REMARKS? WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S REVIEW, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY BEING ABLE TO IMPROVE THE RESILIENCY OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER DELIBERATIONS. COUNCIL MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION. DETERMINING NON-CONFORMITY. PETITION 26 DASH AND ONE PURSUANT TO SECTIONS FOUR, 46-35 AND 58-448 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE A ROOFTOP GENERATOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE R3-18 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. OWNED BY WHITEHALL OF NAPLES. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CARL AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. MADAM CLERK. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, A COUNCIL MEMBER? YES. COUNCILMEMBER CRAMER. YES. MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. STAFF AND COUNCIL, IF THERE'S NOT AN OBJECTION, WE I'D LIKE TO MOVE UP ITEM 13. [04:05:03] B WE HAVE HAD A REPRESENTATIVE WITH US SINCE 8:00 THIS MORNING. AND THEN WE'LL MOVE HAVE THAT HEARING NOW OR HAVE THE PRESENTATION NOW IF THAT'S OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MATTHEW. NO, I CAN READ THE TITLE. THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER NUMBER [13.B) A Resolution Approving A First Amendment To Task Order No. 26-01-20-01-531010 Between The City Of Naples And AECOM Technical Services, Inc., A California Corporation Authorized To Do Business In The State Of Florida, For Professional Engineering Services To Prepare Preliminary Design Of Improvements For Achieving 4-Log Disinfection At The City’s Lime Softening Water Treatment Plant (WTP) In The Amount Of $274,995.56; Authorizing The City Manager To Execute The First Amendment To Task Order; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.] 26012001531010. BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PREPARE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACHIEVING FOUR LOG DISINFECTION AT THE CITY'S LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $274,995.56. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THIS ITEM, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DOCTOR GEORGE YILMAZ AND A A COM FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. WE HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION HERE. AND WE'LL START WITH BACKGROUND. AND IF WE, IF WE GO TO OUR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION I WANT TO BRIEFLY START WITH HISTORICAL TIMELINE. WE'RE GOING TO START FROM SUMMER OF 2025 MOVING FORWARD AND OUR ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IS TO BRING OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND FACILITIES THEREOF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AS FAST AS FEASIBLE, UP TO STANDARDS IN TERMS OF WATER TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION PROCESSES. NOW, THIS IS NOT A NEW SUBJECT MATTER. IT GOES BACK YEARS BACK. HOWEVER, IT BECAME MUCH MORE VISIBLE DURING THE INSPECTION FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN JUNE 2015. AND THEY IDENTIFIED THREE AREAS PRIMARILY WE ADDRESSED PROMPTLY WITHIN 4 TO 5 DAYS, ALL OF THE ITEMS, HOWEVER, THE ONE CALLED NON-COMPLIANT WITH FOUR LAW DISINFECTION PROCESS. IN SUMMARY, IT IS THE DECONTAMINATION, FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION PROCESS UNDER UNDER OPEN AIR. SO FOLLOWING MONTH, JULY FDEP ISSUED WARNING LETTER. AND THEN IN AUGUST, FDEP ISSUED MEETING NOTES. AND DURING THAT PRESENTATION AND MEETING NOTES REVIEW JOINT REVIEW FDEP INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD ISSUE CONSENT ORDER TO CITY OF NAPLES UTILITIES. AND FROM THERE, FAST FORWARD OCTOBER, END OF OCTOBER, GOING INTO NOVEMBER, JUST BEFORE THANKSGIVING. WE BROUGHT A COME ON BOARD THAT IS A NATIONAL FIRM AND WE'RE FAMILIAR AND CITY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THIS FIRM FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE SAME FIRM ACTUALLY INITIATED AND COMPLETED INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY PLAN. AND THAT IS AS SIMILAR AS ANYTHING GETS TO MASTER PLAN. SO WE ENGAGED THEM AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE BEST OF THE BEST EXPERTISE TO ASSIST US FROM A ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND ENGINEERING PRACTICE STANDPOINT. AND MOVING FORWARD JUST BEFORE THANKSGIVING, NOVEMBER 12TH WE HAD A JOINT MEETING WITH FDEP. I INVITED OUR CONSULTANT TO BE PART OF IT AS WELL. AND WE MADE IT CLEAR TO FDEP THAT WE LIKE TO COLLABORATE, COOPERATE, WORK WITH IT, AND, AND SUBJECT MATTER. HOWEVER, WE WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT IF WE MOVE FROM CONSENT DECREE TO COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT IS MUCH MORE POWERFUL. CONSENT DECREE IS REGULATORY. IT'S LIKE HAMMER, HERE IS WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. THIS IS THE TIMELINE. GET IT DONE. COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT SAYS WE AGREE WITH FDEP, BUT WE LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR TIMELINE, [04:10:04] IN TERMS OF WHAT I'M GOING TO PRESENT BRIEFLY MATCHES IN SYNC WITH ALL THE WAY TO EXECUTION AND COMPLETION WITH FDEP TIMELINE. THAT MEANS THEY WILL BE AS RESPONSIVE AS WE NEED TO BE WHEN IT COMES TO PERMITTING REVIEW, REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND TURN AROUND. SO IT'S A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. BOTH REGULATORY AGENCY AND OUR CITY OF NAPLES UTILITIES AGREED UPON SO THAT WE'RE WORKING THIS AS FAST AS WE CAN BRING TO RESOLUTION WITHIN 26 MONTHS. THERE ARE SHORT TERM MEASURES THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATELY WITHIN SIX MONTHS, WHICH WE HAVE A HEAD START. AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT THEREAFTER WE NEED TO FINISH WITHIN 20 MONTHS LESS THAN TWO YEARS. THAT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, SPECIALTY ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND SOLICITATION. ALL OF THE ABOVE HAS TO BE DONE IN SUCH A SHORT TIME. SO RIGHT AFTER CHRISTMAS JANUARY, WE AUTHORIZE AECOM TO PREPARE A DESKTOP EVAL THAT IS PRELIMINARY, DESIGNED SO THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH OUR REGULATORY AGENCY HOW FAST WE CAN MOVE AND WHAT WE THINK THE SOLUTION SETS ARE AND OUR REGULATORY AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WITH THEIR EXPERTISE, WELCOMED OUR APPROACH AND URGENCY AND ACCEPTED OUR LINE ITEMS FOR EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION. AND IN SUCH A SHORT TIME, GIVEN MY EXPERIENCE BOTH OUR REGULATORY AGENCY, FDP AND CITY OF NAPLES UTILITIES TEAM AGREED UPON TO MOVE FORWARD. AND HERE WE ARE IN SEPTEMBER PRESENTING TO YOU NOT ONLY EXPEDITED SOLUTION SET, BUT ALSO UNDER CONSENT AGENDA. YOU HAVE APPROVED FINAL DRAFT COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THAT LAYS OUT EVERYTHING I DID MY BEST TO SUMMARIZE IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED SINCE JUNE OF LAST YEAR. AGAIN, THIS IS GOING BACK YEARS BEFORE THEN. AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE THE LETTER ISSUED BY FDP TO MY PREDECESSOR YOU TWO DIRECTORS AT THAT TIME. AND THAT WAS JULY OF 2025. AND, AND THAT WAS OUR STARTING POINT. AND THERE WERE SOME DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN AT THAT TIME STAFF AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. AND IN SUCH A SHORT TIME, WE WERE ABLE TO IRON OUT. SO THERE ARE NO DISAGREEMENTS. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH FDP. THEY ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS WE ARE THEIRS. AND SO I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU VERY QUICKLY NEXT HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD? SO THE SUBJECT MATTER IS LIFE SOFTENING PLANT. AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU, IN MY OPINION, NEEDS TO BE DONE ANYWAYS. AND HERE'S WHY. CHALLENGES EXISTING LINE SOFTENING PLANT HAS INSUFFICIENT CHLORINE CONTACT TIME FOR ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE COMPLIANCE DISINFECTION REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE FOR TREATMENT UPGRADES. IT'S A TIGHT, TIGHT ENVIRONMENT SOLUTIONS WOULD BE BUILDING BASINS FOR ADDITIONAL TREATMENT AND REROUTING SOFTENING WATER PLANT FOR DISINFECTION AND DECARBONATION BASINS. AND OF COURSE, BENEFITS WILL BE TREMENDOUSLY NOT ONLY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY AGENCIES REQUIREMENTS. BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MUCH BETTER ROBUST DISINFECTION TREATMENT. OH, BY THE WAY, WATER QUALITY IN TERMS OF CLARITY AND TASTE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO OUR INITIAL CONCEPT DESIGN THAT WE SHARED WITH FDEP. AND IN CONCEPT, OUR REGULATORY AGENCY ACCEPTED OUR APPROACH IS THAT IT'S VERY, VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE. AND I WILL, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS THE TIGHTEST, MOST AGGRESSIVE DESIGN, BUILD, CONSTRUCTION AND [04:15:03] PERMITTING TIMELINE FOR A WATER PLANT UPGRADE WHEN IT COMES TO DISINFECTION PROCESSES AND TREATMENT. SO TIMELINES ARE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT WITHIN 90 DAYS APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL DESIGN CONCEPT. WE'RE UP TO IT AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT TO FDP, AS HAS BEEN APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA. COMMENCE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 150 DAYS OF FDP, ISSUANCE OF A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND IMMEDIATE AND INTERMEDIATE MILESTONES. STRAIGHTFORWARD 25% TO 110 DAYS 50% 365 DAYS 75% 568 DAYS. OH, BY THE WAY, WE WILL HAVE CERTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION WITHIN 730 DAYS, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO YEARS. AND FDP ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT FROM THE DATE THEREOF. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID WANT TO SHARE WITH OUR COUNCIL, AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THE TIMELINE AND AN AGGRESSIVE APPROACH WE HAVE SO THAT NOT ONLY WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE, BUT WE'RE FIXING THINGS THAT WE NEED TO FIX NOW. AND THAT INCLUDES MEANS AND METHODS FOR PROCUREMENT. ONE OF THEM IS PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD. THE OTHER ONE IS DESIGN BUILD APPROACH. WE HAVE CHOSEN PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD FOR ONE PRIMARY REASON. DURING PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD CITY IS GOING TO HAVE THROUGH OUR CONSULTANT MUCH BETTER FLEXIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE BEST OUT OF THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SO THAT IT IS NOT DESIGN AND BUILD WHAT FDP WANTS, BUT ALSO DESIGN AND BUILD WHAT CITY IS GOING TO HAVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DISINFECTION. AND ALSO THERE'S AN OPTIONAL TASK ORDER WITHIN THIS. ADDENDUM THAT AT OUR DISCRETION WITHIN OUR FUNDING, AVAILABILITY AND THRESHOLDS, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO INITIATE TO INCREASE OUR WATER CLARITY AS WELL AS QUALITY WHEN IT COMES TO TASTE AND, AND TCU NUMBERS. SO CITY MANAGER, AS FAR AS OUR COMMITMENT GOES, CITY MUST COMMENCE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERMITTED WORK WITHIN 150 DAYS OF FDP ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMPONENTS THAT I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY SHARE WITH YOU. AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE ON THE SLIDE SHOW THERE THAT THERE ARE ABOUT THREE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL BASINS, TREATMENT TRACKS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR LIME SOFTENING PLANT. AND FURTHERMORE, ALL THE CERTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION WITHIN 730 DAYS IS ABOUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT 20 TO 24 MONTHS OUT. PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD APPROACH FACILITATES RAPID START AND COMPLETION OF PROJECT TIMELY IN A COMPRESSED SOLICITATION ENGINEERING DESIGN PERMITTING WITH PARALLEL TRACKS MOVING TO CONSTRUCTION WITH PROGRESSIVE DESIGN. WE'RE ALSO GETTING SOME ADDED VALUE FROM RELIABILITY ENGINEERING STANDPOINT THAT OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT HAVE FROM DESIGN BUILD. SO WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD WORKFLOW. THERE ARE FIVE STEPS. AND AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NDP THERE THERE'S AN ERROR BETWEEN 2 AND 3. THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GET AS FAST AS WE CAN, AND OUR SCHEDULE ALLOWS US TO DO THAT. SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO SO MUCH OF OUR DETAILS, FIVE STEPS FROM 1 TO 3, WHICH IS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR IS GUARANTEED MAX PRICE NEGOTIATIONS AND BASIS OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND SCHEDULES AND THEN MOVING TO PHASE TWO EXECUTION. WE'RE ALREADY IN CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WITH THE PERMITS ON HAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MOVING TO FINISH THE CONSTRUCTION, CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS WITH THE FDP'S APPROVAL. [04:20:05] NOW, YOU WILL SEE SOMETHING THERE UNDER NUMBER TWO BUCKS, IT SAYS S U E THAT STANDS FOR SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING. AND THEN OF COURSE G STANDS FOR GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE. I WAS GOING TO STOP HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO GO FAST FORWARD JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT I MEAN WITH PARALLEL TRACK. SO WHILE WE'RE MOVING THOSE FIVE THINGS IN A FAST TRACK, JUST TO JUST THE BOX ITSELF CALLED G P PROPOSAL HAS ITS OWN SIX TRACKS. AND THAT IS OPEN BOOK APPROACH. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH TRADITIONAL DESIGN, COMPLETELY DESIGNED WITH SOLICITATION, AND THEN BID THE PROJECT AND GO THROUGH THE BID PROCESS, BRING THE CONTRACTORS ON BOARD, THEN AWARD THE CONTRACT, THAT'S THREE COUNCIL ACTIONS AT A MINIMUM AND THREE SOLICITATION PROCESS AT A MINIMUM, WITHOUT ANY PROTEST FROM EITHER ENGINEERING FIRM, CONSTRUCTION FIRM, AND OR THIRD PARTIES LIKE CEI. SO THIS THIS IS HERE JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME COMFORT LEVEL THAT JUST TO FINISH FOUR OUT OF FIVE DESIGN BUILD BEING PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD WILL INCLUDE ESTABLISHING TRADE LEVEL BID CATEGORIES, ISSUANCE OF RFQ QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOP A QUALIFIED BIDDER LIST, REVIEW QUALIFICATIONS AND ESTABLISH A LIST OF APPROVED VENDORS. RECEIVE BIDS AND CONTRACT AND BID OPENINGS. PREPARE GMP USING PRE-APPROVAL SUBCONTRACTORS. PRESENT. OPEN BOOK. GMP AND. AND AFTER SIX WILL BE BACK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. IT'S ALL OPEN BOOK AND TRANSPARENT. HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE COMBINING WHAT I SAID THREE STEP PROCESS INTO ONE STEP, BRINGING IT TO YOU AS A PACKAGE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THE WE CAN MOVE TO EXECUTION AND GET THIS PLANT RIGHT. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. COUNCIL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. MAYOR, IF I MAY I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 13 B, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TASK ORDER NUMBER 26-01-20-01-53 1010 BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. NO FURTHER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. AND THANK YOU. DOCTOR YILMAZ, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE STEP CLOSER TO US BEING EXCELLENT IN WHAT WE DO. I APPRECIATE THAT, MADAM MAYOR. OH, YES. MISTER, I JUST HAD ONE OTHER POINT. I ALSO WANTED TO THANK GEORGE BECAUSE REMINDERS HE TOOK OVER IN THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER OF FULL OPERATIONS OF PUBLIC WORKS OF 2025. SO THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT HE HOPPED ON. AND AS INDICATED, BY JANUARY 22ND, WE WERE NEGOTIATING A FULL PLAN AND OUTLINING WHAT THE IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERM STEPS WOULD BE. SO I, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND DILIGENCE ON THIS. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES 13 B AND THANK YOU. WE WILL GO BACK TO ITEM 11. EIGHT. 13 E OKAY. [11.E) A Resolution Determining Site Plan Petition 26-SP2 Pursuant to Section 46-33 of the Code of Ordinances to Allow the Renovation and Expansion of the Existing Clubhouse and Pool Amenity Areas of the Moorings Park Planned Development, for the Property Owned by the Moorings Incorporated, and Located at 120 Moorings Park Drive, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.] 1311 E OR 11 E SORRY, MR. MCCONNELL. NO WORRIES. NO WORRIES. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING SITE PLAN PETITION 26 DASH SP TWO. PURSUANT TO SECTION 46-33 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND POOL AMENITY AREAS OF THE MOORINGS PARK. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MOORINGS, INCORPORATED AND LOCATED AT 120 MOORINGS PARK DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU MADAM CLERK, [04:25:04] PLEASE. I WAS 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? I DO, THANK YOU. WE'LL HAVE COUNCIL DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF. CRAMER COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF FOR CLARITY ON THE PROJECT, AND SCHULTZ COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF AND COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF AND KNOW THE LOCATION. COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF AND I COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF AND NO FURTHER CONTACT. SO THANK YOU. AND WE'LL START WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? GOOD AFTERNOON SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNSEL. I'M LEE DAVIDSON WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEERING. OUR OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 4365 RADIO ROAD IN NAPLES. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, THE MORNINGS INCORPORATED. WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THEM. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT THAT OWNERSHIP NEEDS TO TACKLE. BUT MAYOR, CAN I INTERJECT FOR A MINUTE? YES, SIR. MY APOLOGIES, MR. DAVIDSON. I KNOW YOU WERE ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, BUT DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON A CITY BOARD? YES, I DO. YOU'RE ON. DID YOU HAPPEN TO COORDINATE WITH MR. MORAWSKI ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD REPRESENT SOMEONE IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER? YEAH. NO. NO, I DID NOT. THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS A SECTION ABOUT PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIONS. I'M NOT THE ETHICS DIRECTOR. I AM NOT THE ETHICS COMMISSION. HOWEVER, I JUST YEAH, I WANT TO MENTION IT BECAUSE. THE CODE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. AND OBVIOUSLY I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS OR RESEARCH THIS PRIOR TO RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO MAYBE SINCE THEY'RE BOTH HERE. HERE. THE NEXT ITEM. ALLOW ME TO MAKE A PHONE CALL TO MR. MORAWSKI REAL QUICK, JUST TO SEE THAT EVERYTHING'S OKAY. AND THEN WE COULD LET MR. DAVIDSON PROCEED FOR CLARIFICATION, THOUGH HE'S ON A BOARD THAT WOULD NOT HEAR THIS PARTICULAR PETITION, IS THAT CORRECT? BUT THE WAY I READ. EXCEPT FOR THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, WHICH WOULD BE IN THE CAPACITY OF A BOARD MEMBER, A COVERED PERSON, WHICH HE IS MAY NOT APPEAR BEFORE ANY CITY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, AUTHORITY, BOARD OR COMMISSION WHICH YOU ARE, EXCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OR ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR HERSELF, HIS OR HER RELATIVES, WHICH THEY ARE NOT AND HE IS NOT. SO AGAIN, JUST AS A PRECAUTION FOR MR. DAVIDSON, IF WE CAN, I SUGGEST WE JUST GO TO THE NEXT ITEM REAL QUICK. ALLOW ME TO MAKE A PHONE CALL, CONFIRM, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND I CAN SPEAK WITH MR. DAVIDSON. THIS WHOLE THING JUST KIND OF CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD. MY APOLOGIES. THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. SO PROPERLY WE WON'T CONTINUE. WE'LL TAKE A PAUSE ON SORRY ON THIS ITEM 11 E AND WE WILL CONTINUE AFTER WE HAVE THE HEARING ON 11 F. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 26 V SIX [11.F) A Resolution Determining Petition 26-V6, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Sections 56-54 And 58-236 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow an Additional Encroachment of 6.5 Feet into the Secondary Front Yard Along 11th Avenue South for a Means of Egress Relating to the Elevation of an Existing Single-Family Home in the R1-7.5 Residence District, for the Property Owned by Vincent J. Cerniglia and Caroline C. Cerniglia, and Located at 780 11th Avenue South, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date.] RELATING TO VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 56-54 AND 58236 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 6.5FT INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG 11TH AVENUE SOUTH, FOR A MEANS OF EGRESS RELATING TO THE ELEVATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R 175 RESIDENCE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY VINCENT CORNELIA AND CAROLINE, CORNELIA AND I, AND LOCATED AT 780 11TH AVENUE SOUTH, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE. 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. THANK YOU. COUNSEL. DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF ON THIS. FOR CLARITY ON THIS ISSUE AND CRAMER, I COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF FOR CLARITY ON THIS ISSUE. SCHULTZ COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF THE SAME STAFF AND SAME. AND I COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF ON THIS ISSUE. WITH THAT WE WILL GO TO THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS VINCE AND I'M THE. HERE TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT THAT I BELIEVE WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF MY HOME WHILE PRESERVING IT, [04:30:01] MAKING IT SAFER AND MORE RESILIENT FOR THE FUTURE. I'M THE HOMEOWNER AT 780 11TH AVENUE SOUTH, A FEW BLOCKS FROM HERE, AND I'M HERE TO SEEK A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A FRONT STEP ENCROACHMENT THAT IS CAUSED BY THE ELEVATION. WE'RE LIFTING OUR HOME SHORING. WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT TO LIFT IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND KEEP THE EXISTING HOME. MY AGENDA HERE IS IS OUTLINED HERE THE PICTURE, MY UNBEATABLE OPPONENT THERE ON MY LEFT, WHICH IS THE HURRICANE. AND THE OVERVIEW OVERVIEW IS MY WIFE AND I DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE CHARACTER AND CHARM AND SMALL TOWN FEELING THAT MAKE OLD NAPLES SUCH A SPECIAL COMMUNITY. OUR HOME WAS BUILT IN 1963. IT'S A MODEST COTTAGE THAT WE HAVE CHOSEN TO PRESERVE RATHER THAN REPLACE WITH A MUCH LARGER NEW RESIDENTS HAVING EXPERIENCED THE EFFECTS OF RECENT HURRICANES AND FLOODING. WE RECOGNIZE THAT PRESERVING OUR HOME ALSO REQUIRES PREPARING IT FOR THE FUTURE. OUR PLAN IS TO CAREFULLY RAZE THE EXISTING HOUSE TO PROTECT IT FROM FUTURE FLOODING, WHILE PRESERVING THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER, SCALE AND PRESENCE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO SUBSTANTIALLY EXPAND OR INTENSIFY THE PROPERTY, BUT RATHER TO ENSURE THIS OLDER COTTAGE REMAINS PART OF OLDE NAPLES. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET TO. OUR GOAL. AS YOU CAN SEE I'VE EXPERIENCED THE EFFECTS OF THREE HURRICANES HURRICANE IAN IN 2022 HURRICANE HELENE AND 2024 AND ALSO HURRICANE IRMA IN 2017. HURRICANE IAN BEING OBVIOUSLY THE THE MOST IMPACTFUL IN OUR HOME. OUR EXISTING 1963 COTTAGE CURRENTLY SITS ON AN ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR FOOT TWO INCHES, AND HAS EXPERIENCED THE EFFECTS OF RECENT HURRICANE FLOODING. OUR PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS IN THE FLOOD ZONE. HOWEVER, THE A E NINE FLOOD ZONE EXTENDS ONTO A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND IS VERY CLOSE TO THE HOME. AS PART OF OUR LONG TERM RESILIENCY PLAN, WE PROPOSE TO RAISE OUR EXISTING HOME APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET, BRINGING IT TO THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY TEN FOOT. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IS TO PROTECT OUR HOME FROM FUTURE FLOODING AND STORMS, WHILE PRESERVING THE EXISTING COTTAGE, RATHER THAN REPLACING IT WITH A MODERN, SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER NEW HOME. AS PART OF OUR RAISING OUR HOUSE, IT REQUIRES A SAFE AND CODE COMPLIANT NEW FRONT STAIRCASE, WHICH IS OUR FORM OF EGRESS THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK BY APPROXIMATELY SIX FOOT FIVE INCHES. OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE HOME MORE RESILIENT FOR THE FUTURE WHILE PRESERVING THE CHARACTER, CHARM, SCALE AND SMALL TOWN ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF OUR COTTAGE AND WITH THE SURROUNDING OLDE NAPLES NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING FLOOD MAPS FROM FEMA, AND YOU'LL NOTICE OUR HOME SITS WITHIN THE FLOOD ZONE. BUT THE 89 FLOOD LINE COMES DANGEROUSLY CLOSE. ACTUALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT CLIPS THE FRONT OF THE HOME THERE, BUT IT DOES NOT. BUT IT IS VERY CLOSE TO OUR EXISTING HOME. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR ME TO REQUEST TO LIFT OUR HOME TO A TEN FOOT ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE A NINE PLUS ONE WOULD BE THE TEN FOOT. YOU CAN SEE THE FLOOD MAP AND THAT'S MY REQUEST TODAY. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. OUR HOME IS AN EXISTING 1963 SINGLE FAMILY HOME ONE LEVEL APPROXIMATELY 1500FT². THE HOME CURRENTLY SITS AT AN ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR FOOT TWO INCHES, SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE ELEVATION PROPOSED FOR LONG TERM FLOOD RESILIENCY. THE HOME AND THE PROPERTY HAVE EXPERIENCED THE EFFECTS OF RECENT HURRICANE FLOODING IN 2017, 2022 AND 2024. UNDER THE 2024 FEMA FLOOD MAP, THIS EXISTING HOME IS LOCATED IN THE FLOOD ZONE, REQUIRING A MINIMUM CONFORMING ELEVATION OF NINE FOOT. THE FLOOD ZONE REQUIRING A TEN FOOT CONFORMING ELEVATION, EXTENDS ONTO A PORTION OF OUR PROPERTY AND IS LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED BEFORE CURRENT FLOOD RESILIENCY REQUIREMENTS AND WAS BUILT AT GRADE, MAKING IT PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE VULNERABLE TO FUTURE FLOODING. OUR PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY NEWER HOMES THAT SIT AT A HIGHER ELEVATION. WHILE OUR EXISTING COTTAGE REMAINS AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER ELEVATION, THE EXISTING LOCATION OF THE HOME'S FRONT ENTRANCE AND THE LIMITED DEPTH OF THE FRONT YARD CONSTRAIN THE OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING SAFE AND COMPLIANT ACCESS. ONCE THE HOUSE IS ELEVATED. OUR REQUEST, AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF REQUIRING THE ELEVATED HOME, THE FRONT ENTRANCE STAIRCASE MUST EXTEND SIX FOOT FIVE INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SAFE, [04:35:07] CODE COMPLIANT ACCESS TO THE ELEVATED FIRST FLOOR. THE SIX FOOT FIVE THE 6.5FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK REPRESENTS THE MINIMAL ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASED ELEVATION. THIS REQUEST WILL ALLOW US TO RAISE OUR 1963 COTTAGE TO APPROXIMATELY TEN FOOT. AS PART OF OUR LONG TERM FLOOD RESILIENCY PLAN, THE VARIANCE WILL HELP US PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR EXISTING HOME FROM FUTURE FLOODING WHILE MAINTAINING ITS CHARACTER, CHARM, SCALE AND COMPATIBILITY WITHIN THE SURROUNDING OLD NAPLES NEIGHBORHOOD. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN ALLOWING US TO PRESERVE THIS EXISTING COTTAGE AND ADAPTING IT FOR A MORE RESILIENT FUTURE. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE I HAVE INCLUDED A COUPLE SKETCHES TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED STEPS. AND OBVIOUSLY WITH A RISE IN A RUN, IT GOES OUT APPROXIMATELY 6.5FT INTO THE FRONT SETBACK. THE LOWER LEFT HAND DRAWING SHOWS A IF YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON THIS, IT SHOWS A SMALL CODE COMPLIANT WALL, A LANDSCAPE WALL WHICH WOULD BE UNDER TWO FEET WHICH WILL HAVE TWO STAIRCASES, ONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE, OF THE ELEVATED AREA AND ONE TO THE EAST SIDE. AND THE REASON I'M DOING THIS ELEVATED LANDSCAPE WALL IS I'M TRYING TO BRING DOWN THE, THE OVERALL PROFILE OF THIS SIX FOOT BLOCK WALL, WHICH WILL BE NOTICEABLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME, SO IT WILL THEN BRING IT DOWN TO ABOUT FOUR FOOT, WHICH I THINK, WHICH WILL BE MUCH MORE ESTHETICALLY PLEASING. THE SCOPE OF WORK UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY SUBMITTED FOR DAVY SHORING, WILL CAREFULLY ELEVATE THE EXISTING HOME APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET, RAISING THE EXISTING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FROM 4.2 TO 10 FOOT. IT WILL INSTALL THE ENGINEERED FOUNDATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 70 SEGMENTED PILINGS, NEW FOOTINGS, STRUCTURAL COLUMNS, STEEL BEAMS, AND A NEW BLOCK WALL PERIMETER FOUNDATION WITH ENGINEERED FLOOD VENTS. IT WILL MAINTAIN EXISTING HOMES OVERALL FOOTPRINT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE'RE NOT EXPANDING THE HOME CURRENTLY UNDER THIS UNDER THIS LIFT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST CONSTRUCT A NEW FRONT ENTRANCE STAIRCASE TO PROVIDE SAFE, CODE COMPLIANT ACCESS TO THE ELEVATED HOME, REQUIRING A MINIMAL ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT. A SIX FOOT FIVE INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. THERE'S JUST A COUPLE PICTURES THAT THEY'VE INCLUDED ARE NOT THE MOST ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, BUT I INCLUDE THEM JUST SO YOU COULD SEE WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY IN FOR PERMITTING. THE TOP HALF WOULD BE THE EXISTING HOME AND THE BOTTOM HALF BEING A NOT VERY GOOD RENDITION OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE AFTERWARDS. NOW THE BENEFITS OF A LIFT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE RISK OF FUTURE FLOOD DAMAGE, IMPROVES THE LONG TERM RESILIENCY OF OUR HOME, PRESERVES AND PROTECTS OUR EXISTING 1963 COTTAGE. MAINTAINS THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, SCALE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME, CREATES A MORE DURABLE, FLOOD RESILIENT FOUNDATION AND ALLOWS OUR COTTAGE TO REMAIN A VIABLE AND ENJOYABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR MANY YEARS TO COME, WHILE ADAPTING IT TO CURRENT AND FUTURE FLOOD RISKS. SO OUR VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE REQUEST A MINIMUM VARIANCE OF 6.5FT INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE CODE COMPLIANT FRONT STAIRCASE NECESSARY TO SAFELY ACCESS OUR EXISTING 1963 COTTAGE. AFTER IT IS RAISED SIX FEET TO A MORE RESILIENT ELEVATION OF TEN FEET, ALLOWING US TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE ITS CHARACTER AND CHARM FOR THE FUTURE. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD AND THE MAYOR FOR HEARING MY REQUEST TODAY, AND I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. MR. NEGLIA. WHAT AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE YES, COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. I COMMEND YOU FOR WANTING TO RAISE IT, BUT I WOULD GIVEN MY ACTIVITIES PRIOR WITH THE COUNTY, WORKING WITH THE ARMY CORPS. I WOULD 11 OR 12FT. IT CAN'T BE THAT. IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ALL THIS, BE SURE YOU'RE HIGH ENOUGH SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO REVISIT THIS AT ANOTHER TIME BECAUSE FEMA WAS AT TEN, BUT IT'S RUMORED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO 12, RIGHT? SO IF YOU IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO ALL THIS, WHICH I, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO HIGHER. OKAY, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T WANT TO ENCROACH ANY FURTHER AS YOU, AS YOU COULD EXPECT TO RISE IN THE RUN. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM OR NOT. IT'S YOUR CALL. I JUST MY EXPERIENCE THERE WAS WAS WAS VERY ENLIGHTENING FOR ME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER. [04:40:06] WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. TASHIMA LEWIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BEFORE YOU USE VARIANCE PETITION 26 V SIX. THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 6.5FT INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG 11TH AVENUE SOUTH, FOR A MEANS OF EGRESS RELATING TO THE ELEVATION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1 7.5 RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 780 11TH AVENUE SOUTH, THIS ITEM WAS NOTICED ON AUGUST 10TH, 2026, IN WHICH A TOTAL OF 660 LETTERS WERE SENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND AS OF TODAY, STAFF HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS REQUEST. THE PROPERTY IS A CHARMING MID-CENTURY COASTAL COTTAGE CONSTRUCTED IN 1963 AT A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF 4.2FT AND A VERDE. THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITS ON A DOUBLE FRONTED LOT ADJACENT TO 11TH AVENUE SOUTH AND EIGHTH STREET SOUTH. THE PROPERTY HAS REMAINED RELATIVELY UNCHANGED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MINOR ALTERATIONS, UPGRADES TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS, AND WINDOW REPLACEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN TWO FLOOD ZONES A, E, A AND A E NINE. FIGURE ONE OF THE MEMORANDUM ILLUSTRATES THE FLOOD ZONE BOUNDARIES. WHEN A PARCEL IS INTERSECTED BY MULTIPLE FLOOD ZONES, THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD ELEVATION B, F, E AND THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION DFE IS DETERMINED BY THE LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE. SINCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE SITUATED ENTIRELY WITHIN FLOOD ZONE A E EIGHT. THE BFE IS EIGHT FEET AND DDFE IS NINE FEET. THIS ITEM WAS REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND BUILDINGS REVIEW INDICATED THAT THE PLANS PREPARED BY DAVY SCHURING WERE FOR THE FOUNDATION ONLY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED WITH THE PROPOSED ENGINEERING. AS A RESULT, IF IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SLAB MAY NEED ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT SUPPORTS. ASIDE FROM THAT, NO OTHER NOTEWORTHY COMMENTS DERIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS ITEM SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026 AND VOTED 7 TO 0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION WITH THE CONDITIONS BY STAFF PURSUANT TO SECTION 46 AT 37 C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE VARIANCE CRITERIA TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 6.5FT INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG 11TH AVENUE SOUTH FOR A MEANS OF EGRESS RELATING TO THE ELEVATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1 7.5 RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AND FOUND THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE 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 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. AND TWO, THE PETITIONER AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL ABIDE BY THE VARIANCE GRANTED VIA PETITION. 2646. ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OR EXPANSION BEYOND THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHING THIS VARIANCE SHALL REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE PETITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COUNCILWOMAN QUESTIONS. I MUST SAY, THE HOUSE IS CHARMING, AND I APPLAUD YOU AND YOUR WIFE FOR CARING ENOUGH TO KEEP THAT CHARM AND ITS BEAUTY SO, MAYOR, IF I MAY MAKE A MOTION, I MOVE TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION. THIS IS ITEM 11FA RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 26-V6 RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 56, 54, AND 58-236 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT OF 6.5FT IN THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD ALONG 11TH AVENUE SOUTH. THIS APPROVAL WOULD INCLUDE THE TWO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS CONDITIONS. SECOND, A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER YES. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ I. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP YES. COUNCILMEMBER BARTON YES. MAYOR HARTMAN YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, MR. MCCONNELL. YES. WE CAN GO BACK TO 11. E THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO CONFIRM WITH MR. MORAWSKI. ONCE I READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD, I'LL JUST STATE WHY THIS IS NOT A PROHIBITED REPRESENTATION, AND THEN MR. DAVIDSON CAN PROCEED. SO A RESOLUTION DETERMINING SITE PLAN PETITION 26 DASH SP TWO, [04:45:03] PURSUANT TO SECTION 4633 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND POOL AMENITY AREAS OF THE MOORINGS PARK. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MOORINGS, INCORPORATED AND LOCATED AT 120 MOORINGS PARK DRIVE. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO WHILE I DID READ 975 SUBPARAGRAPH D2D2 SUBPARAGRAPH D THREE ESSENTIALLY IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT ONLY PROHIBITS THIS REPRESENTATION IN FRONT OF YOUR BOARD OR A BOARD THAT YOUR BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER, WHICH IS NOT YOU. THEREFORE, MR. DAVIDSON CAN MOVE FORWARD AS THE AGENT OF THE APPLICANT, AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. I DID CONFIRM THAT WITH MR. MORAWSKI. THANK YOU FOR THAT CONFIRMATION. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, SIR. ALL RIGHT. PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT, SO I'LL TRY IT AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNSEL. I'M LEE DAVIDSON WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEERING. I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THIS SITE PLAN APPLICATION. IT'S FOR MOORINGS PARK. THE OWNER AGAIN. THE MOORINGS INC. IS HERE. THEY HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE. SO FOR ANYONE THAT'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, IT'S ABOUT 83 ACRES ABOUT TWO MILES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD AND PINE RIDGE. SO AGAIN, KIND OF ON THE NORTH SIDE. THE LOCATION MAP KIND OF POINTS OUT SOME KEY LANDMARKS THERE. THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE CAMPUS SITE PLAN. SO THIS AGAIN SHOWS THE FULL 83 ACRES THAT RED CIRCLE THAT YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN. THAT IS THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT. SO IT'S AN EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AS WELL AS A POOL AREA WITH A, WHAT WE CALL THE PETTY CENTER, WHICH IS A FITNESS AREA, POOL, SPA BATHROOMS FOR THAT POOL AREA. SO THIS PROJECT AGAIN IS FOCUSED ON THAT SECTION. HERE'S A AERIAL, AS YOU CAN SEE OF WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY. THE POOL'S EXISTING, THE CLUBHOUSE IS EXISTING. THE PETTY CENTER IS THERE AS WELL. AND THEN THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THROUGH THIS SITE PLAN. SO A SLIGHT EXPANSION OF THAT CLUBHOUSE. CURRENTLY WE'RE PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH ABOUT 8146FT² OF THAT EXISTING CLUBHOUSE. AND THEN EXPANDING ON THE KIND OF THE NORTH SIDE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PLAN THE CLUBHOUSE AGAIN, ABOUT 15,000FT², IS THAT EXPANSION. THE PETTY CENTER IS NOT BEING EXPANDED AT ALL. IT'S THAT BUILDING BY THE POOL. WE'RE JUST RENOVATING IT. SO IT'S JUST, IT'S OLD AND NEEDS AN UPDATE. SO THEY'RE JUST RENOVATING THE, THE INTERIOR OF IT, NOT CHANGING THE USES OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. SO HERE'S JUST SOME, SOME HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ZONING AND PLANNING SUMMARY. THIS 83 ACRE CAMPUS IS GOVERNED BY A, AN OLD AT THAT TIME WAS A PUD WITH COLLIER COUNTY. OBVIOUSLY WHEN IT WAS ABSORBED INTO THE CITY, IT BECAME A PD. IN 2010 IS THE LATEST ITERATION OF THAT. THAT KIND OF IS WHAT OUR GUIDING DOCUMENT IS AS FAR AS ZONING. YOU COULD SEE THE CLUBHOUSE AND PETTY CENTER, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON, IS STAYING WITHIN ONE STORY. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, ANY MULTIPLES OF THAT. THE ZONING WOULD ALLOW UP TO TEN STORIES, BUT WE'RE KEEPING IT AT THAT ONE STORY, MARK. YOU CAN SEE THE SETBACKS, THE REQUIRED SETBACKS ON ALL SIDES FOR THAT CLUBHOUSE ARE 20FT ON EACH SIDE. LOOKING AT THAT TABLE, YOU COULD SEE THE CLOSEST WE GET TO A PROPERTY LINE IS 263FT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS IS ALMOST THOUSANDS OF FEET BEYOND THAT. SO WE'RE VERY WELL WITHIN THE CAMPUS AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY NEIGHBORS THAT AREN'T RESIDENTS OF THIS LUXURY SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. THE BREAKDOWN OF THE SITE LAND USE SUMMARY. NOT TO GET TOO MUCH INTO THE WEEDS ON THAT, BUT WE'RE JUST EXPANDING THE IMPERVIOUS AREA OF THIS PROJECT BY 0.13 ACRES. SO IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THAT 83 ACRES, YOU KNOW, VERY MARGINAL, LIKE A POINT OF A PERCENT IS OUR INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA GETTING INTO THE PARKING KIND OF A BREAKDOWN OF THE PARKING PER THE PD WE'RE ALLOWED TO PARK THE CLUBHOUSE AND AREAS AROUND THE CLUBHOUSE AT 25% OF WHAT THE LDC CURRENTLY REQUIRES. SO THIS BREAKDOWN, EVEN WITH THE OUTDOOR DINING, WE ARE REQUIRED PER THE PD AND THE CODE THAT 102 SPACES AND 103 PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED CURRENTLY AROUND THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE AMENITIES AREA AGAIN, HANDICAP IS MET. PER THE CODE JUST A SITE PLAN. THIS KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS, YOU COULD KIND OF SEE THE PURPLE AND THE ORANGE AREA, ORANGE AREAS, [04:50:04] THE RENOVATION, AND THE PURPLE AREA THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THAT SITE PLAN IS THAT EXPANSION, THAT ADDITIONAL ABOUT THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE. AND THEN JUST ROLLING THROUGH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, I'LL TOUCH BRIEFLY ON IT. AND IF THERE'S QUESTIONS, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER IT. BUT WE DO HAVE AN APPROVED SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY. AND AGAIN, IT'S FOR THE PROJECT AREA. THE WATER QUALITY, AS YOU CAN SEE, MEETS BOTH CITY REQUIREMENTS, THE CITY STORMWATER ORDINANCE AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. WE STILL HAVE ABOUT 1.5 ACRE FEET OF ADDITIONAL STORMWATER QUALITY PROVIDED IN THE MASTER SYSTEM. SO WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CITY AND STATE STANDARDS. AGAIN, THESE ARE THE DRAINAGE PLANS. AND TO KIND OF EXPAND ON THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT MORE, WE HAVE THE ARCHITECT HERE, MR. BOB HALL, AND HE'LL KIND OF RUN YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BUILDING. GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FOR THE RECORD, ROBERT HALL WITH GROW ARCHITECTURE IN TAMPA, FLORIDA. 1213 EAST SIXTH AVENUE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT LEE HAS PRETTY WELL STATED IT ALL. I MEAN, MAUREEN'S PARK HAS BEEN A A LONG TIME. NAPLES SENIOR LIVING CORPORATION HAS THREE LARGE CAMPUSES. THIS IS THEIR ORIGINAL CAMPUS. THE CLUBHOUSE HAS GONE THROUGH QUITE A FEW CHANGES OVER THE YEARS. IT'S BEEN THERE ABOUT 40 YEARS. THE LAST RENOVATION WAS ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, WHERE THE PORTE COCHERE AND THE FRONT AND A NEW RESTAURANT AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE RESTAURANT OF THE CLUB WAS ADDED. THIS RENOVATION SEEKS TO ADD TO THE EAST DINING ROOM TOWARD THE GOLF COURSE. YOU KNOW, IT IS OLD AND HAS LOWER CEILING HEIGHTS. SO WE WERE BROUGHT IN TO OVERSEE THAT ENTIRE OPERATION. IT ALSO HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING INTERIOR SPACES THAT ALSO NEED RENOVATION. SO WE'RE ADDING SOME DINING SPACE, TAKING AWAY OLD DINING SPACE, RENOVATING SOME INTERIOR USES, RENOVATING THE KITCHEN EQUIPMENT, THAT KIND OF THING, AND TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE GROUNDS OUT FRONT. OR I'LL SAY TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE CLUB, MORE CONDUCIVE. AS HE SAID, THERE'S A THE PETIT CENTER IS A KIND OF AN INTEGRAL PART TO THOSE GROUNDS. IT'S AN L SHAPED BUILDING THAT REALLY SERVES A POOL AREA. WE'RE PLANNING TO EXPAND THAT POOL AREA. THERE'S AN EXISTING LAP POOL THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO CHANGE TO AN AEROBICS POOL. WE'RE ADDING A LAP POOL AND A NEW SPA AND RENOVATING THAT FACILITY. THERE'S APPARENTLY A LOT OF COMPETITIVE SWIMMERS. YOU'D BE SURPRISED AT THAT ADVANCED AGE GROUP. THEY TAKE IT PRETTY SERIOUSLY. AND THEN COMBINING ALL OF THAT WITH THE GROUNDS THAT SURROUND THE EAST SIDE TO BRING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT REALLY IS THE PARK, DES MOINES PARK. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A LARGE RENOVATION OF A BEAUTIFUL CAMPUS. THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. QUESTIONS? COUNCIL. MR. DAVIS. YES, WE APPRECIATE THE TIME. OBVIOUSLY SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION AT THE BEGINNING. BUT AGAIN, WE JUST WANT TO REITERATE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES OR DEVIATIONS OR RELIEF FROM THE CITY CODES OR THE PD DOCUMENTS. AGAIN, WE'RE OUR INTENT IS JUST A SITE PLAN APPLICATION APPROVAL AND TO STAY WITHIN WHAT'S DEFINED BY THE CITY. SO THANK YOU. YES, SIR. SAY ONE MORE THING. JUST JUST TO ADD TO THAT, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. OF COURSE, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY YOU. WE APPRECIATE THEM FOR DOING THAT. WE'VE ALSO BEEN THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW WITH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. WE HAVE A FINAL HEARING WITH THEM SET UP FOR NEXT MONTH. SO WE LOOK TO GET ALL OF THE MATERIAL COMMENTS AND CHANGES THAT THEY MADE, WHICH WERE FEW. THEY WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE AS WELL. AND TO SHOW THEM THAT NEXT MONTH, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WILL GO TO THE STAFF. ALSO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEFORE YOU SITE PLAN PETITION 26 SB TWO. THE PETITIONER IS THE MARINES INCORPORATED. THE SITE PLAN PETITION IS TO ALLOW THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND PRELIMINARY AREAS OF THE MARLINS PARK. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. LOCATED AT 120 LAWRENCE PARK DRIVE, THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION ARE ABOUT 32,390FT². THE ALTERATIONS INCLUDE A NEW CLUBHOUSE, WING, LAP POOL, SPA, COVERED PAVILION, COVERED WALKWAY, WATER FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE AND GARDEN IMPROVEMENTS. THIS ITEM WAS NOTICED ON AUGUST 10TH, 2026, IN WHICH A TOTAL OF 641 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT, [04:55:02] AND AS OF TODAY, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED ONE EMAIL REGARDING THIS REQUEST. THE EMAIL DOES NOT ADDRESS CONCERNS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPOSAL, BUT ADDRESS OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS WITHIN THE ENTIRE P D, AND I WAS INFORMED BY THE RESIDENT THAT THE PARK IS WORKING TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PETITION 26 D IRB 11 WITH THREE CONDITIONS FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE CLUBHOUSE AND AMENITY AREAS AT THEIR MAY 27TH, 2026 MEETING ON JULY 24TH, 2026. SITE PLAN PETITION 26 SP TWO WAS FOUND TO BE SUFFICIENT AND SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SITE PLAN TODAY, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO BACK BEFORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL. A FINAL DESIGN REVIEW IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 20TH, 2020. THE CONDITIONS FROM THAT MEETING INCLUDED THAT 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 THE HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND TO THE PETITIONER WILL ENSURE THE FACIAL DIMENSION, COLOR AND MATERIAL OF THE CLUBHOUSE ADDITION ALIGNS WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND FINALLY, THE PETITIONER WILL CONSIDER REDESIGNING THE HORSESHOE COVERED WALKWAY TO DEVELOP A CIRCLE AS A DESTINATION WALKWAY SPACE. THIS ITEM WAS REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE AND NO INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS WERE ONLY PROVIDED. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026 AND VOTED 7 TO 0. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TODAY. PURSUANT TO SECTION 46 OF 33 G OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF HAVE APPLIED THE SITE PLAN STANDARDS TO SITE PLAN PETITION 26 SB TWO AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PETITION STAFF RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITION ONE. PRIOR TO THE OPERATION OF THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA, THE PETITIONER WILL SUBMIT AN OUTDOOR DINING PETITION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. SO I DIDN'T SEE THE PD DOCUMENTS. WITHIN THIS. I JUST MISS HIM. NOPE. THEY PROBABLY AREN'T IN THERE. IT WASN'T INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SUBMITTAL. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. CLOSING REMARKS BY THE PETITIONER'S AGENT, MR. DAVIDSON. YES. YOU'RE UP QUICKLY. I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. NO FURTHER COMMENT. AGAIN, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND AND PATIENCE THROUGH THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR? YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FOR APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN PETITION 26-SP2 FOR THE RENOVATION EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND POOL AMENITY AREAS FOR THE PARK PLAN DEVELOPMENT. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BURTON, A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. MR. MCCONNELL. MOVING 11 G. YES 11 G. A [11.G) A Resolution Determining Variance Petition 26-V8 Pursuant to Sections 46-37, 58-176, 56-41, and 56-45 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Allow a Single-Family Residence, Swimming Pool, Pool Deck, and Pool Mechanical  Equipment to Encroach Into Required Minimum Yards on a Non-Conforming Lot Within the R1-10 Residence District on Property Owned by 107 Broad Avenue South, LLC., and Located at 107 Broad Avenue South; More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing an Effective Date.] RESOLUTION DETERMINING VARIANCE 26 V EIGHT. PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46, 37, 58, ONE, 76, 56, 41 AND 56, 45 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SWIMMING POOL, POOL DECK AND POOL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED MINIMUM YARD ON A NONCONFORMING LOT WITHIN THE R 110 RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY OWNED BY 107 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH LLC AND LOCATED AT 107 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. ARE THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN. PLEASE 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. I HAVE DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. SPOKE WITH STAFF. [05:00:01] THE LOCATION. OF THE SITE AND DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF. KRAMER WENT TO THE SITE, DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF, DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PETITIONER AND THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF AND ALSO WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT AND THE PETITIONER. AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. DRIVE BY DAILY SPOKE TO THE PETITIONER'S AGENT AND THE HOMEOWNER AND NO STAFF, NO FURTHER DISCLOSURES. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, FRANCESCA PASSIDOMO ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, 107 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, LLC. I'M LEARNING. I NEED TO SPEAK UP. I APOLOGIZE. WITH ME ARE MATTHEW CRAIG, PRINCIPAL AND FOUNDER OF MHK ARCHITECTURE AND MARIE NOVAK FOR THE OWNER. FOLLOWING MY PRESENTATION, MR. CRAIG WILL EXPLAIN THE DESIGN. THANK YOU. THE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS REQUEST. THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH IN OLD NAPLES, A BLOCK FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO. IT SITS WITHIN THE NAPLES HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH WAS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN 1987. THE LOT HAS EXISTED IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION SINCE ABOUT 1910, BEFORE THE CITY WAS INCORPORATED AND BEFORE THE FIRST ZONING CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 1926. MOST RECENTLY, THE PROPERTY HOUSED THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY'S OFFICES. MY CLIENT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2024 TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL AND ZONED USE AS SINGLE FAMILY. IN MAY 2025, A NON-CONFORMING FOOTPRINT WAS CONTINUED FOR THE PROPERTY THROUGH RESOLUTION 2025-15617. IN FEBRUARY 2026, NOT A NONCONFORMING WALL WAS TEMPORARILY ASSEMBLED TO INTEGRATE STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS REQUEST IS BEFORE YOU NOW, BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS AND THE RELIEF PROVIDED IN THE PRIOR APPROVAL, WHICH UNDERSTOOD THE UNIQUE COMPLEXITIES OF HISTORIC RECONSTRUCTION WORK. CONDITION TWO OF RESOLUTION 2025-15617 STATES THAT SHOULD EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PORTIONS OF STRUCTURES BE DEMOLISHED, EVEN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD, THIS APPROVAL DISSOLVES THIS APPROVAL. BEING THE NONCONFORMITY AND THE PETITIONER MUST OBTAIN VARIANCE APPROVAL TO REBUILD ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED PLANS. THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT I'LL MAKE STAFF IS RIGHT THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE CITY BEFORE THE WALL WAS DISSEMBLED. WE REGRET THAT IT WAS NOT. HOWEVER, AS WE WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, THE CONDITIONS OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL AND THE PROCESS BEFORE YOU TODAY, ENSURE THE APPROVED PLANS ARE BUILT UNDER THE CORRECT FORM OF RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES FROM MINIMUM YARDS IN SECTION 58-176 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. TO BUILD THE PLANS APPROVED UNDER RESOLUTION 2025-15617. THE VARIANCES SUPPORT THE SAME ULTIMATE OBJECTIVES TO RETAIN THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND LOT CONFIGURATION, TO CONTINUE THE CADENCE OF THE STREET THAT HAS EXISTED ON THIS CORNER FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY, AND TO REINTRODUCE SINGLE FAMILY USE OF A LOT BY INTEGRATING FLOODPLAIN RESILIENCY AND AMENITIES THAT ARE CUSTOMARY TO FAMILY NEEDS TODAY. WE ACCEPT BOTH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THE VARIANCE APPLIES ONLY TO WHAT IS SHOWN IN THESE PLANS, AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CERTIFIES INSTALLATION BEFORE FINAL INSPECTION. [05:05:05] THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD HEARD THIS PETITION ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AND VOTED 6 TO 1 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. FINDING ALL CRITERIA WERE MET. THE LOT. FOR PURPOSES. FOR PURPOSES OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO DID NOT SEE THE PLANS IN MAY 2025. I DO WANT TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES GOING THROUGH THE HISTORY OF HOW THE LOT WAS CREATED. IN 1887. THE PLAN OF NAPLES LAYS OUT THE BLOCK AND GRID PATTERN THAT STILL COMPRISES MOST OF OLD NAPLES TODAY. IN APPROXIMATELY 1910, AS I NOTED, THE BUILDING LOT WAS CREATED FROM PLATTED LOTS 13 PLUS THE WEST 18.33FT OF LOT 14, WHICH EQUATES TO A LOT APPROXIMATELY 51.6FT WIDE AND 7765FT² IN AREA. DECADES LATER, THE CITY CHANGED ITS CODE TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 87.5FT IN WIDTH AND 10,000FT² IN AREA, ESTABLISHING A LAWFULLY NON-CONFORMING LOT, A STATUS THAT CONTINUES TO RUN WITH THE LAND. STAFF CONFIRMS THE LOT HAS REMAINED IN ITS CURRENT FORM SINCE 1910. IN 1924, THE CITY INCORPORATED AND THEREAFTER ADOPTED ITS FIRST ZONING ORDINANCE. THROUGH CODE CHANGES BETWEEN 1946 AND 1948. THE CITY RECOGNIZED SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ARE WARRANTED FOR LOTS WITH IN QUOTES INSUFFICIENT FOOTAGE CREATED BEFORE ZONING. ACCORDINGLY, IN 1948, THE CITY PERMITS A WHAT WAS CALLED TROPHY ROOM ADDITION TO THE GRANDFATHERED BUILDING LINE ALONG GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH. THE STAFF REPORT CONCLUDES THE LOT AND HOME WERE AFFORDED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION. IN 1987, THE NAPLES HISTORIC DISTRICT IS LISTED, AS I NOTED, ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER. IMPORTANTLY, RECOGNIZING LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, REPRESENTING THE 1887 TO 1937 PERIOD. STAFF NOTES THE DISTRICT PREDOMINANT STYLE IS, AS YOU CAN SEE BETWEEN THE TWO IMAGES ON YOUR SCREEN. BUNGALOW. POPULAR TURN OF THE CENTURY DESIGN FEATURING PROMINENT PORCHES AND CRAFTSMAN CRAFTSMAN ELEMENTS. BETWEEN 2011 TO 2024, THE PROPERTY SERVED AS A NATIONAL AS A NAPLES HISTORICAL SOCIETY'S OFFICES UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE, A COMMERCIAL USE IN AN OTHERWISE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS PROCEDURAL HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE CITY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE LOTS UNIQUE CONSTRAINTS AND HAS WORKED TO ACCOMMODATE THE HISTORIC CONFIGURATION FOR NEARLY 80 YEARS. FROM THIS IMAGE, WHAT AND WHAT MR. CRAIG WILL REALLY REVIEW IN DETAIL FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, WHAT CARRIES FORWARD IS WHAT DEFINES THIS PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT, ITS HISTORIC FOOTPRINT, ITS LOT CONFIGURATION, ITS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, AND ITS INTEGRATION OF HISTORIC MATERIALS. THE RENDERING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND THE SAME BUNGALOW FORM, BUILT WITH HISTORIC MATERIALS FROM THE ORIGINAL HOME AND ELEVATED FOR RESILIENCE, AS ANTICIPATED IN THE 2025 APPROVALS. A VARIANCE IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THIS FOR THIS HOME. AND THERE ARE TWO DIRECT SOURCES THAT POINT TO THIS AS THE REMEDY. WE DISCUSSED THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FROM 2025. THE ALTERNATIVE TO A VARIANCE IS EITHER BUILDING TO TODAY'S SETBACKS, WHICH WE WILL SHOW RESULTS IN A STRIP OF ABOUT 19. DO YOU HAVE A. I WASN'T SURE IF YOU HAD A QUESTION. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. A STRIP OF ABOUT 19.5FT IN WIDTH OR LOSING THE LOT [05:10:09] FOR EVENTUAL RESUBDIVISION AND REDEVELOPMENT WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE FOOTPRINT AND LOT THAT HAS DEFINED THIS CORNER FOR A CENTURY COULD NOT BE REBUILT. THE SECOND SOURCE THAT POINTS TO THIS REMEDY IS THE VARIANCE CRITERIA THEMSELVES UNDER SUBSECTION B, THE VARIANCE CRITERIA. ASK WHETHER A VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR PRESERVATION OF CONTRIBUTING HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, AND MAINTAINS THE HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, FORM OR CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, IN KEEPING WITH THE PERIOD IN WHICH IT WAS BUILT. AS MR. CRAIG WILL DETAIL, THOSE FACTORS DESCRIBE THIS REQUEST. THE PLANS REPRESENT THE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL FORM, STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE BUNGALOW. POPULAR TURN OF THE CENTURY DESIGN. I'LL SPEND SOME TIME ON EACH OF THE VARIANCE CRITERIA WHILE NOTING ONLY BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION, THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOUND EACH OF THE CRITERIA MET, AND IN 2025, COUNCIL FOUND EACH OF THE CRITERIA MET FOR THE SAME LOT. THE FIRST LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WOULD CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY OR UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP, OR WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF CONFIRMS, AND WE WILL SHOW IN THE NEXT SLIDES HOW TODAY'S SETBACKS WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT AVAILABLE BUILDING AREA ON A NARROW, NON-CONFORMING CORNER PARCEL. THE FOOTPRINT IS A FEATURE OF THE LAND. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT MAKES THE LOTS HISTORIC FOOTPRINT IMPOSSIBLE TO REBUILD, WHICH IS A RESULT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CRITERIA. BEFORE I STARTED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE ARE DIRECTED TO AVOID. CRITERIA TWO THE VARIANCE WILL BE OTHERWISE CONSISTENT AND IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES AND ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING. STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT RECONSTRUCTION CAN BE CONSIDERED AN APPROPRIATE TREATMENT, AND THE PROJECT HELP MAINTAINS AND IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARM. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BOTH DESCRIBE A VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS A TOOL TO AVOID A LOSS OF HISTORIC SITES. DUE TO TODAY'S DIMENSIONAL RULES. THE VARIANCE SERVES THESE PURPOSES. IT KEEPS A HISTORIC FOOTPRINT SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, THE LOCK CONFIGURATION, THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, AND THE HISTORIC MATERIALS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE LOST. KEEP IN MIND IN RATIFYING THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT FOR RECONSTRUCTION UNDER THIS REQUEST. COUNCIL ALSO RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE HOME. THRESHOLD CRITERIA NUMBER THREE. THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OR ENLARGEMENT OF ANY USE OR STRUCTURE DEVOTED TO A USE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS ESTABLISHED. PROPERTIES USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTY'S ORIGINAL AND ZONED USE. THROUGH THIS APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY RETURNS FROM AN OFFICE OPERATING SINCE 2011 UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE TO ITS HISTORIC SINGLE FAMILY USE. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS DESCRIPTION, DESIGNATING THIS PROPERTY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS THE MOST SENSITIVE TO DISRUPTION FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE USES, AS WELL AS POLICIES ONE, THREE AND ONE TWO, WHICH RELATE TO COMPATIBILITY AND CONSISTENT CHARACTER. CRITERIA FOUR AND THERE ARE SEVEN, SO WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HARM THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. YOU WILL FIND THAT NO DEPARTMENT OBJECTED TO THIS REQUEST. BUT IMPORTANTLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE PROJECT INDEED IMPROVES THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE FOR THREE REASONS. [05:15:02] THE APPROVED HOME IS ELEVATED FOR FLOODPLAIN COMPLIANCE. THE HOME WILL BE BUILT TO CURRENT FLORIDA BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, INCLUDING STRUCTURAL STEEL REINFORCEMENT THAT BROUGHT US HERE ON A CORNER A BLOCK FROM THE GULF. THAT MEANS A HOME DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND TODAY'S STORM CONDITIONS. AND DRAINAGE THAT PREDATED ANY STORMWATER STANDARDS IS REPLACED WITH AN ENGINEERED SYSTEM. IN WEIGHING ALL FACTORS AT ISSUE, APPROVAL LETS A STALLED CONSTRUCTION SITE ON A PROMINENT CORNER BE FINISHED. A NEIGHBOR AT 140 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH WROTE INTO THE RECORD. IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO USE MODERN TECHNOLOGY TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE HARSH WEATHER CONDITIONS THAT WE KNOW ARE A REALITY NEAR THE OCEAN IN NAPLES. CRITERIA FIVE. THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO MITIGATE, RELOCATE OR REDESIGN THE STRUCTURE, SO THE VARIANCE WOULD BE UNNECESSARY. THE CRITERIA ASKS FOR REASONABLE STEPS. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT A STEP IS REASONABLE, IN WHICH DOING SO WOULD CAUSE FAILURE OF ANOTHER CRITERIA. LET'S TAKE THESE ONE BY ONE MITIGATION. THE OWNER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS REQUEST IS THE EXACT SAME DIMENSIONS AND DESIGN AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, AND NOTHING MORE. THE PRIOR APPROVAL IS IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT AS A MITIGATING FACTOR. RELOCATION. RELOCATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE LOT IS BOUNDED BY TWO STREETS. AS YOU CAN SEE, AN ALLEY TO THE NORTH AND A DEVELOPED LOT TO THE EAST. THE CURRENT YARDS APPLIED TO THE NON-CONFORMING LOT PARTICULARLY CONSTRAIN ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR RELOCATION. REDESIGN. THE PERVERSE OUTCOME IS THAT A CODE COMPLIANT HOME IS ABOUT 19.5FT WIDE, AND THE DESIGN UNREGULATED BY THIS BOARD. THE APPROVED DESIGN WAS FOUND BY BOTH STAFF AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD TO BE COMPATIBLE UNDER CRITERIA SIX, WHICH WE WILL GET TO NEXT. IN OUR VIEW, IN THE REVERSE, THE NARROW ALTERNATIVE DESIGN WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE AND WOULD RESULT IN FORFEITURE OF THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT. AGAINST POLICY 6-3 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CRITERIA SIX. THE VARIANCE WILL BE COMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER AND SCALE AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF REPORT DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE LOCAL DISTRICT AND CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. THE HOME IS ICONIC TO THE DISTRICT'S PREDOMINANT STYLE AS BUNGALOW FEATURING. FEATURING PROMINENT PORCHES AND CRAFTSMAN ELEMENTS, AND MR. CRAIG WILL SHOW YOU HOW THE APPROVED HOME VERY INTENTIONALLY CARRIES FORWARD THE BUNGALOW STYLE PORCH, HIP ROOF, DORMERS AND PIERS. EVERY REQUESTED SETBACK FOLLOWS THE HISTORIC BUILDING LINE, AND THE HOME MOVES NO CLOSER TO ANY STREET OR NEIGHBOR THAN BEFORE. THE 2025 DESIGN ALSO REDUCED SECOND FLOOR MASSING AT THE FRONT AND PUT NEW UPSTAIRS SPACE OVER THE GARAGE ON THE ALLEY. AND FINALLY, CRITERIA SEVEN. THE PLIGHT OF THE APPLICANT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION, THE APPLICANT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO STAND IN THE SHOES OF THEIR PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST. STAFF AGREES THAT INITIALLY THE PLIGHT OF THE APPLICANT WAS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT SELF-CREATED. THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THE LOT AND THE LOT HAS NOT CHANGED. IT IS STILL 51.6FT WIDE. STILL A CORNER LOT. STILL SHORT OF THE MINIMUMS. TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE WALL CHANGED THE PROCEDURE FROM NON-CONFORMITY PETITION TO A VARIANCE. IT DID NOT CHANGE THE HARDSHIP. ANY HOUSE ON THIS LOT, INCLUDING A BRAND NEW DESIGN, NEEDS RELIEF FROM THE SAME SETBACKS TO ENSURE THE HOME IS [05:20:03] COMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER AND SCALE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS SITE REPRESENTS TYPICAL R1 TEN SETBACKS WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR. THIS ASSUMES A CORNER LOT OF 87.5FT AND BLESS YOU AND AND A 75FT INSIDE INTERIOR LOT. ON A TYPICAL CORNER LOT THAT LEAVES THE FIRST FLOOR ABOUT 55FT WIDE AND ABOUT 5225FT² OF BUILDABLE AREA. NEW LOTS INTEND FOR THIS FORM OF DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN APPLIED TO A 51.6FT WIDE LOT, THEY DO PRODUCE SOMETHING THE CODE NEVER INTENDED. THIS SLIDE REPRESENTS WHAT A CONFORMING HOUSE WOULD LOOK LIKE HERE. TWO FRONT YARDS, A REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD LEAVE THE BUILDING STRIP 19.5FT WIDE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND DUE TO OUR VERY UNIQUE SIDE YARD PERCEPTION SETBACK 11.5FT ON THE SECOND FLOOR, 95FT LONG. WHILE LOT COVERAGE WOULD AFFORD A 3367FT² BUILDING ENVELOPE, THE SETBACKS LIMIT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE TO 1852FT², WHICH IS A DIVISION OF OVER 50%. PICTURE IT FROM THE STREET A LONG, NARROW SIDE WALL FACING GULF SHORE BOULEVARD AND A THIN GABLE ROOF FACING BROAD AVENUE PULLED BACK FROM THE LINES. EVERY NEIGHBOR KNOWS THE BUNGALOW STYLE WITH A PORCH ACROSS THE FRONT DOES NOT FIT 19.5FT. THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE VARIANCE. THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND LOT CONFIGURATION ARE LOST AND THE CADENCE OF THE STREET IS BROKEN. STAFF AGREES THE APPROVED DESIGN, NOT THE ALTERNATIVE, IS COMPATIBLE. IN CONCLUSION, BEFORE I TURN THE PODIUM TO MR. CRAIG, I ORIENT YOU TO THE LOT. FOR DECADES, THE HOME ON THIS CORNER HAS STOOD ON THE SAME LINES. NEIGHBORS AND PASSERSBY HAVE KNOWN THE CORNER THAT WAY FOR GENERATIONS. THE APPROVED PLAN RETAINS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOT AND HOME. IN 2025, STAFF, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND COUNCIL AGREED ON WHAT BELONGS ON THIS CORNER. A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON ITS HISTORIC FOOTPRINT IN ITS HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. BY APPROVING THE VARIANCE THAT IS WHAT IS ACHIEVED, THE PLANS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH 2025. THE HOME WILL BE BUILT WITH HISTORIC MATERIALS AND NO NEW ENCROACHMENTS AND NO NEW SCALE ARE BEING SUBMITTED. THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE 2025 RESOLUTION IS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND DIMENSIONS APPROVED FOR THE HOME. MR. CRAIG. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. NICE TO SEE YOU. YEAH, YEAH. THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, MATTHEW CRAIG WITH MHK ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY GETTING TIRED, SO I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY. SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS HOME BEFORE IN FRONT OF YOU WHEN WE DID THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMITY. WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO BE A PART OF THIS PROJECT. FRANCESCA DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND KIND OF WHERE WE FIT THIS HOME, IF YOU CAN SEE THE TOP LEFT IMAGE THERE AT SOME POINT DURING HISTORY THE HOME, THE FRONT PORCH OF THIS HOME WAS ENCLOSED. SO WE WERE OPENING THAT BACK UP TO A PORCH. AND WE ARE ADDING FLANKING DORMERS ALONGSIDE THE THE EXISTING FRONT [05:25:03] DORMER. WE'RE ACTUALLY REMOVING A PORTION OF THE HOME AS WELL. AND YOU KNOW, I'LL GO OVER THAT IN A SECOND. BUT THE EXISTING HOUSE WAS ABOUT 3600 TOTAL SQUARE FEET. AND IN ORDER TO FIT, YOU KNOW, A POOL, A SMALL POOL IN THE PROPOSED HOME GOES FROM 3600FT² TO APPROXIMATELY 3272FT². SO WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT FITTING 10 POUNDS OF POTATOES IN A 5 POUND SACK. HERE WE ARE. WE'RE BEING VERY RESPECTFUL TO THIS HOME SITE IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT. IF YOU GO TO THE SOME OF THE HARDSHIP THAT WE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION, SOME OF THESE HOMES ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, HYSTERICAL WHEN YOU WALK THROUGH THEM. I REMEMBER ONE HOME THAT WHEN WE STARTED DEMOLITION WORK, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A BASEBOARD OF A HOME THAT YOU WOULD FIND HIDING, YOU KNOW, AT THE, AT THE CORNER OF THE FLOOR IN THE WALL AS THE RIDGE JOINT STRUCTURALLY. SO, YOU KNOW, THINGS WERE PUT TOGETHER MUCH DIFFERENTLY BACK THEN. AND AS WE OPENED THIS UP AND WE FOUND A LOT OF DAMAGE AND SO FORTH, IT'S LIKE PEELING AN ONION AS YOU GET INTO THIS, YOU'RE LIKE, OH MY GOODNESS, THIS NEEDS REPLACE. THIS NEEDS REPLACE. SO AS CONSTRUCTION KIND OF ENHANCED THROUGH THE PROJECT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MORE OF THE ONION THAT NEEDED UNPEELED TO GET THIS TO WORK. ALSO BRINGING IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGY, THE STRUCTURAL STEEL, THERE ARE COMPONENTS UNDER THE CONTRACTOR WAS VERY AFRAID OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CATCHING FIRE WITH THE WELDING AND SO FORTH. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT MADE US REMOVE AS MUCH AS HAS BEEN REMOVED. THERE ALL THE REMOVED MATERIAL HAVE BEEN SAVED ON SITE. WE DO PLAN ON PLANTING A LOT OF IT DOWN, TRYING TO RECAPTURE THAT IN VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE HOME. SO THE OLD WILL BE IN WITH THE NEW AND THIS IS KIND OF A TELLING KIND OF SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE THE EXISTING AT THE BOTTOM AND THE PROPOSED AT THE TOP. I'M GOING TO TRY TO USE THE MOUSE TO SHOW YOU. WELL, THAT'S NOT REALLY WORKING, I DON'T THINK. OH, THERE IT IS. YEP. SORRY. SO YOU KNOW THE REQUIRED THERE'S A REQUIRED 7.5FT SETBACK ON THE SIDE OF THESE PROPERTIES. THIS EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 3.7FT FROM FROM THE SIDE. THERE IS A REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK FOR MAIN STRUCTURE AND 15 FOOT FOR GARAGE STRUCTURE. ON THE REAR, THE EXISTING SITS AT 14.1FT, SO THAT'S ANOTHER NONCONFORMITY ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS THE MAJOR NONCONFORMITY. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DISTANCE. IT'S A FRONT SETBACK OF 30FT. AND IN THIS LOCATION HERE IT'S 5.1FT. AND IN THIS LOCATION HERE IT IS 3.3FT. I'M SORRY. YEAH. 3.3FT. SO YOU CAN SEE VERY LARGE NON-CONFORMITIES. AND THEN ALONG IN THE FRONT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 30FT. AND IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 20FT. SO THOSE WERE THE NON-CONFORMITIES THAT WERE APPROVED PRIOR TO SAVE THE SHAPE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. THIS, THIS, THIS IS THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION. FRANCESCA MENTIONED THE KIND OF OLD FLORIDA BUNGALOW STYLE. YOU CAN SEE THE, THE FRONT PORCH WAS ENCLOSED. WE'RE OPENING THAT BACK UP TO MORE HISTORIC NATURE. WE ARE RAISING THE HOUSE APPROXIMATELY TWO FOOT TWO AND 3/8 INCH TO GET ABOVE THE FEMA ELEVATION TO GET US ABOVE THE REQUIRED FEMA MAP THERE AND DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION. AND WE'RE ADDING THESE TWO DORMERS, ONE ON EACH SIDE. AND HOPEFULLY THIS IS HELPFUL. KIND OF A EXISTING AT THE BOTTOM AND PROPOSED AT THE TOP. THE PROPOSED PORTIONS ARE IN SHADES OF GRAY. THE. THE WHITE AREA IS THE EXISTING SHAPE OF THE HOUSE. KEEP IN MIND THE CABANA THAT IS GOING ABOVE THE GARAGE IS 100% WITHIN THE EXISTING SETBACKS. SO THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE. YOU CAN SEE IT FITS WITHIN THE SPATIAL PERCEPTION AND THE EXISTING SETBACK LINE. SO THAT SMALL PROPOSED ADDITION ACTUALLY MEETS THE CURRENT CODE. WE WERE ABLE TO SQUEEZE THAT IN. SO BRINGING THIS BACK TO ITS HISTORIC CHARACTER BRINGING IT TO TODAY'S CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ABOVE FEMA. AND I'D SAY PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I'D LIKE TO JUST LEAVE YOU WITH IS THE FACT THAT WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS BEFORE YOU FOR AN EXPANSION NONCONFORMITY, THIS IS THE EXACT TWO, THE DIMENSION, THE EXACT HOUSE THAT YOU YOU REVIEWED, LOVED AND APPROVED. AND THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE THEY HAD ISSUES DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THEY HAD TO DEMOTE TOO MUCH. STAFF HAD PUT A STOP WORK ORDER ON THE PROJECT. [05:30:07] WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT STARTED SO WE CAN GET THIS FINISHED AGAIN. AND DURING THAT NONCONFORMITY PROCESS, IT SAYS IF IT'S REMOVED FOR ONE MINUTE YOU MUST GET A VARIANCE. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. SO ASKING FOR NOTHING MORE THAN WE'VE THAN WE ASKED FOR IN THE PAST, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE HAD SOME CONSTRUCTION ISSUES. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER'S AGENT OR. YES, VICE MAYOR, CLARIFY WHAT'S HAPPENING ALONG GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. LIKE, IS IT THE POOL? IS IT THE BUILDING? HOW MUCH AND WHAT IS ENCROACHING TOWARDS GULF SHORE BOULEVARD? I THINK THE WEST SIDE. THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. SO THIS IF YOU CAN SEE THIS, HOPEFULLY THIS IS THE EXISTING ON THE BOTTOM AND THE PROPOSED ON THE TOP. AND GULF SHORE BOULEVARD IS ALONG THE TOP OF THE PAGE HERE. SO IN THE EXISTING, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING MASS THAT KIND OF ON THE FRONT WEST PORTION OF THE OF THE PROPERTY THAT BUILDING MASS IS, IS LIKE IT IS BEFORE IN STAYING EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS LITTLE PORTION HERE WAS HABITABLE SPACE. THAT ROOF ELEMENT IS REMAINING, BUT THE BOTTOM PART IS BEING REMOVED. SO WE CAN SLIP A SMALL POOL AREA UNDERNEATH IT. SO THAT STRUCTURE ACTUALLY CARRIES THAT. EXISTING MASSING NOW CARRIES OVER A SMALL NEW POOL AREA. AND THAT WAS ALL IN THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER 3D RENDITION OF IT. THERE YOU CAN SEE THE THAT EXISTING ROOF LINE OUT THERE BEFORE THERE WAS HABITABLE SPACE IN IT. NOW THERE'S WATER UNDER IT. SO THE ROOF PART WAS ALREADY THERE. IT'S JUST YOU OPEN IT UP FOR THE POOL UNDERNEATH. THAT'S IT. YES, SIR. AND THERE'S SOMETHING IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO. YEAH. WELL SO THE NO, THAT THAT WAS OPEN SPACE BEFORE AND IS REMAINING OPEN SPACE AGAIN. AND THEN THIS LITTLE CABANA ABOVE THE GARAGE IS BEING ADDED. AND THAT IS FULLY WITHIN THE EXISTING SETBACKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS AGENT. NO. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. JEFF BRAMER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PETITIONERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE APPROVAL VARIANCE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SWIMMING POOL, POOL DECK AND POOL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED YARDS ON A NONCONFORMING LOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN OLD NAPLES. SPECIFICS OF THE REQUEST ARE RELATED TO SECTIONS OF THE LDC, WHICH ARE OUTLINED IN GREATER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUT QUICKLY, THE VARIANCE SEEKS RELIEF FROM REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE, AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE CODE SECTION FOR THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. LAST YEAR, THE PETITIONER SOUGHT AND RECEIVED VARIANCE AND NONCONFORMITY PETITION APPROVALS TO BUILD THIS PROJECT EXACTLY AS IT IS PROPOSED HERE AGAIN TODAY. SAME BUILDING SPECS. SAME ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. SAME STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT. SAME LANDSCAPING, SAME LIGHTING, EVERYTHING. THE REASON WE ARE BACK HERE IS BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON THOSE PREVIOUS APPROVALS WEREN'T MET. IN MAY 2025, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW A HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THE NON-CONFORMITY PETITION WAS NECESSARY TO RETAIN PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE UPON WHICH ADDITIONS WERE TO BE BUILT, WHICH DID NOT MEET CURRENT SETBACKS. THE RESOLUTION HAD TWO CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, THE PETITION INVOLVES THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE REBUILDING OF NEW STRUCTURES IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED OR THE NONCONFORMITIES ARE REMOVED. NUMBER TWO, SHOULD THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURES BE DEMOLISHED, EVEN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD, THE APPROVAL DISSOLVES AND THE PETITIONER MUST OBTAIN VARIANCE APPROVAL TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED PLANS, OR THE NEW STRUCTURE MUST BE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. IN MAY 2025, COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW VARIANCE FOR AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A SWIMMING POOL, POOL DECK AND POOL. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AGAIN IN THE R1 TEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT. GIVEN A NARROW LOT WITH FORMERLY EXISTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE THAT DID NOT CONFORM WITH CURRENT SETBACKS, [05:35:01] THE WEST SIDE FRONT YARD, GULF SHORE BOULEVARD SOUTH WAS THE ONLY LOCATION TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW POOL AND POOL DECK. THIS RESOLUTION ALSO HAD TWO CONDITIONS. THE VARIANCE IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE POOL, POOL DECK AND POOL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO ADDITIONS OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURES OR INSTALLATION OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. AND 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 THE HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN NOVEMBER 2025, THE PETITIONER RECEIVED A BUILDING PERMIT CLASSIFIED AS ADDITION ALTERATION WORK. THE PERMITTING SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED A SCOPE OF WORK PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. THE SCOPE OF WORK NARRATIVE INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF RECOGNITION OF SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AND WORK BEING COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, SOMETIME BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PERMITTING IN NOVEMBER 2025 AND LATE SPRING 2026, THE HISTORIC RESIDENCE CEASED TO EXIST AND THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES HAD BEEN REMOVED. IN JUNE, THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS MET WITH THE PETITIONER TO INFORM THEM OF NONCOMPLIANCE. NOW FOR THE PETITIONER TO BUILD. ACCORDING TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS, RE-APPROVAL OF A NEW VARIANCE FROM CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED. THE PETITIONER HAS PROVIDED THEIR EXPLANATIONS FOR WHAT HAPPENED. THEY'VE ALSO PRESENTED SOME ADDITIONAL FACTORS HERE FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY, INCLUDING A DEMONSTRATION OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO BUILD BY RIGHT ON THE LOT. THIS IS SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WAS ADDED POST THE PPAB MEETING. THE PETITION WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED THREE LETTERS GENERALLY OF SUPPORT. TWO OF THEM. ONE WAS REDRAFTED FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY. THE OTHER ONE I BELIEVE WAS A NEIGHBOR CLOSE BY. THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA ITEM IN YOUR PACKET. AS I MENTIONED, THE PAB HEARD THIS PETITION DURING ITS MEETING SEPTEMBER 9TH AND FOUND THE PETITION, MET THE CRITERIA FOR GRANT VARIANCE AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL BY A 6 TO 1 VOTE. SHOULD COUNCIL APPROVE THE VARIANCE, STAFF AND PAB RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER HAD ALREADY MENTIONED, BUT I'LL READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. THE VARIANCE IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SWIMMING POOL, POOL DECK AND POOL. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DEPICTED IN THE PLANS PROVIDED WITH THIS PETITION, AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO ADDITIONS OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURES, OR INSTALLATION OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. AND NUMBER TWO, THE GENERAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION LETTER BEING PROVIDED, CERTIFYING THAT THE HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF COMMENTS. AT THE MOMENT WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YES. VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR THAT SUMMARY. SO IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, STAFF INDICATED THAT THE VARIANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR AND SIX WERE MET, BUT FIVE AND SEVEN WERE NOT. BUT THE PEB FELT THAT THEY ALL WERE MET. THAT'S CORRECT. SO CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHY STAFF THOUGHT FIVE AND SEVEN WERE NOT MET? AND THEN MAYBE WHY? IF YOU KNOW WHY PEB THOUGHT THEY WERE. WELL SURE. I THINK IN THE FIRST SENTENCE AND FOR NUMBER FIVE, THE APPLICANT HAD TAKEN NO STEPS TO RELOCATE OR REDESIGN THE STRUCTURE SO THAT THE VARIANCE WASN'T NECESSARY AT THE TIME BEFORE PAB. THEY HADN'T PROVIDED ANY OF THOSE PLANS TO SHOW THAT, TO SHOW WHAT WAS POSSIBLE. THEY SIMPLY JUST PUSHED FORWARD WHAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BEFORE AND WANTED THAT RE-APPROVED AS FAR AS NOW. NOW, GRANTED, WHAT I JUST SAID WAS THEY HAVE SINCE PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION ON WHAT IS AVAILABLE. AND I THINK STAFF WOULD, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. WHAT IS REASONABLE? I THINK THEY'VE PUT FORWARD A DECENT ARGUMENT AS FAR AS REASONABLE STEPS. NUMBER SEVEN. I THINK THE PLIGHT WHY WE CAME BACK HERE WAS ENTIRELY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE. IT WAS GRANTED, IT WAS APPROVED, AND BECAUSE OF ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN OR THINGS THAT WERE DONE. WE HAD TO COME BACK HERE AGAIN BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL SAID DON'T DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. BUT THEY DID. THE ONION WAS PEELED BACK, BUT THE ONION WAS GONE. THERE WAS NO ONION. AND YEAH, COULD YOU READ FOR US, PLEASE, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE PLIGHT OF THE APPLICANT, [05:40:04] IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION PROVISION, THE APPLICANT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO STAND IN THE SHOES OF THEIR PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST. SO I THINK THE PETITIONER MADE A GOOD POINT THAT AT THE BEGINNING AND STAFF AGREED WITH THIS. INITIALLY, THE PLIGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS NOT THEIR FAULT. IT WAS SIMPLY THE LOT. THOSE ELEMENTS STILL EXIST. THAT HASN'T CHANGED. BUT I THINK LOOKING BACK AT THIS, THE PLIGHT TO COME BACK FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST ON SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED, I BELIEVE STAFF BELIEVES IT WAS ENTIRELY THEIR ACTIONS OR WHAT WAS NOT DONE TO TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS. AND THAT'S WHY IT CAME BACK. AND DID YOU SAY THEY SUPPLEMENTALLY PROVIDED SOMETHING THAT SHOWED WHAT A CONFORMING HOUSE WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THIS LOT SINCE SINCE PAB AND AND SHE WENT THROUGH THAT. THEY ARE NOW SHOWING WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE. AND IT'S BASICALLY THIS LONG NARROW. THERE WE GO. YEAH. SO HOW REASONABLE IS THAT. AND THEY ALSO BRING UP A GOOD POINT. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ICONIC STRUCTURE. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO THAT. WOULD THERE BE ALLOWED A OF POOL UNDER CODE IN THAT IN A FRONT YARD WEST SIDE WHERE THERE'S MORE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED WHATEVER BY CODE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED WHATEVER FITS IN THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE. OKAY. I REMEMBER I THOUGHT A POOL COULD ENCROACH A CERTAIN AMOUNT, BUT IT'S NOT NOT INTO A FRONT YARD. AND THE MAJORITY OF WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A FRONT YARD. THERE'S A REDUCED POOL SETBACK. IS IT CONSIDERED TO HAVE THREE FRONT YARDS? IT'S TWO FRONT YARDS. BUT THERE'S AN ALLEYWAY WHICH MAKES THAT A REAR YARD. YEAH, IT'S A WEIRD LOT, RIGHT? IT IS AN INTERESTING LOT. OKAY. BUT THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY KNOWING THAT. I MEAN THEY BOUGHT IT TO FLIP. IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE THEY KNOW, OH, I WAS ON THE MARKET A YEAR AFTER THEY BOUGHT IT. SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO CLARIFY? OKAY, FINE. BECAUSE I MEAN. JUST BECAUSE THIS IS HARD FOR STAFF TO RESPOND TO, THIS IS A FAMILY LOT. SO THIS IS BEING BUILT BY THE FAMILY. THE FAMILY ACTUALLY BUILT A COTTAGE ON 10TH AVENUE AND THE OCEAN, AND IT RETAINED THE COTTAGE FEEL OF THAT PROPERTY. THE FAMILY IS GOING TO RESIDE IN THIS PROPERTY. SO THIS IS NOT SPECULATIVE AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY RELEVANT, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THAT PUT BE PUT INTO THE RECORD. JUST TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. WELL, IT'S PROBABLY TO SET THAT VARIANCE AS YOU KIND OF LOOK AT HARDSHIP TOO AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I MEAN, THEY, THEY, THEY BOUGHT IT IN AUGUST. 130424 AND THEY HAD ON THE MARKET JANUARY 4TH OF 25 AND THEN TOOK IT OFF MARCH OF 25. SO IT WAS A ALMOST DOUBLING THE PRICE. SO THEY DID LIKE AT SOME POINT ATTEMPT TO SELL IT, MAYBE REALIZING THE LOT HAD THESE RESTRICTIONS AND THEN MAYBE NOT WANTING TO GO THROUGH IT. ANY DID YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS? PARDON? I HAVE A QUESTION. MISS NOVAK CAN SPEAK IF NEEDED. I JUST CONFERRED WITH HER AND SHE CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT BEING ON THE MARKET. IF IT IF IF IT IF IT I. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK DIRECTLY? THIS IS. I'LL RAISE MY HAND. MISS NOVAK, CAN YOU COME FORWARD? THANK YOU. YEAH, I YEAH. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. IF YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS MARIE NOVAK. AND NO, I'M NOT AWARE THAT IT WAS EVER ON THE MARKET. WE. THE HOUSE WAS NEVER LISTED ON MLS. WE PURCHASED IT DIRECTLY FROM THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY BECAUSE BY WORD OF MOUTH, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A FAMILY THAT WOULD BUY THIS HOUSE TO TRY AND RESTORE IT LIKE IT'S THE COTTAGEY STYLE HOUSE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE BOUGHT IT DIRECTLY FROM THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. BUT I'M NOT AWARE THAT THE HOUSE WAS EVER REMARKETED OR RELISTED OR ANYTHING. [05:45:04] AND IF IT IF IT WAS TEMPORARILY, IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING TO SEE IF WE COULD EVER GET APPROVAL ON WHAT WE WANTED TO DO TO THE HOUSE, BECAUSE IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO TEAR IT DOWN, THEN WE WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD IT. WE WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD ANYTHING ON IT. SO I'M NOT AWARE THAT IT WAS ON THE MARKET AS FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE IS. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN WANTING TO TO RENOVATE THE HOUSE. OKAY. AND WE'RE GOING TO USE THE HOUSE. OKAY. KRAMER. THANK YOU. TWO THOUGHTS. CAN YOU GO TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION WHEN THEY PULLED THE FLOOR AND YOU CAN SEE THE SKETCHINESS. GOING BANG. SO I'D SUGGEST THAT SUPPLIED NOT OF THEIR OWN DOING. AND YOU COULD HAVE BOUGHT IT AND NOT KNOWN THAT. THAT'S FOR SURE. THERE'S NO HOUSE INSPECTION THAT'S GOING TO SHOW YOU THAT HAVING DONE TWO REMODELS ON OLD HOMES HERE MYSELF. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND WHEN YOU START TEARING STUFF APART. ALSO, WHO CARES IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL IT? WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN THAT. IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. WHAT IS OUR BUSINESS IS MAINTAINING THE CHARM, CHARACTER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, OF OUR TOWN, AND BUILDING THAT HORIZONTAL THING THAT SOMEONE COULD DO BY. RIGHT. AIN'T IT? THAT'S GROSS. AND ANOTHER THING THAT. WELL, LET ME THEN. I HAVE THREE THINGS. I JUST REALIZED I HAVE SOMETHING ELSE. THEN THE OTHER THOUGHT IS. SO WHEN THEY FIRST CAME TO US, I WENT AND WATCHED LAST NIGHT'S MEET OR SORRY, LAST NIGHT. I'M TIRED. I WATCHED THE MEETING FROM MAY 2025. YOU LOOK GREAT. BURN, BY THE WAY. HE SPOKE A LOT IN THAT MEETING. I DIDN'T SAY A WORD. I AIM TO PLEASE. IT WAS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY. AND FOR MY PART, IF THIS IF THEY HAD COME TO US IN AT THAT TIME AND, AND SAID, LISTEN, AND THEY KNEW THIS AND THEY SAID IN ORDER FOR US TO MEET CURRENT CODE AND TO MAKE THIS VIABLE AND SOMETHING THAT COULD BE RESILIENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THE HISTORICAL MATERIALS PART AND AND BUILD. IT WASN'T RED IRON, BUT STEEL STRUCTURED AND, AND MODERNIZE THIS THING. BUT IN THE END, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THIS PRODUCT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOWED US IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. I'M NOT A VARIANCE GUY, ESPECIALLY NOTHING COMMERCIAL EVER. BUT FOR SOMETHING THIS SIGNIFICANT ON THIS LOT, WELL, IT JUST IT WOULD BE COMMON SENSE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO SELL IT OR NOT. SELL IT. WHO CARES? THAT HAS NOTHING. THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS. HAVING SAID THAT, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'VE GOT THIS LETTER FROM ANDY REID FROM THE NAPLES HISTORICAL SOCIETY FULLY ENDORSING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO AND THIS IS INTERESTING TO ME. THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE USABLE HISTORIC MATERIAL RETAINED FROM THE ORIGINAL COTTAGE AND INCORPORATED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. AND I THINK THAT'S A BIG DEAL. AND THERE'S NOT A SECOND GO AT THAT. THERE'S NO DO OVERS AT THAT. SO YOU CAN DENY IT AND THEN GO ON DOWN THE ROAD AND. HA HA. THEY DIDN'T GET TO FLIP A HOUSE OR WHATEVER THAT IS. AND. AND WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT UNBUILDABLE LOT. WELL, I PROPOSE AGAIN, IF THEY WERE TO COME TO US FOR THOSE THOSE OF US THAT WERE ON THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME. NOW, I THINK I ALSO HAVE TO SAY THE MOMENT THAT THEY WERE DECONSTRUCTING IT, WHOEVER WAS RUNNING THE PUSHING THE JOB SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE, OH, WE GOT A PROBLEM. WE NEED TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE CITY AND SAY, HEY, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. THIS IS AN ANTICIPATED. WE'RE STUCK. WHAT DO WE DO? AND THEN WE'D HAVE BEEN SEEING IT ANYWAY, BUT PERHAPS WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN. IT WOULDN'T BE CONTENTIOUS, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN. SO IT IS OUT OF ORDER. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT BUT IN THE END IT'S RESIDENTIAL. IT'S AS OUR HISTORICAL SOCIETY IS POINTING OUT, LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO USE AS MUCH AS WE CAN. WE'RE GOING TO RECLAIM THESE MATERIALS. IT IS THE EXACT SAME PROJECT WE APPROVED IN 2025. SO IT'S PALATABLE FOR ME. I DON'T LIKE HOW IT WENT DOWN, BUT IT IS PALATABLE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANKS. THANK YOU. PARDON? SO. WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS, IS THE AND CORRECT MY LANGUAGE. [05:50:03] ERICA, IF I MESS SOMETHING UP HERE. EXPANSION OF THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMITY THAT WAS APPROVED HAS BEEN DISSOLVED. AND THAT WAS DISSOLVED BECAUSE OF DEMO. THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED. IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF WHAT WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH HERE. THAT IS ACCURATE. OKAY. AND I AND I AGREE WITH, WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE COUNCILMAN KRAMER, FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IT'S, IT'S IRRITATING AND FRUSTRATING FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IN MY OPINION, IT WASN'T DONE AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. FROM THE, AND I SAY THAT WHEN I SAY THAT, I MEAN THAT, THAT INSTEAD OF DEMOING IT, THEY, THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID, OH NO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEMO THIS AND THEY SHOULD HAVE COME BACK TO THE CITY AND SAID, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM. BUT BEFORE DEMOING. SO OUT ON THE TABLE, I'M, I'M WITH YOU ON THAT. IT IRRITATES ME AS WELL. WITH THAT SAID THE TWO CRITERIA THAT STAFF HAD AN ISSUE WITH, ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT SHOWED US THAT LITTLE ITTY BITTY, NARROW THING THAT COULD BE DONE BASED ON CURRENT STANDARD CODE STANDARDS. AND I AGREE THAT I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PERVERSE THAT THAT SHOULDN'T BE ON THAT STREET. THE, THE SEVENTH ONE WAS OF THEIR OWN DOING WAS THE, WAS THE CONCERN FROM STAFF. THEY DID THIS AND THEREFORE THEY CAUSED THIS RIGHT. AGAIN. IS THAT RIGHT? I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT THAT WAS YOUR CONTENTION WITH THAT WITH NUMBER SEVEN. HOW WE GOT HERE. YES. AND AND BY THE WAY, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW. AS I, AS I JUST DISCUSSED WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THESE PICTURES THAT WE'VE GOT HERE ON THE, ON THE PAGE. WHEN THEY SAW THAT THE, THE CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE AFTER THEY STARTED TO GET INTO IT. AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S, IT'S THE, THE STANDARDS ARE NOT THERE FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID, OH, THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEMO THIS THING AND WE HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT. WE CAN'T JUST SLAP A SOME SOME HARDIE BOARD ON HERE AND CALL IT A DAY. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THAT DOESN'T MEET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THEY SHOULD HAVE COME TO US AND SAID, THIS IS THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO. AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN THE RIGHT ORDER. BUT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THIS THIS IS NOT OF THEIR OWN DOING. THEY NEEDED TO DO WHAT THEY DID. THEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED US FIRST. THEY SHOULD HAVE COME TO US FIRST AND DONE IT IN THE RIGHT METHODOLOGY. STILL, WE STILL MAY BE RIGHT HERE WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND HAVING TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. EVEN IF THEY DID DO THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BROKEN THE RULES OF DEMOING A PORTION OF THE HOME. SO WE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE HAVING THIS EXACT SAME DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE LESS IRRITATED ABOUT HAVING IT NOW. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS WASN'T OF THEIR OWN DOING. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THAT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THEY NEEDED TO DEMO IT. THEY NEEDED TO DO AT LEAST PARTIAL PORTION OF IT AND GET IT DONE RIGHT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IT THAT IT IS DONE RIGHT. AND IF WE WERE SITTING HERE DISCUSSING SOME, SOME TYPE OF APPROVAL OF SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ALREADY APPROVED BACK IN MAY OF 2025. I. I'D BE LIKE, HEY, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR LITTLE SKINNY HOME BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. BUT INSTEAD, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE SAYING, OOPS, MEA CULPA. WE WERE BUILDING THE EXACT SAME THING THAT YOU GUYS APPROVED BACK IN 2025. THAT'S THAT'S CRITICAL TO ME. THE, THE OTHER, NOT ONLY ARE WE DOING THIS FOR THEM, THEORETICALLY, IF WE APPROVE THIS, BUT WE'RE DOING IT FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS. BECAUSE IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, THE SOMEBODY ENDS UP BUYING THAT THING. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IN THIS LITTLE SKINNY HOME, AND IT'S GOING TO COMPLETELY MESS UP THE CHARM AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS ISN'T JUST SIMPLY FOR THE PETITIONER. THIS IS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THIS HOME SO THAT THE, THE CHARMING CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY AND FRANKLY, A HISTORICAL HOME IS PRESERVED AND BORN AND RAISED HERE. GUYS, I, I EMBRACE THESE OLDER HOMES GETTING PRESERVED BECAUSE IT BREAKS MY HEART WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS DISAPPEARS AND WE END UP WITH SOME MONSTROSITY, YOU KNOW, THAT EVERYBODY GOES, WELL, THAT DOESN'T FIT, YOU KNOW, BUT THERE WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD IT. SO THEY DO IT. SO I LOVE IT WHEN WE WHEN WE HAVE PETITIONERS IN HERE TRYING TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN AN OLDER HISTORICAL HOME AND IN THIS SCENARIO, ALSO MAINTAINING THE CHARMING CHARACTER OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKING SURE THERE'S CONTINUITY THERE. SO YES, IT'S IRRITATING THE, THE, THE WAY THIS WAS DONE FROM A STANDPOINT OF THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. HOWEVER, ULTIMATELY, IN MY OPINION, THE RIGHT DECISION HERE IS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS IN ADDITION TO THE RIGHT DECISION FOR PRESERVING A HISTORICAL HOME IN NAPLES WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. [05:55:02] I, I WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER THING THEY ACKNOWLEDGED. CAN YOU REMEMBER YOUR NAME, MA'AM? BUT WHEN YOU WERE THERE, I REMEMBER FROM THE MEETING THEY ACKNOWLEDGED LAST TIME. LOOK, IF WE IF IT HAPPENS THAT WE DO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME. IF WE DO DECONSTRUCT SOMETHING OR THIS, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORICAL PART. WE HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR A VARIANCE. LIKE THEY EVEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE MEETING THAT THIS WAS NECESSARY. IF THAT HAPPENED AND IT WAS JUST KIND OF IN PASSING, I THOUGHT IT WAS CURSORY THAT YOU ALWAYS WOULD HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT YOU DO, BUT THIS WAS A POSSIBILITY AND IT MAY MAYBE IT'S THAT WAY FOR EVERY TIME THAT WE DEAL WITH THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY AND THERE'S RULES ATTACHED. I'M GUESSING THAT'S THE CASE. SO I JUST WANT TO I'M JUST RE-EMPHASIZING WHAT? BERNARD SAID THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WE COULD HAVE COME BACK HERE AND. AND I JUST WANT TO BITE OUR NOSE OFF TO SPITE OUR FACE HERE. THANK YOU. ANY CLOSING REMARKS? TO CLARIFY ONE THING. SO DEMOLITION AND DISASSEMBLY THAT THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THOSE DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGIES. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP, I THINK YOU QUOTED DON'T DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AS THE CONDITION OF THE RESOLUTION. WHAT I WANT TO TIE TOGETHER IS THE RESOLUTION, IN SOME RESPECTS, ANTICIPATED THE COMPLEXITY OF HISTORIC PROJECTS. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A HELPFUL SLIDE IN THAT THESE MATERIALS, IF THEY WERE NOT TAKEN DOWN, I UNDERSTAND THEY THEY WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO WEAVE IN THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT REQUIRED BY THE PLANT AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND SAVE THE THE MATERIALS. WE ADMITTED THAT THINGS WERE DONE IN THE WRONG ORDER. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO CHALLENGING. BUT THE CRITERIA STANDING ON THEIR OWN, IN OUR VIEW, ARE SATISFIED. AND WITH THAT, I CLOSE AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A MOTION. WE JUST HAVE A COMMENT. YES. SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THIS SITUATION AND HOW HOW THEY GOT HERE. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ALL ARE SAYING. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE BUILDING COMMUNITY OUT THERE THAT IT'S EASIER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION THAT COME IN, GET PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING, THEN DO WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO ANYWAY AND SAY, OOPS, I'M SORRY, LET ME DO WHAT I WANTED TO DO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S THE CASE HERE. I'M JUST SAYING I WANT US TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT SENDING A WRONG MESSAGE UNINTENTIONALLY TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND I'M REALLY GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. THAT'S 100% THE CASE. STRONGLY ECHO THAT SENTIMENT. ABSOLUTELY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER, THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY SHOULD WE NOT CARE ABOUT SALES? NOW, THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS ABOUT HARDSHIP. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BUYING A HISTORIC PROPERTY. IT'S HISTORICALLY PRESERVED, SO YOU CAN'T MESS WITH IT. YOU KNOW, THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE LOT. YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE WHEN YOU BUY IT, BUT KNOWING. SO YOU BUY IT FOR X DOLLARS. OKAY. AND THAT SELLER SELLING IT BASED ON KNOWING THAT HE CAN'T DO ALL THIS STUFF, THE NEW BUYER THINKING, WELL, HEY, IF I COULD JUST GET A SMART ATTORNEY AND THIS AND THAT AND GET A VARIANCE, IT'S GOING TO BE WORTH $3 MILLION MORE WITH THAT VARIANCE. SO ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, THIS BECOMES A MONEY MAKING THING, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO SEND THAT SIGNAL OUT THERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO VARIANCES ARE GOING TO ASSUME TO GET PASSED BECAUSE IN THE END, YOU KNOW, YOU BUY SOMETHING, YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, YOU'RE BUYING A HISTORIC PROPERTY, YOU REALIZE YOU JUST CAN'T PULL THE STUFF OFF AND, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO PRESERVE IT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SAY HARDSHIP TO ME, WHICH I LOOK AT AS PART OF OUR VARIANCE APPLICATION. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT I WAS KIND OF GOING AT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I AGREE IN THAT CONTEXT, THAT'S THE CASE. IF THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE IN THAT WE HAVE AN ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, WHO WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER, WHO HAD A COMMERCIAL VARIANCE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO NOW RETURNING IT BACK TO RESIDENTIAL. I MEAN, THERE ARE MITIGATING FACTORS IN THIS CASE, WHICH I HOPE HELPS SEND THE MESSAGE THAT VICE MAYOR SAYING THAT THIS ISN'T A FREE PASS BY ANY. THIS IS A ONE OFF. EVERY VARIANCE IS. BUT I WOULD HATE TO SEND IT. WELL, PUT IT THIS WAY. IF YOU'RE A BUILDER AND YOU'RE GETTING THAT MESSAGE, YOU'RE GETTING THE WRONG MESSAGE. OKAY. [06:00:02] THANK YOU. CLARIFICATIONS. DO I HAVE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT, MAYOR, WITH YOUR PERMISSION. THANK YOU. MA'AM, I'D LIKE TO. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 11GA RESOLUTION DETERMINING VARIANCE PETITION 26-V8. PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 46-37, 58-176, 56-41, AND 56-45 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. AS DESCRIBED WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT STAFF PROVIDED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. MADAM CLERK. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRULL. YES. HESITANTLY. BUT. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CRULL. I BELIEVE THAT'S CALLED A PREGNANT PAUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S MY BERNARD BARTON WITHDRAWAL. I'M STILL GOING THROUGH FROM SITTING OVER THERE. I NEED A FIVE MINUTE. OH, GOOD. GOOD. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK AND CONTINUING ON WITH AGENDA ITEM 14, A MRS. [14.A) Interview one Applicant for the Code Enforcement Board.] GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. ITEM 14 A IS AN INTERVIEW THAT. WITH MR. JOHN LANGLEY, WE RECEIVED HIS APPLICATION FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. HE WAS OUT OF TOWN, UNFORTUNATELY, ON MONDAY AND BEFORE WE DO THE APPOINTMENTS, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE MR. LANGLEY UP TO THE DESK AND HAVE COUNCIL CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW. THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. SURE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. THANKS FOR ACCOMMODATING ME. YEAH. NO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE GASPARILLA INN WITH THE NAPLES CRUISE CLUB. WHAT A GORGEOUS PLACE YOU'VE BEEN. SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME COME IN TODAY. ABSOLUTELY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE WITH US ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU'VE CHOSEN TO APPLY FOR THIS BOARD? WELL, MY EXPERIENCE THAT I GATHERED LATE LAST YEAR AND EARLY THIS YEAR RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE I TRIED TO JUMP OVER TOO MANY HURDLES, AND MAYBE I NEED TO GET TO KNOW THE CITY GOVERNMENT BETTER. SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO START. MAYBE NOT AT THE BOTTOM, BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE HALFWAY UP TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK. AND YOU KNOW, I REALLY HAVE THE TIME. I'M HERE YEAR ROUND, AND I REALLY WANT TO MAKE NAPLES A BETTER PLACE. THANK YOU. BETTER THAN IT IS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER LANGLEY? OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. I WILL. I REALLY ENCOURAGE JOHN TO APPLY BECAUSE I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME, AND I KNOW HOW CONSISTENT HE IS. AND HE HAS A FIRM MORAL COMPASS. AND I JUST THOUGHT IT'D BE A REALLY GOOD MEMBER OF THAT BOARD. ADD TO THAT, I ALSO KNOW JOHN FAIRLY WELL, AND I CONCUR HE WOULD BE A GREAT, GREAT GUY TO TO, TO BE NOMINATED AND VOTED IN HERE. AND AGAIN, JOHN, WE APPRECIATE YOU STEPPING UP AND AND VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME FOR THIS PARTICULAR ENDEAVOR? OKAY. WELL WITH THAT, WE'RE ABOUT TO MAKE OUR APPOINTMENT, SO THANK YOU FOR APPLYING. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. CAN I JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT? YES, SIR. IF YOU DO GET APPOINTED, WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW AT 2 P.M.. LAST THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH. YEAH, WELL, THIS MONTH IS THIS IS TOMORROW, WHICH IS THE THIRD. YEAH. I CAN BE HERE. ALL RIGHT. COOL. THANK YOU. AND THANKS FOR WAITING. SINCE BEFORE LUNCH. YES. AND NOTHING LIKE A CRUISE TO COME BACK AND GET RIGHT TO WORK. YES. THANK YOU. MRS. HRABOWSKI. SO ITEM 14 B ARE THE APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS HERE. AND FIRST WE'LL START WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. WE HAVE TWO REGULAR MEMBERS THE CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWED MIKE FOSSETT ON MONDAY AND OF COURSE, MR. LANGLEY, TODAY I PREPARED A SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS IN YOUR PACKET. SO YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR EACH ITEM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO READ THOSE. NOW FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. THANK YOU. [06:05:06] A QUESTION, MISS RAMBO'S IN THE AGENDA. ARE THE TITLES THE SAME AS THE RESOLUTION TITLES? BECAUSE I CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE RESOLUTIONS DUE TO THE. OH, OKAY, SO I COULD. THANK YOU. YEAH, JUST TO BE SURE. APPRECIATE IT. DO YOU WANT TO GO ONE ONE AT A TIME, MAYOR? [14.B) (1) Consider a Resolution reappointing Mike Faucett as a Regular Member of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Naples for a Full Three-Year Term beginning October 18, 2026 and expiring October 17, 2029; and providing an Effective Date;   (2) Consider a Resolution appointing John Langley as a Regular Member of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Naples for a Three-Year Term commencing October 21, 2026 and expiring October 20, 2029; and providing an Effective Date;   (3) Consider a Resolution reappointing Jessica Douglas to the Independent Commission on Ethics and Governmental Integrity of the City of Naples for a Four-Year Term commencing November 17, 2026 and expiring November 16, 2030; and providing an Effective Date; and   (4) A Resolution reappointing Jerome Fons as a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Police Officers’ Retirement Trust Fund of the City of Naples for a Two-Year Term commencing November 2, 2026 and expiring November 1, 2028; and providing an Effective Date.] YES, PLEASE. RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MIKE FAWCETT AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR A FULL THREE YEAR TERM BEGINNING OCTOBER 18TH, 2026 AND EXPIRING OCTOBER 17TH, 2029 AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO MOVED. OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR IS OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? GREAT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JOHN LANGLEY AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR A THREE YEAR TERM COMMENCING OCTOBER 21ST, 2026 AND EXPIRING OCTOBER 20TH, 2029 AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE THE ETHICS COMMISSION. CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWED JESSICA DOUGLAS AT THE MONDAY WORKSHOP AND SHE IS SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT. A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING JESSICA DOUGLAS TO THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND GOVERNMENTAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR A FOUR YEAR TERM COMMENCING NOVEMBER 17TH, 2026 AND EXPIRING NOVEMBER 16TH, 2030. AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SECOND. MOTION BY BLANKENSHIP AND A SECOND BY BARTON. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I. I. OPPOSED. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND LAST IS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT TRUST FUND. MR. JEROME FONS INTERVIEWED ON MONDAY FOR THAT REAPPOINTMENT. AND THAT'S THE ONLY APPLICANT WE HAVE A A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING JEROME FONS AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT TRUST FUND OF THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR A TWO YEAR TERM COMMENCING NOVEMBER 2ND, 2026 AND EXPIRING NOVEMBER 1ST, 2028 AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY KROLL AND SECONDED BY SCHULTZ. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I, I PROPOSED GREAT COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY FILLING THE BOARD'S. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. MRS. RAMOS, THAT CONCLUDES ITEM 14 B AND 14 A GOING BACK. 1313 C YES, MA'AM. A A RESOLUTION. [13.C) A Resolution Selecting and Awarding Contracts to Ten (10) Utility Contractors for Annual Utility Maintenance and Repair Services. The City of Naples Relies on These As-Needed Contractual Arrangements for a Three-Year Period, with Two Optional One-Year Renewals, to Maintain Adequate Service Levels Across Water, Sewer, Reclaim, and Stormwater Systems; authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Order; Providing for Scrivener’s Errors; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Title).] A RESOLUTION SELECTING AND AWARDING CONTRACTS TO TEN UTILITY CONTRACTORS FOR ANNUAL UTILITY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES. OH, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE FULL TITLE. CITY OF NAPLES RELIES ON THESE AS AS NEEDED CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH TWO OPTION OPTIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWALS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SERVICE LEVELS ACROSS WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER, PROVIDING PRESCRIPTION RESERVES AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, BEFORE MR. YOUNG GETS INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THERE WERE A FEW MINOR EDITS I HAVE TO MAKE TO THE TITLE AND RESOLUTION PRIOR TO SIGNATURE. I JUST DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MENTION IT TO YOU ALL. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, THOSE ARE DEEMED TO BE SCRIVENER'S SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CORRECT? INSTEAD OF PURCHASE ORDER, IT'S AGREEMENTS. IT'S VERY MINOR THINGS, BUT THIS WAS PART OF THE SUPPLEMENT THAT WAS ISSUED TO YOU ON MONDAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO. YEAH. MR. YILMAZ OR DOCTOR YILMAZ IS HERE TO DISCUSS THIS IN DETAIL. SHOULD ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IN MY TIME HERE AS TENURE YOU KNOW, UTILITY UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTORS ARE ESSENTIAL TO OUR OPERATIONS. AND AS THE AGM DEPICTS TO YOU HAVING THEM AS A LIBRARY TO COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER WHEN IT'S A NON-EMERGENCY SITUATION TO GET MULTIPLE QUOTES. THOSE ARE UTILIZED TO THEIR FULLEST EXTENT. AND THEN WHEN YOU ARE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WHETHER A DECLARED DECLARED EMERGENCY OR JUST AN EMERGENCY LIKE WE EXPERIENCED THE OTHER OTHER DAY THAT THEY ARE AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE. SO I'LL LET DOCTOR GEORGE EXPAND IF SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT. BUT I DO WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE 250 TO 300,000 IN THE A G M IS DEPICTED TO YOU THAT IN 2016 IT WAS 200,020 21 WHEN THEY THE NEW LIBRARY WAS AWARDED, IT WENT TO 250. IF YOU INDEX THAT BACK TO 216 TO 221, IT WAS ABOUT 225,000. [06:10:07] REMINDER THIS IS A THREE YEAR AGREEMENT WITH TWO YEAR OPTIONS. SO THEY BUILT IN SOME CUSHION. IF YOU TAKE THAT SAME 200,000 INDEX IT TO 2026 YEAR ROUND, 285. AND IF YOU TAKE THE 250,000 FROM 2021, AN INDEX THAT YOU'RE AT 310. SO I FELT 300,000 WAS A FAIR NUMBER. IT'S SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE, YOU KNOW, FULL INDEXING OF THAT. IT DOES. AND IT MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT ANYTHING ABOVE 300,000, WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AND WE MAY EXECUTE WHATEVER IS NEEDED, BUT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL. AND IN THE EVENT THAT IT'S IN A NON-EMERGENCY WE WOULD COME TO YOU BEFOREHAND TO AWARD ANY CONTRACT. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THAT DEPICTS IS WE HAVE THE ABILITY WITH THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN A NON-EMERGENCY SITUATION TO COMPETITIVELY PRICE AND HAVE SPEND AUTHORITY UP TO 300 ON ANY ONE INCIDENT. SO THAT'S THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF IT. AND WITH THAT, I DO WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO, TO DOCTOR GEORGE AND OR YOU TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN OPEN DIALOG ON THE SUBJECT MATTER. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THIS AGENDA ITEM WITH ALL THE RESOURCES IT WILL BRING, IS MISSION CRITICAL FOR EXPEDITED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. 247365 FOR ALL CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER IQ AS WELL AS ROAD RESTORATION. THEREAFTER AND, AND RESPONDING TO EMERGENCIES AT THE PLANTS AS WELL. THE CITY NEEDS TO BE AGILE TO RESPOND TO ER REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY, AS IT WAS EVIDENT WITH RECENT EVENTS THAT THE CITY WAS ABLE TO MITIGATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE RISK THAT WAS DISCOVERED AROUND FRIDAY SUNSET. AND THAT WAS FIXED BEFORE SUNRISE SATURDAY. ALL HANDS ON DECK. WE HAD ALL OUR FIELD STAFF IN THE FIELD MANAGING 128 DOMESTIC WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS AND MOVING THE FLOW WITHOUT ANY SERVICE INTERRUPTION. SO IT'S A HYBRID WORK. IT'S NOT JUST CONTRACTOR GOING OUT THERE DOING IT FOR US. CONTRACTOR IS AUGMENTATION TO FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO RETAIN ALL THOSE RESOURCES AVAILABLE ON JUST STANDBY. SO AS SUMMARIZED WITH OUR CITY MANAGER, IT FINANCIALLY MAKES SENSE AND WILL BE BEFORE YOU FOR PLANNED MAINTENANCE, OVER 300 AND ANYTHING OVER 300 AS PART OF OUR OVERNIGHT EMERGENCIES THAT WE HAVE TO GET IT FIXED, MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPACT AND SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, AND THAT WILL BE RECTIFIED. SO WITH THAT WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THESE AUGMENTATION AND ON STANDBY RESOURCES AND SERVICES THAT CITY DESPERATELY NEEDS. OKAY, I HAVE COUNCIL VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. IN GENERAL, THIS MAKES SENSE. ALL TEN OF THE CONTRACTORS LISTED. DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THEM AND WORKING WITH THEM IN THE PAST? AND YOU'VE BEEN SATISFIED WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE? YES. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST IS THERE A SOMEWHERE IN OUR ACCOUNTING THAT WE CAN GO AND SEE WHERE, HOW MUCH AND HOW MANY TIMES THAT WE'VE HAD TO USE OR HAVE THE SPECIAL ORDERS. TASK ORDERS? YEAH. THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE'S, ONE IS EVERYTHING IS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM. SO IF YOU JUST WANTED US TO PULL THE ACCOUNTS THAT HIT THESE CONTRACTORS, WE CAN PULL THAT. THE OTHER PART OF IT IS IT WOULDN'T TELL YOU THE WHOLE STORY, THOUGH. WHEN YOU GET THE PRICING, UNLESS YOU GET INTO OUR ERP SYSTEM. TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ON REQUISITIONS, WHEN YOU'RE PRICING THESE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THOSE PRICE QUOTES WILL BE LOADED INTO THE REQUISITION SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU PUT THIS LETTER OF INTEREST OUT AND YOU PUT IT OUT TO TEN, AND MAYBE ONLY FOUR CAME IN WITH BIDS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE WORK AND THEY CAN'T PICK IT UP. BUT THOSE THINGS ARE ALSO, EXCUSE ME, RECORDED IN A PDF IS MAINTAINED AT EACH REQUISITION. NOW YOU DO HAVE EMERGENCIES WHERE YOU ALREADY HAVE THEM WORKING ON CERTAIN THINGS AND YOU THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE. AND YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET THEM DONE. [06:15:01] BUT YEAH, SO, SO TO THE EXTENT I CAN REPORT TO YOU, EVERY ONE OF THEM WE USED AND THE AMOUNTS JUST LIKE I DID ON THOSE, THE LAST AGREEMENTS THAT YOU HAD AND PULL THAT INFORMATION. BUT I ALSO WANTED TO AT LEAST LET YOU KNOW TO THAT ONLY TELL YOU HALF THE STORY IF ALL I DO IS TELL YOU WHAT WAS SPENT. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY COMPETED AGAINST EACH OTHER TO GET THE BEST PRICE, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL MORE DETAIL. BUT IT IS IN OUR ERP SYSTEM, SO I GUESS I HOPE, I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY EXTRACT WHAT WE SPENT TO THESE VENDORS IN RELATIVELY SHORT ORDER. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. MOTION. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AWARDING OF CONTRACTS TO THESE TEN UTILITY CONTRACTORS FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KROLL. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I, I OPPOSED. GREAT. THANK YOU COUNCIL, AND THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK. I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT AND I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO 13 D. NICE. I'M ON IT. WELL DONE. YES THANK YOU. SO THIS WASN'T JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT. I'LL QUICKLY GO THROUGH. SO PURSUANT TO 286.011 SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS ANNOUNCING HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE CONCERNING EITHER SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION STYLED CITY OF NAPLES VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ET AL. CASE NUMBER 2026-CA-1094N FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2026 AT APPROXIMATELY 130 OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE SESSION SCHEDULED AT 1230 IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 60 MINUTES BUT MAY END EARLIER. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. ANY ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL WILL HAPPEN EITHER WHEN WE RECONVENE OR AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING. FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS BILL KRAMER, BERN BARTON, TED BLANKENSHIP, JOHN KRULL, SCOTT SCHULTZ, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ANDREW DICKMAN, ATTORNEY JAMIE COLE, ATTORNEY RICHARD ROSENGARTEN, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DINSMORE REPORTING. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT ANNOUNCEMENT. OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT TAKES US TO ITEM [15.A) First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 46-35, Nonconformities.   An Ordinance Amending Section 46-35 by Adding Subsection (1) to Paragraph (B); Expanding, Enlarging or Changing a Nonconformity, of Article II, Administrative Procedures, Chapter 46, Administration, Procedures and Enforcement, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for the Purpose of Providing Administrative Approval for the Expansion of Nonconforming Single Family Residences for Elevating a Structure in its Existing Footprint, up to Design Flood Elevation, with the Provision of Means of Egress that is the Minimum Necessary to Satisfy the Florida Building Code Regulations; Approving Text Amendment 26-T3; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and Providing an Effective Date. ] 15 A. HOPEFULLY, THIS IS THE TITLE, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4635 BY ADDING SUBSECTION ONE TO PARAGRAPH B. EXPANDING, ENLARGING OR CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY OF ARTICLE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. CHAPTER 46 ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. FOR ELEVATING A STRUCTURE AND ITS EXISTING FOOTPRINT UP TO DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION WITH THE PROVISION OF MEANS OF EGRESS THAT IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS. APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT 26 T THREE PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY CORRECTION OR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THAT WAS CORRECT. THANKS. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE FOR YOU TODAY. THIS IS RELATED TO THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMITIES. WE HAVE A LITTLE PRESENTATION. BUT ESSENTIALLY EXPLAINING WHAT A NONCONFORMITY IS. NONCONFORMITY MEANS THAT THE STRUCTURE OR USE WAS LAWFUL AT THE TIME OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEN IT WAS A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT RENDERED IT NON CONFORMING TO THE CURRENT CODES. IN THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE TODAY, A NONCONFORMITY CAN BE REPAIRED MAINTAINED AS IS. HOWEVER THE EXPANSION ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGE OF THE NONCONFORMITY REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY REVIEW BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL. SO SINCE PROBABLY IRMA BUT REALLY RAMPING UP AFTER HURRICANE IAN, WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF NONCONFORMING EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMITY PETITIONS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU AND ITS RESIDENTS. THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN WE SEE. WELL, WE HAD ONE TODAY, BUT GENERALLY WE DON'T SEE THESE FOR COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES. BUT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE BUILT, YOU KNOW, [06:20:04] ON GRADE SO BELOW FLOOD. AND WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST RAISE THEIR STRUCTURE UP TO THE CURRENT DESIGN FLOOD TO MITIGATE ANY FUTURE FLOODING. SO WE SAW WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF REQUESTS. THIS IS 508 13TH STREET NORTH. THIS IS THE HOUSE IN RIVER PARK, IF YOU RECALL. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. THEY TOOK THE EXISTING HOUSE, THE FOOTPRINT LIFTED IT UP AND THEN ADDED ON THE MEANS OF EGRESS TO THE FRONT. YOU CAN SEE THAT HOUSE WAS NON CONFORMING TO THE FRONT SETBACK, MEANING IT DIDN'T COMPLY WITH WHAT THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE TODAY. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THAT REQUIREMENT. SO IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THAT, THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING GRANTS AND EVERYTHING. BUT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THAT REQUIRED THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW CITY COUNCIL, WHICH CAN BE ABOUT A FOUR MONTH PROCESS. AN EVEN LONGER WITH IF YOU TAKE THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING THROUGH SUBMITTAL AND EVERYTHING YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, 4 TO 5 MONTHS PROCESS. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAD IN THE END, JUST LIFTED IT STRAIGHT UP. THIS IS ON STILTS. YOU HAD ANOTHER HOUSE. THIS IS WELL, THAT'S THE SAME HOUSE. I'M SORRY. 749 NINTH STREET SOUTH. VERY FAMILIAR. IT'S RIGHT OVER HERE. YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE IT FROM HERE. THIS IS THE LITTLE PROPERTY OVER HERE. IT HAS A HOUSE AND A GUEST COTTAGE. SAME THING. THEY JUST WANTED TO LIFT THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE STRAIGHT UP INTO THE AIR. A LOT OF TIMES YOU WILL SEE THESE NONCONFORMITIES WITH HISTORIC, IF NOT ON THE HISTORIC REGISTRY REGISTRY, BUT MORE HISTORIC HOUSES BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT ON GRADE. SO OLDER HOUSES ARE GENERALLY BELOW FLOOD. AND SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO, TO RAISE THOSE UP, BUT THOSE OLDER HOUSES ARE ALSO THE ONES THAT ARE RISK NOT CONFORMING WITH THE CURRENT CODE. SO WE SEE THIS A LOT. SO THIS IS THE SAME THING. THIS ONE, THEY ACTUALLY HAD JUST DID STONEWALL LIFT IT, LIFTED IT STRAIGHT UP. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE IT WAS NON CONFORMING TO THE SETBACKS, LIFTED IT STRAIGHT UP AND THEN ADDED MEANS OF EGRESS. SO COUNCIL HAD ASKED AS WE REVIEWED A NUMBER OF THESE REQUESTS CONSECUTIVELY SINCE HURRICANE IAN COUNCIL HAD ASKED, IS THERE A WAY WE CAN MAKE THIS EASIER FOR THOSE PETITIONERS IF ALL THEIR PLANNING, IF ALL THEY'RE ASKING IS JUST TO TAKE THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURE, RAISE IT UP IN IN ITS EXISTING FOOTPRINT, SAME LOCATION, RAISE IT UP TO MEET THE DESIGN FLOOD. IS THERE A WAY WE COULD MAKE THIS? IT'S ALSO IT'S $1,000 FILING FEE PLUS ALL THE NOTICING FEES. PLUS IF THEY HAVE TO PAY REPRESENTATIVES AND EVERYTHING. SO IT CAN BE IT CAN BE A COSTLY AND VERY TIME CONSUMING ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN THIS APPROVAL. SO STAFF OR COUNCIL ASKED STAFF IF WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD MAKE THIS EASIER, EXPEDITE THE PROCESS. SO THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. WE WORKED WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THIS IS THE ONLY CHANGE IS JUST TO ALLOW IT'S A CHANGE TO SUBSECTION B. AND WE WOULD JUST ADD THIS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS AN EXPANSION OF A NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO INCLUDE A LOT OF THESE HOUSES HAVE LITTLE GUEST COTTAGES MAYBE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, PROVIDED THAT THE STRUCTURE IS ELEVATED WITHIN ITS EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND NO HIGHER THAN THE DESIGN, FLOOD ELEVATION. AND ANY NEW MEANS OF EGRESS THAT ENCROACHES INTO A REQUIRED YARD IS LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS AND EXTENT OF ENCROACHMENT NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU CAN LIFT YOUR HOUSE STRAIGHT UP. NOW, WHAT WE FIND IS WHAT YOU USED TO WALK RIGHT OUT OF YOUR FRONT DOOR BECAUSE YOU WERE ON GRADE. ONCE THEY LIFT THESE STRUCTURES, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A MEANS OF EGRESS. NOW THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, RISE AND RUN A CERTAIN DIMENSION FOR THAT MEANS OF EGRESS. SO THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE IN HERE SAYS THAT THEY CAN DO THE MINIMUM NECESSARY. SO THAT MEANS YOU WALK OUT AND YOU TURN, YOU WALK DOWN, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAW IN SOME OF THESE HOUSES. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS. WHAT THIS WOULD NOT ALLOW IS ANYONE TO LIFT UP. SO I'LL USE RAISE IN THAT TERM, RAISE A STRUCTURE AND EXPAND OR ENLARGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE WOULD NOT APPROVE THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY. IT ALSO WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR AN ELABORATE FRONT PORCH STAIRWAY. IT TRULY MEANS YOU LIFT THIS STRUCTURE STRAIGHT UP AND YOU PROVIDE A MINIMUM NECESSARY MEANS OF EGRESS OFF OF THAT STRUCTURE, AND THAT THIS WOULD ALLOW THAT TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE I HAVE. KRAMER AND THEN VICE MAYOR ERIC, I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT ADA IS PART OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES. THAT'S IT'S NOT AS BIG OF A BIG OF A DEAL. BUT YES, FOR BUILDING CODE DOES CONTROL. IT ADDRESSES THAT, RIGHT? IT DOES. THINKING OF ONE RIVER PARK WHERE IT WAS HARD CAN'T GET UP AND DOWN THE STAIRS. YES. AND MEANS OF EGRESS COVERS ALL MANNER OF. OKAY, I ASSUME THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. CORRECT. THANK YOU. WHATEVER THE THE NECESSARY MEANS OF EGRESS IS. VICE MAYOR. THANKS. THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. IT'S LIMITED TO LIFTING NO HIGHER THAN DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION. SO THAT MEANS THE ONE WE HEARD TODAY WAS ACTUALLY ONE FOOT HIGHER. AND THAT WOULD HAVE STILL HAD TO COME TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING A FOOT HIGHER BECAUSE THEY WERE IN A E EIGHT, [06:25:06] WHICH WAS NINE FEET. BUT HE WANTED TO GO TO TEN FEET BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATELY, THAT REQUEST WOULD HAVE HAD TO COME TO YOU ANYWAY BECAUSE HIS HOUSE WAS NOT NON-CONFORMING. THE STRUCTURE ITSELF MET CODE. IT WAS JUST THE MEANS OF EGRESS THAT HE WAS ADDING WOULD BE NON-COMPLIANT WITH CODE. SO THAT ONE WOULD HAVE COME TO YOU ANYWAY. BUT YOU ARE CORRECT. IF SOMEONE ELECTS TO GO HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO TO BE IN COUNCIL BECAUSE TO ME IT'S OKAY IF THEY WANT TO GO ANOTHER FOOT HIGHER, MORE POWER TO THEM, YOU KNOW, MORE RESILIENCE. THE ARGUMENT THERE IS THE HIGHER YOU GO, THE FURTHER YOUR STAIRS HAVE TO GO OUT INTO. ALSO, THERE'S ONE FOOT, THERE'S FIVE FEET, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, WE LIKE TO HAVE IT VERY CUT AND DRY SO THAT WE KNOW WHERE OUR PARAMETERS ARE AND WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT JUDGMENT CALL ON COUNCIL'S BEHALF. YEAH, I GUESS I'M SAYING ONE MORE FOOT, ONE FOOT ABOVE FLOOD. MUCH DIFFERENCE TO ME OR TO THE STEPS. AND THEN WHY IS IT LIMITED TO EXPANSIONS OF NON CONFORMING? WHY? IF SOMEBODY HAS A CONFORMING HOUSE AND THEY WANT TO RAISE IT, BUT THESE STEPS WOULD WOULD GO INTO A SETBACK. WHY DO THEY HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL. WELL THAT WOULDN'T BE TREATED IN THIS SECTION BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR NONCONFORMITY SECTION. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT ELSEWHERE. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE IF YOUR HOUSE IS CONFORMING AND YOU ARE ADDING SOMETHING ON TO THAT, YOU'RE NOT CREATING A NONCONFORMITY. YOU'RE JUST CREATING SOMETHING THAT IS NON COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE. SO WE COULD, WE COULD EXPLORE THAT LANGUAGE, BUT THAT WOULD BE LOCATED SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CODE. OKAY. YEAH. NOT FOR THIS THEN BUT I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER IT. I MEAN, OKAY, BECAUSE WE KEEP TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE MORE RESILIENT. YEAH. TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE SAW HERE TODAY. YEAH. YEP. AND WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT. BUT I IT WOULD BE IN A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE CODE THAN THIS. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. AND AS FAR AS THE RESOLUTION ITSELF I CAN'T PULL IT UP. YEP. BUT I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE REASONS WHY WE WERE DOING IT, IT SEEMED TO ME WE WERE MISSING A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE RESILIENCY AND TO PREVENT OR MITIGATE FLOOD DAMAGE. OKAY. SO JUST ADDING ANOTHER REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. SO RIGHT IN THERE. LET'S SEE. SORRY I THREW IT AT YOU. I WILL ADD THAT. YEAH, I DON'T SEE IT. BUT IF YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT LANGUAGE BEFORE SECOND READING, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. YEP. I WILL ADD THAT. THANK YOU. THIS FIRST READING. YES, I WOULD LOVE THAT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING THIS ORDINANCE. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. QUESTION FOR THE MOTION. IS THAT LIMITING IT TO, AS IT SAYS, DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION. I'M OKAY WITH. IF. IF WE WANT TO ADD MAKE THAT ANOTHER FOOT HIGHER. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE THINKING. PLUS ONE. YEAH. THE LANGUAGE FOR ONE FOOT ABOVE DESIGN FLOOD. YES. I'M I'M OKAY WITH THAT. AND PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION WHEN WE SEE IT ON THE SECOND READING. YEAH. AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC INPUT. YEAH. OKAY. IS THAT STILL GOOD? THAT WORKS. DO I NEED TO RE. AS LONG AS YOUR SECONDER IS OKAY WITH IT. AND THE LANGUAGE YOU SAID SOUNDS GREAT. WELL, YEAH. WHAT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE? THE VICE MAYOR? YEAH, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MORE OF A THAT'S PART OF THE RECITAL. SO THAT'S FINE, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTION. IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. NO, BUT IT DOES GO TO STATUTORY LIKE INTENT. AND I AND I LOVE THE LANGUAGE. IT'S A GREAT CHOICE. LOVES IT. I DO. I LOVE MUCH. I LOVE A LOT ACTUALLY. I BETTER WRITE THAT DOWN. OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY BARTON, A SECOND BY KRAMER. WITH THE ADDITION OF ONE FOOT ABOVE DESIGN FLOOD AND SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE RECITAL. SO MAY I DO ALL IN FAVOR OR ROLL CALL? YOU SHOULD DO ROLL CALL FOR ORDINANCES. MADAM. CLERK. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND JUST ONE THING. I WOULD THINK I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD THIS HAPPEN, AND THEY'VE LIFTED IT, THAT WE COULD LEARN FROM THEM AS FAR AS PERMITTING AND COORDINATING AND GUIDELINES. [06:30:08] IF WE HAVE A RECAP OF MAYBE WE, WE CAN DO SOMETHING IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THEM SO THAT THEY'RE MORE PREPARED AND THEY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. LIKE FIRE. EXACTLY THAT. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE PERFECT WORDS. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO US? AND I THINK WHAT WHAT IT MEANS TO MAINTAIN A NONCONFORMITY IS A IS A NUANCE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY WALK OUT OF HERE WITH AN APPROVAL TO LIFT THEIR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YEAH, I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND SOMEHOW HOW WE DO THAT AS A PART OF EDUCATION FOR THIS APPLICATION. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MARTIN. AND YOU'RE OUT BEFORE EVENING. OH, WE COVERED IT ALL. WE ARE ON PUBLIC COMMENT. DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. SEEING NONE. WE'LL GO TO COMMUNICATIONS. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. [18) COMMUNICATIONS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND STAFF] NONE. COUNCIL MEMBER CURL. SOME REALLY BRIEF ABOUT WE MENTIONED ABOUT THE THE ACCIDENT WE HAD WITH THE PIPE BURSTING AND ALL THAT. I'VE SEEN OUR STAFF AND OUR TRUCKS GO OUT. THE MEDIA NEVER TALKS ABOUT THE CONTAINMENT CONTAINED 90% OF THAT AND THEY ONLY TALK ABOUT THE BAD. THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. THESE GUYS ARE OUT THERE BUSTING A GUT. I MEAN, WE HAD A LEAK WHEN I WAS IN CODE ENFORCEMENT. WE HAD A LEAK IN THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND FIFTH, THE RESTAURANTS, AND IT WAS GOING INTO THE LAKE AND THEY THEY WERE THERE TO CONTAIN IT RIGHT AWAY. OUR TRUCKS, NOT THE NO VENDOR FROM THE RESTAURANT, BUT OUR TRUCKS WERE THERE BUSTING A HUMP, TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING STRAIGHTENED OUT AND PROTECT THE LAKE AND ALL THAT. AND I JUST FEEL, YOU KNOW, THEY GET A BUM RAP AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I, I'VE SEEN THEM, THEIR EFFORT AND THEIR PASSION AND REALLY EFFORT TO, TO CONTAIN THESE THINGS. IT'S A LOT OF WORK. AND I THINK THEY DO A PHENOMENAL JOB. I AGREE, I JUST REALLY, I THINK SOMETHING WE DON'T NORMALLY TALK ABOUT. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THANK YOU FOR THAT RECOGNITION BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BEHIND THE SCENES HEROES PUTTING EVEN WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE HAPPENING EVERY DAY. I, I FONDLY CALL IT WHACK A MOLE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEY POP UP EVERYWHERE. SO BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR STAFF. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. JUST A COUPLE THINGS. GARY, CAN WE MAYBE BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER TODAY REVIEW CODE LANGUAGE FOR WALL CONSTRUCTION OR, OR POTENTIAL LANGUAGE FOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. I FEEL LIKE THAT MAY BE, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING BECAUSE I'M RIGHT ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORS OVER HERE. AND I FEEL LIKE MOST OF US UP HERE ALSO WERE LIKE 11.5 SEEMED LIKE A LOT. SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN OUR, IN OUR CODES THAT IS SPECIFIC TO WALLS, FENCES, THAT TYPE OF STUFF. IF THAT'S, IF EVERYBODY AGREES, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR TO DISCUSS IT. I MEAN, YEAH, DISTINGUISH WALLS BETWEEN WALL ON A, ON A BUILDING AND A WALL. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. WELL, THAT'S AND THAT'S WHY I SAY A DISCUSSION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE NEED WE NEED SMARTER HEADS IN MIND TO FIGURE OUT MAYBE WHAT WE NEED TO DO CREATE. BUT I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. I YES. SO I BELIEVE I HAVE A CONSENSUS. I HAVE ENOUGH HEAD KNOWLEDGE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK FOR DISCUSSION RELATED TO THOSE SECTIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN LAND USE ITEM TODAY. AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS I, I'M COMPELLED JUST TO SAY REAL SOMETHING REAL BRIEF, BUT ABOUT WITH LINDA. YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY KNEW WAS, WAS AWARE OF LINDA BECAUSE OF ALL OF HER CIVIC ENDEAVORS HERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAVING BEEN HERE FOR AS LONG AS I HAVE. BUT I REALLY GOT TO KNOW HER THOUGH IN THE CAMPAIGN, WHICH WAS WHICH OR FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T REMEMBER, OUR CAMPAIGN WAS EXCITING AND ROCKY. AND IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY GET TO KNOW SOMEONE AS WE'RE ALL GOING THROUGH THAT TOGETHER. AND IT WAS WONDERFUL TO HAVE THAT TIME WITH HER, SHE WAS ABLE TO SHARE HER EXPERIENCE AND HER WISDOM WITH ME. AND I MEAN, I WAS CLUELESS. I MOST WOULD MANY WOULD PROBABLY SAY I STILL AM CLUELESS. BUT WITH THAT SAID, I WAS MAYBE MORE CLUELESS BACK THEN. AND IT WAS WONDERFUL TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH HER EXPERIENCE AND SOMEONE THAT WAS WILLING TO, TO SHARE HER WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE WITH ME. YOU KNOW, SHE REALLY HELPED ME TRANSITION TO THIS PUBLIC POSITION THAT I'D NEVER BEEN IN BEFORE. [06:35:07] AND EMBRACE CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY. I JUST, I GUESS JUST THE YOU KNOW, THE COLORS OF OUR EVERYDAY TAPESTRY SEEM A LITTLE LESS VIBRANT TODAY WITH HER GONE. AND SHE, SHE WILL BE MISSED. THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY KIND AND SO ACCURATE. SO THANK YOU. KRAMER, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO TALK NOW, BUT I HAVE. YEAH, LINDA WAS THE BEST OF US. SHE WAS SMART AND FUNNY AND ALWAYS KIND. AND SHE LOVED NAPLES. SHE LOVED OUR TOWN. ANYWAY I. TO ECHO JOHN, AS THAT WAS GOING ON, WE HAD A SINKHOLE DEVELOP IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT BY MY HOUSE. AND THOSE GUYS, A COUPLE OF GUYS RUN OVER JUST TO PUT BARRICADES SO PEOPLE DON'T GO BY IT. AND THEY CAME. THEY WORKED ALL NIGHT. AND THE NEXT MORNING CAME AND FIXED THAT THING. SO YOU WHAT YOU'RE I MEAN, YOU'RE YOU'RE CALLING IT RIGHT, MAN. WE ARE BLESSED. YEAH. WE GET A LOT MORE SPILLAGE. THERE'S ALL PLACES. PLACES ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WHERE THOSE GUYS ARE SAYING, NAH, I'M NOT ON THE CLOCK NOW, BUDDY. AND FIGURE IT OUT. YOURSELF AND OUR GUYS DO NOT DO THAT. THEY CARE. AND THE OTHER THING, YESTERDAY'S TDC MEETING, JUST A COUPLE QUICK NOTES. VISITORS FOR AUGUST YEAR ON YEAR WERE UP 6.2%. SPENDING WAS UP 7.3%. THERE THE VISITORS WERE UP, BUT THEIR, THEIR, THEIR DAYS, THEIR STAYS WERE SHORTER, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, SO MORE LOCAL. THEY EXPLAINED THAT AS PEOPLE COMING TO VISIT FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND STAYING WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS BUT ECONOMICALLY THE NEWS IS GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. I CAN'T SAY IT AS AS WELL AS BERN DID, BUT WE WILL DEFINITELY MISS. LINDA AND STRIVE TO BE FOLLOW HER EXAMPLE MORE. ON THE WALL CODE OF JUST MENTIONED. MAYBE IF WE FIND OUT IF THERE ARE ANY KIND OF STATE PREEMPTIONS WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. HOPE NOT, BUT WHO KNOWS? ETHICS CODE. IF WE COULD ASK THE ETHICS COMMISSION JUST TO CONSIDER THAT DISCLOSURE QUESTION, IF THEY THINK IT'S OKAY AS IT IS, FINE. IF THEY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, THEY CAN RECOMMEND SOMETHING. AS FAR AS I WAS ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL INTEREST. BRING IT UP IN MIND IF THIS IS AN OKAY TIME. SURE. IF I MAY INTERJECT HE IS WILLING TO BRING MIKE. MR. MORAWSKI GOT BACK TO ME, SAID HE SEES HOW THE DISCREPANCY IS THERE, AND HE'S WILLING TO SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 1ST. AND I JUST TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD BRING IT UP DURING REPORTS. AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTION, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND TELL THEM TO DO SO. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO DISCUSS IT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IF THEY THINK WE NEED A CHANGE, BECAUSE I GUESS THEY HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN IT COMES TO US TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT OR NOT. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THEIR EXPERTISE. AND THAT WOULD SIMPLY BE THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHO WE'RE DEALING WITH. IS THAT RIGHT? WELL, IT'S, THE IT'S NOT JUST THE OWNER, IT'S SOMEONE WHO HAS MORE LIKE A MATERIAL INTEREST GREATER THAN 5 OR 10% IN THE COMPANY. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A CORPORATION WITH 20 PEOPLE THAT EACH HAVE A 5% INTEREST. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THE CORPORATION, YOU SHOULD LIST THE 20 PEOPLE. GOT IT. IT'S THE SAME THING WITH THE TRUST. I THINK WITH LLCS, WE I REMEMBER WE GET LIKE THE MANAGING PARTNER OR PARTNERS, BUT NOT THE LIMITED PARTNERS. CORRECT. YOU KNOW, SO WHOEVER'S ACTIVELY MANAGING IT OR CONTROLLING IT. YEAH. SO THAT WOULD JUST BE NICE TO GET THAT CLARIFIED. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANKS. MR. MCCONNELL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? YEAH, I'LL JUST PAUSE ON THAT FOR A MINUTE. SO YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY A FEW THINGS ON, ON COUNCILWOMAN. FIRST OFF, I THINK THE VIDEO THIS MORNING WAS WAS VERY WELL DONE. IT WAS VERY TASTEFUL. I THINK DAVID DID A GOOD JOB. HEARING HER VOICE AGAIN REALLY. I THINK, YOU KNOW WE'RE UP HERE. OBVIOUSLY I'M ONE OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE. I WOULDN'T SAY I'M AN EMPLOYEE, BUT I'M TECHNICALLY SOMEONE THAT REPORTS TO YOU ALL AS MY BOSSES. AND WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS HERE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF CHAMBERS. WE HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS AND INTERACTIONS. AND AS MUCH AS WE'RE HERE TO GET BUSINESS DONE, [06:40:02] WE ALSO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH OTHER. AND I FEEL LIKE I BUILT ONE WITH COUNCILWOMAN PENMAN AND I FEEL HONORED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE WHEN I THINK OF ONE WORD THAT COMES TO MIND, I JUST THINK OF TWO WORDS REALLY ELOQUENT AND FIERCE. WHEN I THINK OF PENMAN, BECAUSE SHE MAY NOT HAVE SAID MUCH AT TIMES, BUT WHEN SHE DID, PEOPLE HEARD HER, RIGHT? PEOPLE STOPPED AND THEY LISTENED. AND JUST HEARING HER VOICE ONE MORE TIME ON THE VIDEO TODAY REALLY WAS A SPECIAL THING. SO I HOPE HER FAMILY NOTIFIES US OF WHATEVER SERVICES THERE ARE. BUT, YOU KNOW, LIFE IS PRECIOUS. AND I JUST APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS AND THE CLERKS AND THE EMPLOYEES AND MR. YOUNG AND IT'S ALL JUST REALLY MAKES YOU REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, WAKING UP IN THE MORNING AND DOING WHAT WE DO IS A BLESSING. SO I APPRECIATE YOU ALL. THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. SO I'LL JUST BE BRIEF WITH AS FAR AS WITH LINDA. YOU KNOW, SHE EMBRACED ME FROM THE MOMENT THAT I GOT HERE. TWO THINGS I'LL REMEMBER THE MOST IS HER GRIN. AND WHEN SHE LOOKED OVER HER GLASSES AT YOU, SOMETIMES YOU WERE ALL RIGHT AS LONG AS THEY WERE BOTH TOGETHER. BUT. SO I WILL MISS HER DEARLY. AND AND SHE WAS SHE WAS A PHENOMENAL, PHENOMENAL PUBLIC SERVANT. AND WE'RE ALL BETTER FOR HAVING KNOWN HER. FROM A JUST A PLACE OF BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD A COUPLE MEETINGS WITH TICO GAS. SO TICO GAS IS THEY'RE KIND OF GETTING TAPPED OUT FROM HAVING A MAIN LINE AND THEY NEED TO RUN ANOTHER MAIN LINE FROM FORT MYERS DOWN TO PINE RIDGE. AND SO WE'VE HAD A COUPLE MEETINGS. THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WE AS A JURISDICTION YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANYTHING FOR LIKE GOING NATURAL GAS VEHICLES AND THEY'RE CHECKING WITH THE COUNTY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. I'LL REMIND YOU, WE HAVE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND PART OF WE COLLECT JUST OVER 200,000 ANNUALLY. BUT PART OF THAT IS ALSO THAT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN CLAMORING TO. HOW DO WE GET IT? AND SO WHAT I ONE OF THE THINGS IS IF THEY DON'T GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE HERE, DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH THEY CLAMOR. SO I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO FORESHADOW THAT WE'RE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS. I DO EXPECT SOMETIME HERE IN THE NEXT 30, 45 DAYS TO COME UP WITH A SURVEY FOR RESIDENTS TO TRY TO. TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF IF IT'S. YOU MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IF IT CAME TO YOU TO TRY TO GIVE THEM VOLUME KIND OF CALCULATIONS, IT'S THEIR, IT'S THEIR PROJECT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A STAKE IN IT BECAUSE OF, OF OBVIOUSLY WHERE WE EXIST AND, AND GENERATORS AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS. SO I GUESS I WANT TO JUST FORESHADOW FOR YOU THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE ONGOING AND THAT IF YOU, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SEND OUT THE SURVEY TO YOU LETTING YOU KNOW WHAT IT WAS AHEAD OF TIME. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ENOUGH THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO IT TO GET THAT MAIN LINE DOWN HERE FROM ANOTHER LINE DOWN HERE FROM FORT MYERS. AND THEY'RE JUST STUDYING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S VIABLE. AND I THINK WE HAVE A SKIN IN THE GAME TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IF THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT WE CAN HELP THEM OBTAIN THAT. SO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO FORESHADOW, MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO OBJECTIONS TO ME DOING THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR FOR OUR RESIDENTS IN THE LONG RUN. SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA OR I CAN GO AHEAD AND. OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO YOU KNEW IT WAS ONGOING. AND THEN IF A SURVEY JUST DIDN'T SHOW UP IN YOUR INBOX ONE DAY AND SAY, HERE'S WHERE WE ARE, I WANT YOU THAT YOU'D BE ON BOARD BEFORE WE GOT, YOU KNOW, INTO THAT PART OF IT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD. I'M GLAD. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR A GOOD DAY. LONG DAY, BUT A GOOD DAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. I NOTICED IN THE BROAD AVENUE PETITION THAT IT SAID THE VISION THAT WAS APPROVED FROM 2007. I THOUGHT WE HAD A VISION THAT WAS APPROVED FROM 2021 OR 22. YEAH. OKAY. NOT NOT A BIG DEAL. IT WASN'T, BUT IT JUST CAUGHT MY EYE THAT WE HAD UPDATED THAT VISION. HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE BUILD OUT OF THE CITY WILL LOOK LIKE IN HOW WE'RE GOING TO, OR WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO TO LOOK AT THAT. YEAH. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A PLANNING AND TECHNOLOGY AND GIS PERSPECTIVE, SO WE HAVE A VENDOR THAT WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT TO ASSIST. IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE JOINT WORKSHOP, IF YOU RECALL, AT THE PAB I BELIEVE, MR. SCHULTZ, YOU WERE STILL ON PB AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS DISCUSSED. AND IF YOU RECALL, I HAD SAID THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT EVEN DURING THAT WORKSHOP AT THAT TIME. [06:45:01] SO YES. AND THERE'S A LOT OF LAYERS GIS AND OTHERWISE TO THAT, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM TO IDENTIFY WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE AND HOW SOON WE CAN GET THAT DONE. ERIC AND I SPOKE ABOUT IT, I BELIEVE IT WAS A WEEK AGO FRIDAY. AND SO IT REALLY IS GETTING TECH SERVICES, A VENDOR ON BOARD AND OUR PLANNING STAFF ALL TOGETHER AND GETTING THAT ACCOMPLISHED. WOW. MEMORIES. GOOD. YEAH. I CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT DURING THE CIP ABOUT GIS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT I THINK THE BUILD OUT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS GETTING OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHAT ARE WE CAPABLE OF HANDLING IT. AND TO DO THAT, GETTING THAT BUILD OUT WILL BE AN ESSENTIAL TOOL. SO WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THEM ON BOTH TWO DIFFERENT PATHS ON THE SAME, SOMEWHAT THE SAME TOPIC, IF YOU WILL. SO YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL FOR INDULGING ME IN THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD TODAY ABOUT THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE APPEARED TO BE VERY SIMPLE, BUT WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CHANGES IN STATE TAKINGS OF OF WHAT WE APPROVE, WHAT WE DON'T APPROVE. AND WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS. SO UNDERSTANDING THE BIG PICTURE IN A PROJECT IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE CODE AND KNOW THAT APPROVAL OF TENNIS COURTS, YOU MUST HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. NONE OF THAT WAS IN OUR DOCUMENTS. SO I'VE BEEN HERE TOO LONG. DON'T WORRY, I ONLY HAVE 14 MONTHS LEFT. BUT THAT HISTORIC KNOWLEDGE GIVES ME QUESTIONS, AND IT MATTERS. IT DOES MATTER. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS NOW TO UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE YOU ME. THEY'LL COME A TIME WHEN YOU MAKE DECISIONS AND THEY'LL COME BACK TO YOU. PEOPLE WILL ASK YOU, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? AND THEN YOU THROW UP YOUR HANDS AND YOU GO, OH, WELL, STAFF DID IT. I DON'T LIKE SAYING THAT. I LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING SO I CAN SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY TO HOW THAT'S HAPPENED. SO TO THAT HAVING SOME TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS ON A SPREADSHEET SO THAT WE CAN NOT ONLY SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING, BUT SEE IF THERE'S ACTUALLY A NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS AND WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, NEEDS TO CONTINUE THAT WAY OR IF THERE'S A TREND THAT WE NEED TO, TO LOOK AT. STAFF, YOU CAN SEE IT. STAFF WILL BRING SOMETHING FORWARD. IT'LL COME FORWARD. BUT I JUST THINK IF THERE'S SOME TYPE OF WAY THAT WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING AS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS IT WOULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND THE TRANSPARENCY OF WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A COMPLICATED THING. I MEAN, MR. YOUNG WELL, THE AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS THAT COME THROUGH IN PERMIT REVIEWS THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED ARE SUBSTANTIAL. SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK WHAT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL IS, IS, IS IT EVERY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL YOU WANT, EVERY PERMIT SENT TO YOU? I'M NOT I WOULD HAVE I THINK YOU'RE ASKING. I CAN'T ANSWER WHETHER IT'S SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO PROVIDE. MAYOR. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. REASON I'M SAYING I DON'T. I'M NOT TRYING TO LOOK FOR YOU DOING REPORTINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARY. I'M LOOKING AT IT AS A GUIDELINE FOR FUTURE POSSIBLE POLICY OR OR CODE CHANGES. CAN I, CAN I GO TO I WANT TO GO TO YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. ARE YOU THINKING MAINLY LIKE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TYPE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS? YES. NOT LIKE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS OR SPECIAL EVENTS? WELL, I MEAN, EVERY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR JUST PLANNING. YEAH. I WASN'T TRYING TO GO THERE, BUT. WELL. BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE ARE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE PLANNING REVIEW BEFORE THE PERMIT CAN HAPPEN AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHY I ASK. I CAN'T TELL YOU THE VOLUME. I CAN'T UNTIL I KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING. THAT'S ALL I'M GETTING AT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BEING ASKED. MR. MCCONNELL JUST HAD A COMMENT, MAYBE A QUESTION. ARE YOU TRYING TO GET AT MAYBE SOME KIND OF SPREADSHEET AS OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR AND APPROVED, LIKE TRANSIENT LODGING, CITY COUNCIL OUTDOOR DINING, CITY COUNCIL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ADMINISTRATIVE FENCES, UNLESS WALL WAIVER ADMINISTRATIVE LIKE A LIST OF JUST APPLICATION REQUESTS TO IDENTIFY WHO THE AUTHORITY IS. [06:50:03] OR ARE YOU TO MR. YOUNG'S POINT, ACTUALLY WANTING ACTUAL PERMITS? BECAUSE I THINK TO MR. YOUNG'S POINT, THE VOLUME OF THAT REQUEST IS SUBSTANTIAL. NO, I'M JUST. AND I CAN TALK IN DETAIL, MAYBE, AND THEN BRING IT BACK IF I CAN BAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT AGAIN, WHEN IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING AND PEOPLE WILL COME TO ME AND GO, HOW'D THAT HAPPEN? AND I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW IT HAPPENED. ALL I KNOW IS IT DIDN'T COME TO COUNCIL. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO REALLY GET TO. AND MAYBE WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. AND, AND I THINK IF IF WE APPROACH IT FROM HAVING A DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY OFFLINE AND THEN UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION AGAIN. BUT I JUST CAN'T I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT WANT TO GET AT MAYOR AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK IF NECESSARY. IF I MAY, I, I WANT TO AVOID ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BEING A BAD WORD. OH YEAH, I, I AGREE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE WE HAVE THE BEST STAFF AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THEY'RE THE EXPERTS AND I GET. I MEAN, THE ANSWER WOULD BE, HOW DID THAT GET BUILT? IF. DID IT COME BEFORE COUNCIL? NO. WELL, THEN IT WAS BY. RIGHT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU AND THANK YOU, BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT. MAYBE BY RIGHT NEEDS TO CHANGE. NOW THAT WE'VE WE'VE GROWN OR WE'VE DEVELOPED IT'S THE EVOLUTION OF PLANNING. AND I THINK PROBABLY IF I TALKED TO ERIKA AND MR. YOUNG AND I HAVE A BETTER PERSPECTIVE, OKAY, I, I MEAN, I KIND OF SEE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, BUT I, AND I GET SOME OF THIS, SOME OF THE SAME QUESTIONS, BUT I MEAN, I THINK IT'S THE TWO ANSWERS. LIKE IF IT CAME COUNCIL. THE REALITY IS SINCE WE'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, THERE HASN'T BEEN A COMMERCIAL VARIANCE IN THE LAST. SO HOWEVER, THAT'S TWO AND A HALF YEARS IN THIS LAST, LAST GO ROUND, THERE'S BEEN SOME FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND MOST OF THOSE WERE LIKE GENERATORS, YOU KNOW, WELL, OR EGRESS FOR LIFTING THE HOUSE. LIKE IT JUST HASN'T. SO I SEE THAT MORE AS BAGGAGE FROM THE PAST, QUITE HONESTLY, THAN AS WE MOVE FORWARD THAN NEW STUFF GOING ON. THE CRAZY STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING IS AT OUR DOORSTEP. IT'S REALLY NOT WITHIN THE CITY, QUITE HONESTLY. AND I GET ASKED ABOUT THAT ALL THE TIME. LIKE, HOW DID YOU LET THAT HAPPEN? I DIDN'T LET ANYTHING HAPPEN. 0000. YOU KNOW, OR THE NEW MARRIOTT OR WHATEVER. ANYWAY, I JUST, I JUST WANT TO JUST AND I KNOW YOU'RE NOT IN OUR STAFF AT ALL WHEN I SAY THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT FOR THE PUBLIC THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT HAVE THAT MENTALITY OF THAT THINK ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IS A BAD THING BECAUSE IT'S NOT. IT'S HOW EVERY MUNICIPALITY DOES THEIR BUSINESS. OKAY, SO FURTHER DISCUSSION I'LL DO WITH STAFF AND THEN IF IT'S RELEVANT, WE CAN BRING IT BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO LAST OCTOBER. WELL, LAST WEEK, OCTOBER 13TH TO SUGDEN THEATER WITH PATHWAYS, EARLY EDUCATION CENTER OF IMMOKALEE AND THE GRANT CRUSADE FOUNDATION. I WASN'T REALLY SURE WHY. I MEAN, BUT I WENT AS MAYOR TO REPRESENT US. AND I WILL TELL YOU, IT WAS SO ENLIGHTENING, SO HEARTFELT. IT WAS AT OUR SUGDEN THEATER, WHICH, YOU KNOW, BRYCE ALEXANDER REDID THE, THE THEATER. WE I WANT TO THANK THE DONORS AND THE STAFF OF THE THEATER BECAUSE THEY WERE REALLY LOOKED AT THE DISABILITIES AND THE NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY BY BUILDING THAT SENSORY BOOTH. AND THIS PARTICULAR EVENT WAS ABOUT DISABILITIES AUTISM ESPECIALLY. AND THERE WERE THREE YOUNG, AMAZING AUTISTIC ADULTS THAT ROSE ABOVE BULLYING STRENGTHENING AND FOCUSING IN ON THEIR GIFTS AND WHO THEY ARE AND THEIR PASSIONS, THEIR FAMILIES FOCUSED IN ON THEIR PASSIONS. ONE YOUNG MAN WAS A SINGER SONGWRITER AND I DON'T THINK I MEAN IT, HE WAS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING WITH HIS TALENT. AND THEN THERE WAS A A YOUNG GIRL WHO HAD COME UP WITH, WITH POWERPOINTS AND ANIMATION. AND I MEAN, SHE HAS A SHOW ON NETFLIX. AND THEN THERE WAS A YOUNG MAN THAT WAS FROM THE UK THAT USED [06:55:06] MAGIC. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, IF HE'S AUTISTIC, I WOULDN'T KNOW IT BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF HIS, EVERY ONE OF THEIR TALENTS WERE USED AND THEY SHINED BRIGHT. I'M TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE THE STORIES BEHIND THAT EVENT GAVE HOPE AND LOVE AND SUPPORT TO PEOPLE THAT THRIVE WITH DISABILITIES ARE NOT. AND WE HAVE A GREAT COMMUNITY. AND I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVERYBODY THAT HAS A DISABILITY DOESN'T HAVE A DISABILITY OR THE ONES THAT WE LOST, LIKE LINDA, WHO HAS A GREAT GRIN AND IS FIERCE. SO WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.