[♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little to play a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. When you sign up with acuretio you can listen anywhere with our mobile apps. Signing up is free, quick and simple. Click the link in the upper right of the website. Love is funny. Oh it's sad. Love is quiet. Oh it's bad, but beautiful. Beautiful to take a chance And if you fall, you fall. And I'm thinking I wouldn't mind at all. Love is tearful, or it's blame. What beautiful. And I'm thinking. If you were mine, I'd never, never, never let you go But that would be but beautiful. Because that would be but beautiful. I know I'm going to have to go. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Mr. Goudouchwar setting the agenda? I guess thank you, Mayor. I have a few items I need to review, mostly just to put on the record. We issued a supplement to today's agenda late last week. items 7B, which is a resolution. This is our annual list of contracts that we approve. There was a modification, slight modification to the resolution and that's been substituted and uploaded online. Just wanted to point that out for the record. In addition to that, notice something this morning, which is a Scrivener's error on the list of vendors, southern sewer equipment. There's an extra zero. It's supposed to be 500,000, not 5 million. So I wanted to point that out to you. We'll make that correction before the resolution is signed. So that is 7B. Also item 11A, there was some additional information included in that. A revised resolution and a signed opinion of title for this subdivision replat. With that, I have no other items related to the agenda. Councillor, we had a conversation about our level of service and concurrency. And we could, we were looking into it. We discovered that Council made a decision not to follow concurrency. And I can let somebody, maybe Mr. Ruder-Schwar has it, I can't find those minutes from, I think it was 2016. 14, thank you. I was the only council member to sent from the vote of not doing concurrency and level of service while I was on city council. Your staff and Mr. Butishwar and Mr. McConnell have taken this seriously. hold the state statutes and our local codes and ordinances. I be wrong not to follow our codes and our laws. Unfortunately, these concurrency which were never taken off of our laws and nor was the level of service reports. We're not looking at blaming anyone, it's a situation that we are in. And I personally cannot move forward with any development orders. I'm processing development orders to this level of service is complete. In the code, it says that the mayor can direct the manager to absolutely not accept any more petitions and or process those petitions. I am very uncomfortable with this, but I have to follow our laws. And I will let Mr. Boudreux-Woir or Mr. McConnell give you their opinions and their commitments to what we're doing to move forward since we discovered this. Yes, thank you, Mayor. So this has obviously been a topic that's come up, I believe at the last three or four city council meetings and maybe a couple workshops as well. I don't take this lightly. I am the one that said that we hadn't done it on the record. I think J and I have discussed a timeline. The code says that it must be adopted by January. We are already anticipating going to the January planning board. Staff is working on the annual level of service reports. Now, without getting into too much detail, I do think there's a distinction here between concurrency and the annual level of service reports for our city owned facilities, which is what the report is based on. So concurrency, although they go hand in hand, is something that, and I will rely on staff a little bit here, that they review for site specific applications, right? Which is why you see level of service of roads, etc. Now if it's the will of council to pause development orders, then I'm going to need some time to make sure that we do that the right way. But I do want the public to understand that as early as January, it will be in the planning board for adoption by the City Council on February 5th. Again, I can't speak on what occurred for the last nine years. I've been here for only four months. We've noticed it. It's a priority. It's very important to me. I want everyone to understand that. I don't take this lightly, but time is time. There's only so much time in the day to do things, and we are making this a priority. And I want you to just understand the timeline that we've already discussed. Okay, I have Vice Mayor and then a Cramer. So I appreciate the conversation about this topic. My first comments are related to a point of order. Is this, I mean, I think we need to get into this because we have land use matters before us today and petitioners here. But I believe with the setting the agenda portion of our agenda, where, Mr. Attorney, where is the appropriate place that we can discuss this before we get into today's business. If you're going to remove something from the agenda, you should discuss it now. However, my suggestion is to set the agenda, get through public comment, approve the consent, and then add it as the first discussion item before we get to the land use items. Do you be okay with that, Madam Mayor? Thank you for that. Councilman Kramer. I'm right with Thurby Smer. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments or? Okay. I'm right with Thurby Smith. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. I'm fine with that process. I'll reserve my comments for later. Okay. All right. Setting the agenda. I move the agenda to approve this presented. Second. I have a motion by Councilmember Chrisman and a second by Cramer. Councilmember Cramer. Madam Clerk, please pull the council. Councilmember Barton. Yes. Councilmember Chrisman. Yes. Councilmember Cramer. Yes. Councilmember Cramer. Yes. Councilmember Cramer. Yes. House member Peneman. Yes, we don't. But we have added this as an addition to the agenda correct. We have correctly done that. I should have been more specific when I said as presented, the motion intended to add the item of discussion regarding the mayor's comments as a first agenda item after public comment. And thank you, Councillor Neill, and I may be you said this and I'm all getting forgotten from the time that you made your motion. But would that include the revisions to 7B and 11A? Yes, and as part of that, we would be accepting the additional material presented this morning for 7B and 11 A. Okay, so I approve. That's the question. Correct. With the revisions, I approve the agenda. So I have a motion by Councillor Member Christmas and the second by Councillor Member Prima. Madam Clerk, please. I'll already do that. Councillor Member Barton. Yes. Councillor Member Kissmann. Yes. Councillor Member Kramer. Yes. Councillor Member Petternau. Yes. Vice Mayor Hutchison. Yes. Mayor Hayden. No. Okay. That goes, takes us to announcements and presentations. Thank you mayor. Actually I'd like to turn it over to Councilmember Petra Nauf who has a little announcement she would like to make and I'm going to need thank you very much mr Bushward like for Ms. Nagle to join me up here I wanted to announce a challenge for everybody the whole city This is really an example of where Naples shines. This was a resident lead effort and the city embraced it immediately. Mr. Brunishwar and a group that Ms. Nagel leads, which is called Concern, which is City of Naples Concerned Employee Resource Network. And what this is is to lead a food drive for those that are impacted by Milton with the inflation of food and a lot of people losing their refrigerators or just getting flooded. They're going to have to restock their pantry and fridge. And now through November 11th, we're going to be collecting food and there's an example on the screen of what you can drop off. City Hall has, Ms. Nagel has created two big boxes to collect these goods and then our superhuman strength fire department will be delivering it to the Harry Chapen food bank. And one other little sweetener for it is you can either give food or you can give money online or buy mail. And a resident along the miracle mile has produced another miracle and that every dollar will be matched up to $10,000. So I looked online and I think he's about 20 or 25% there so I'd love it if it maxed out and he had to write a check for $10,000 because that's what he wants to do. That's awesome. The, just, you know, Harry Chapin is a great organization and Mr. Frey like actually wrote up some tidbits about the Harry Chapin. He was a singer songwriter. You probably know him from, you him from the cats and the cradle to song back in the 70s. And he died in a accident. And Willie was alive. He let it be known that you could get into his concert if you brought a can of food for him. He would give it to the homeless. So after he passed away, his family started the Harry Chapman food bank. and it's been going ever since. So I hope you will join us in addition to the miracle mile, the moorings and old Naples has joined in as well as the city. And we hope that every neighborhood will participate. So it's very easy to donate and I hope you'll do it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I'd love to use this opportunity to talk a little bit more about concern and recognize Taren and Liz to the leaders of concern. Concern is a resource network as Council member Petra Nauf said, a group of city employees representing all of the departments, volunteering their time since 1990. These employees in the city have been helping each other and helping the community since 1990 and it's not well known to the community. Internally, it's well known, but I want to mention that the volunteer at their time and resources to provide food items during Thanksgiving. They do adopt the family through St. Matthew's house and St. Agnes Church at Christmas. The organized an annual school supply drive for needy children to gather pet food, litter, towels, and other necessities for Collier County Humane Society and creates and participates in morale building contests and many other activities. In fact, we have the Halloween event coming up that's available to the public which proceeds go towards concern and then right back into the community. In addition to helping the community, the concern actually helps their fellow teammates. And we have some employees that have been impacted through various tragedies and emergencies, and they've stepped up to help these employees. Let's see, this past year in 2023, they were able to assist four of our employees that work for the City of Naples with assistance during some hardship situation. And they actually also collaborated with the FOP and sponsored the Children of Hurricane Displaced City residents to attend the River Park summer camp program. And then of course, I mentioned all of the other things that they do in the community. So these are, this is really good stuff, quietly being do in the community. So these are, you know, this is really good stuff, quietly being done in this community. And I just wanted to take advantage of this opportunity, shine a spotlight on concern, the money that they raise, and more importantly, the time that they give to each other into the community. So bravo to our concern volunteers, representing all of our departments. And thank you for grabbing this and seizing it within hours we had boxes, we had signs, we had, she went to every department and got the whole network going. So I just, you know, I'm very appreciative and the community will be appreciative. And I just want to end with a quote. If you want happiness for an hour, take an app. If you want happiness for a day, go fishing. If you want happiness for a year in heritaf fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime, help someone else. So I hope you'll be happy. Yeah, Taren and Liz, you are the heart and soul of concern and bringing the employees together, so employee relationships. So thank you. Thank you for all you do. Thank you. Any comments? We will be setting up Friday. Saturday from 6 to 9 at Flashman Park. There will be Bounce Houses, Food, Trunks, Trunker, Treat. We also have an Epic Hotend House that will be setting up. Right now you can presale tickets for $5 a day of the event. It will be $10 and we hope to see you all there. Thank you. We'll have a scary and not so scary. Yes we have a little boobash go ahead. We will have a separate area for the boobash for our little attendees and then we have the haunted house and the park building which is going to be a lot of fun. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Petronoff from bringing that to light. All right. Any other presentations or announcements Mr. Bitterschwar? Okay. We'll go to public comment. Our first public speaker is Judith Houchin. Good morning. Good morning, the first. Could you just cut the to the right turn on the microphone? Well button. Okay. And state your name for the record. Good morning, councilmembers. I'm Judith Hushen. I'm a PhD biochemist and toxicologist, and I want to speak to you the action you took last week on fluoride and drinking water. This topic was raised its head for over 50 years among conservatives who don't want the government dictating what they must do. Whether it be vaccinating their children against measles or chickenpox or masking for COVID or fluoride and drinking water. Same people. The people who spoke to you last week don't even live in the city of Naples. We do and we're not happy. The information they provided to you is old and from non peer-peer reviewed scientific journals, which print a lot of bad science. I sent you an article last week from Science Magazine, the general of the American Academy of Sciences. That's a good one. That says to hold off on any decision making. The City of Naples relies on EPA's drinking water law act to specify the levels of contaminants allowed in our drinking water and the monitoring that's done regularly. The city should rely on EPA's scientific judgment with regard to fluoride. Naples water adds fluoride at a low recommended level and monitors it to make sure that this is occurring. and Naples water adds fluoride at a low recommended level and monitors it to make sure that this is occurring. The only time that fluoride is a problem is when it gets above the 0.7 and significantly above I might add. There are poor jurisdictions that don't have the kind of equipment we do that guarantees we have absolutely even monitoring on our fluoride. We never varied. That's important because it's only a problem if it's really high. If even if a court requires EPA to review the fluoride toxicity data, I would not make a move to remove it until it is substantiated by EPA's Office of Drinking Water. You all are not scientists and you should not be making scientific decisions for the public based on old and unpear reviewed data. The residents of Naples ask you to refrain from acting. Action will put our children at risk of cavities and potential heart impacts if fluoride is removed. This will be your doing. Let the agency, scientists evaluate the data and then follow their lead. So please hold off. Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Razzanski. Good morning. Good morning, Mayor and Council. Chris Razzanski, Executive Director for the Naples Airport Authority. Here to speak briefly, I make a request on item 11A regarding the subdivision replat, which was more commonly known by the M development project. We were a bit surprised to see this item appear on an agenda. It was our understanding as a result of the lawsuit settlement that there would not be any additional public hearings on this item. And of course, it being less than a mile away from the end of the primary runway to the Naples airport. We have concern. We all know we're working very diligently on anything we can do to help mitigate impacts of aircraft noise and improve quality of life. We did about a month ago, meet with the developer just informally in our offices and shared with him what overflight may be expected by the resident, the future residents, when this project is completed. And we suggested that they include disclosure in sales contracts and condominium documents. And I can't speak on Mr. Pennev's behalf, I know he's here in the room. I did have a chance to speak with him this morning. I do regret, I will say candidly, that we didn't have chance to speak with him before this morning or their council this morning. We were surprised to see this item and actually learned of it being on this public hearing, a schedule public hearing for today, simply by driving by the site and seeing the posted notice recently. And then of course we've all been quite busy with Hurricane Response and Recovery. So I'll read just briefly for you. We have a simple one paragraph statement. It's less than a real paragraph, it's really a couple of sentences that we're asking be considered. If you are so inclined to consider including a disclosure requirement in any approval you may grant today or at a future date, I can promptly email you the information. It simply says the Naples Municipal Airport is located less than one mile from the property and close proximity here too and can expect all of the usual and common noise and disturbances created by an incident to the operation of an airport. It's identical language to what's been included previously, such as the nearby Bayfront Condominium development, also in Naples Bay Resort. And so here to make this request today and I can provide additional information. I did speak briefly, Mr. Pennev before the meeting began. It's not our intent to delay anything. I believe this is a simple request. It's been done before and we're happy to hear to work with you and staff and the developer today to try and resolve this request. Thank you. Mr. Rosinski, does Naples Square have this disclosure? I believe so, but I have to go back and confirm. Okay. There are a number of large developments off the end of the runway close proximity that have this same language. Like the comments, I think we discussed that during the hearing that that was going into the comments and I don't know about Mangrove Bay. Mangrove Bay does, we know. And they were actually very forthcoming. We went to visit their sales office when they set up and they showed it plain sight. Councillor Member Petr enough. Is this within the, the, the, the DNL? No. It's outside the noise contour. However, as you know, off the end of runway 23 towards the southwest last year, there were approximately 10,000 jet departures. Okay. And then did you talk to them at all about an navigation? We did not because we know that this was a long and difficult process for you all including with your lawsuit and your settlement. So we didn't have opportunity to bring that up but we think disclosure is very important So you you would be acceptable for a disclosure versus an advocate is it an ideal an ideal world is is an easement and that makes it Runs with the land makes certain every potential property owner is put on for constructive notice before making a very important home buying decision. And that is ideal, but I don't think this process has been ideal with a lot of opportunity for the airport authority to participate in it until now. Well, thank you for flagging this. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor. Mr. Rizanski, just a couple more questions, please. The, I do recall this coming up when we were discussing property or development over by the commons. The statement or one of the statements that you said was within one mile. Why is it only within one mile? The development at the commons was approximately less than a thousand feet from the end of the runway. So this proposed development is 2 thirds, three quarter of a mile away. Okay, the question is, why only within one mile? So we have been more assertive in recent years at paying attention to petitions that come before you. We in an ideal world, especially when we hear back from the FAA on the results of the noise study that they haven't responded to yet. There is a suggestion we would like to discuss with you about a more consistent disclosure process. A lot of airports in coming, R SW up the road has this. There's a ring around the airport and the runways from, not outside the noise contour, but where disclosure is mandatory. So the people are making informed home purchasing decisions. We don't have that here. We would love to work with you on that, but we don't have that here. Do you know if this disclosure was included to those high rises that were built along Golden Gate Parkway by Naples Grand? Yeah, we met with the leadership Amorings Park in advance and they expressed no concern. They know about the airport and they're up front with their residents about it. Their concern at the time was, this is going back a few years, their concern at the time was that should there, because we were just beginning the noise study, if I recall correctly, was if there were to be any major shift or change in air traffic that would put a lot more aircraft over that over their area, that was their only concern. Yeah, I can't imagine a shift that would cause more aircraft over their area. There's a lot already. I'm just, I'm going back to the radius, the hypothesis that we only need to include. And you didn't really say a radius. You said within a mile this development, M development would be within a mile. I'm trying to understand the logic of only one mile. Well, it could go, certainly go further. However, this is directly under the main departure path from the main runway at the airport. Not every, regardless of location from the proximity to a runway, not every development is going to see the same impacts just like we talk about how, you know, those who live near or under the approach to the crosswind runways, they don't get nearly as much traffic. So I think you could deliberate about what's appropriate. Having a standard would be ideal. We just, we just historically, and this predates all of, myself, all of you. We just don't have that. So I, and I want to make sure I understand your purpose. You're, yeah, just no more point of order. Yeah, one more question, please. One more question, please. One more question, please. Got it. The, the, is it a policy? I'm just trying to understand so that when it comes to our discussion on this as a council and who supports it or not, is this something that you're wanting included in the documents for the potential residents and business owners of this particular project. Correct. It would go in sales contracts and condominium documents. Got it. Thank you very much. Point of order. First of all, we have a practice of not a policy of not questioning public comments. And number two, let me finish. Number two, Mr. Hutchinson's questions were good questions, but this is not the time to have these questions in dialogue. Mr. Rosanski has presented some good information. I have 10 questions I could ask right now, but this is not the appropriate time for it. And this is a matter that we should have on our agenda for discussion Maybe we want to discuss it in connection with 11 a when it comes on on the agenda But in terms of keeping this meeting moving forward. I think it's inappropriate to have lengthy questioning The previous speaker I could have asked a number of questions of and I refrained from because it was not the appropriate time to do it I think when mr. Rosanski has known has presented some very good information and we're gonna need to consider it in the future and perhaps even take action on it But not now so councilman member christman I understand that but it is at my discretion on whether we Interact it is true that we don't. I did not know that this was going to be an item and it is so it's something that comes of surprise to myself. But I thought it was fair since he was here. I'm not going to go back and forth. I understand your concern about- Probably all that have be allowed to ask Mr. Rosanne's questions now? I will tell you it's not something we normally do, but this seems to be an unusual circumstance. And so I will put me on the list and I have some comments to make that. Madam Mayor, I appreciate Councilman Christmas comments. It's absolutely true that this is not a standard occurrence. However, consider this. We have a petitioner that's coming forward. Mr. Rizanski, we have no idea if he's going to be available later in this meeting when this item comes forward. There are some questions that I just thought that we needed to get on the record. We can ask it at that time and with the attorney or- Yep, but thank you, Mr. Zansky. Thank you. So Councilman Christmas, did you want to ask a question? I would like to get- I would like to ask the City Attorney a question. And the question I would ask the City Attorney is, is there anything that this council can do legally to require compliance with the request by the Naples Airport Authority of the petitioner for item 11A in connection with the approval that we are being asked to make today. So what's in front of you today is simply a reply it has nothing to do with the development of land. So this conversation is probably more appropriate for a different time. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Pindamann and then we'll complete. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Councilor. My name is Harry Zia. I'm a developer in Naples for the last 20 years. And I'm coming to you today with a kind of sobering fact is that one of the developments that we've been trying to get delivered, which has been sold for two years, suffered some serious storm damage. We are remedying it, repairing it, and it'll be back to new relatively soon. Unfortunately, we were in a position where we had to accept a alternate path in order to try to get the CO for the building. It was a permit issued at one point. The building was built when I bought it. In the 11th hour after it sold, the ready to be delivered, we're told by the planning department that there's excess commercial script footage. We at that time were perplexed. There's got to be some type of appeals process, some way we could speak to somebody to clarify the issue. And it goes back to the policies and procedures and how things are set up. There was no immediate access to an appeal. So we had to accept this alternative option, which is arduous and quite ridiculous. But we wanted to get the building delivered. We're back to square one and we now have, I think a path with a new city attorney and with now that the city managers has been here a while and not neutered the job. I think they've seen the landscape and where the deficiencies are. And I think I'm here today to ask for you to get involved with this process before it becomes a lawsuit. Not my lawsuit, not saying I'm going to file a lawsuit. We already know I have those. I'm talking about the preemptive common sense to have City Council folk who I've listened to some of the questions that were asked at the meeting several meetings ago by some of the folks up there. And I was proud. I mean, you guys know what you're doing. We're talking about complex issues with water, treatment, complex issues with the airport and fuel, et cetera. I'm going to be strict on it. I will accept questions, if anybody wants to ask me. Point is, is that I need you to get involved in support the new city attorney, city manager. I don't want any favors. I just need you to please use common sense. This whole situation you talk about, I'm development and timing. They've been at it about a year, maybe a year and a half. This project's been going on for 10 years. And I've been derailed time and time again for frivolous reasons. And I think you'll see after 10 years, I'm not going anywhere. The folks up there have changed, the mayor has changed but I'm not going anywhere so I'm asking you to please for everybody's sake don't let these things become lawsuits get involved early. Have a committee that can deal with the city attorney and the city manager. Don't put staff in a position where they're adversarial to the public this most to serve. That's all I have. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. And the city attorney is aware of it and addressing your concern. Our next public speaker is Bob Carr. Good morning. May I hand these out to each? If you could just give them to the clerk and then. There's one copy for each. Good morning. Good morning if you'll just state your name for the record please. Can we give you the things first, please? Yes. I met Linda just this morning on the way in and she had a question about numbers being right. So I have copies of my two water bills from two properties. Okay, let me wait till she gets it on the record, sir. Okay. Thanks for your patience. And I apologize for my attire. I had to ride my bicycle this morning. I had some car issues. Your appropriate appropriate sir. It's one property that we live in and one that's vacant since 217 because of the storm. We had two inches of water and the insurance doesn't pay anything to fix. Just wait one second. I'm sorry sir. Thanks for your patience. Okay, madam clerk. And if you'll... Okay. Madam Clerk. And a few. Yeah, Robert P. Carr. And I last came before August 21st meeting and gave you five years worth of water bills for both properties so you could do the numbers. I have a question about the septic to sewer program between I think Grenada south to Frank Whitman. It's a affordable area to live right now. And the water bills you can see my house and my wife's house were both professionals been in Calier County tax bay and for a long, long time, five decades. So I've known previous mayors, Dr. Johnny, Bill Barnett, I don't want a name job. But anyways, what are my water bills going to be after this sewer goes in? And property rights issues are, as a property owner, should I have the right to opt out of the forced conversion? It's me and my wife and my 15 year old daughter. We don't use, we save our water and canoes from the rain water to water our plants. So We don't use, we save our water and can use from the rain water to water our plants so we don't use water to irrigate. We reuse dish washing water to do the plants and stuff too. So we're not using our septic tank. We only have to have it pumped out maybe once every five years and that's 400 bucks. I just had it done back in March so I can verify that with the receipt if you need to. So you got property rights issue. I do want to commend you with the concern program. I'm going to donate the food I brought today that I was going to eat their can't food so we got 60 seconds have any questions for me. I do not take questions I'm sorry but thank you we'll make sure we get back to you. Okay and is there more appropriate time to express some of these concerns they have and how we can work together? I assure you that the city manager and the vice manager will address your concerns. Okay. Because I'm on fall day, I can be after lunch or whatever. Okay. Thank you. And I got 30 seconds, so. I think that's about it. Thank you. And I got 30 seconds so I think that's about it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That concludes our public comment. That takes us to be consent agenda council. Any questions? Or do I have a motion for approval? I think when we approved the agenda we said that the item that you raised would be taken after public comments. Yes, we didn't put it a number. So, I- You didn't have a number, but yeah. But I think that's what the intent was. Okay. So, we will wait to approve the consent agenda. We just have the chief here and some others that might like to leave. They're more than happy to stay. It's fine. I had no problem with taking up the consent agenda. The way it's fine with everybody else. I move to approve the consent agenda. Let's hear some discussion. Second. I have a motion for approval for the consent agenda by Vice Mayor and a second by Council Member Peniman. All in favour sign by aye. Aye. Opposed? Passage unanimously. Thank you. Now that takes us to our discussion item that we added in So concurrency and level of service. Again, this is not something that I felt was something I could ignore, but it's also something that is very concerning. So if we would like to start discussions, I have Councillor Memor Kramer. My first question is first or attorney Council is in session does the mayor have the authority to Unilaterally make this decision that we're gonna put a moratorium on on this I would say no, no you need council direction for a For a pause on this yeah, just wanted to verify that. Thank you. I have Vice Mayor. Thank you, Madame Mayor. And I certainly appreciate the discussion on this. I likewise, one of my first questions is to this city attorney. For those that might be watching today and maybe even some of us up here on the days. Could you, in as much as you can, put in layman terms what we're dealing with when we say concurrency and level of service? Where could you describe the issue and then describe the issue first if you would. Just frame it up for us. Okay. Considering this was just added to the agenda, I'm going to be as brief as I can with the understanding that if we want to have a bigger conversation, I'm going to be as brief as I can with the understanding that if we want to have a bigger conversation, I'm going to need time to prepare, right? I just want to be clear there. If we're going to have a bigger conversation, I'm going to need. So some time. So the mayor has described something that implies that we might not be withholding our pledges as elected officials in following the law. So if you need time to frame this up and fully describe it accurately for the community and us. In the meantime, I need to know that I'm acting lawfully in considering the items that we're considering. Are we completely covered in making the decisions that we're making on land use matters without this issue of concurrency and level of service being fully vetted by you? Okay. So I'm going to give you a very low early answer, even though you probably want to yes or no. So there is the adopted level of service in your comprehensive plan. Those are standards that the city has adopted that are, I would say, maximums. One of them is 150 gallons for Sanitary or I can pull up the the complaint itself real quick if you don't mind because I do want to read them into the record because I think there is a distinction and I'm comfortable making that distinction at this time So the adopted level of service standards that are found in the concurrency management system element of the comprehensive plan. Sanitary sewer, treatment capacity of 150 gallons per capita per day. Potiable water, provide and treat 300 gallons per capita per day. Solid waste, 1.1 tons per capita per year. It goes on to talk about parks and recreation, and it goes on to talk about roads as well, and I'm going to read this as well. Maintain level of service C for the city collectors, except for Fifth Avenue South between US 41 and golf shore Boulevard. For county maintained roads, good lift Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway within the city limits, the city shall adopt the county's level of service. Because again, those are not our roads. These county roads for 2010 are set for level of service E. For the state roads within the city limits, US 41, the city shall be consistent with Collier County in a adopt level of service E. A level of service for city collector shall be measured by traffic accounts at peak hour, peak season, sea support document. So those are currently the standards adopted in your comprehensive plan. My reading of chapter 48, which is, and I just want to make sure that we're crystal clear, concurrency management program and monitoring requirements. Now, a little history here. 1985, Florida adopted some concurrency requirements that to avoid what was called urban sprawling. Right, so you had people developing in areas where there were no roads and no infrastructure at all, and the state found it inappropriate for the citizens to pay for those roads because people were turning farmland into developments. I changed that was in 2011 when Rick Scott did away with and I can tell you the department. There was an actual department that was done away with in 2011. I want to say it was the community affairs. Thank you. Community affairs and he developed what's called now the Florida Department of Commerce, right? So it changed the requirements of submittal processes for cities, and although there's concurrency still laid into the statutes, from 1985 to 2011 what cities did was get on board. They developed a level of service standards, which alleviated the need to address urban sprawling, because now there were codes in place that required concurrency when developments came in with the understanding that those upgrades should not be shouldered by the public, but rather the developer based on the upgrades they're proposing. Little history there, okay. Now in 2014, as the mayor alluded to, there was a discussion, there was a level of service adopted, and there was direction from City Council to advise the planning board and staff to review the concurrency requirements and determine if there was any changes based on what Rick Scott did in 2011. Now we've determined that didn't happen. Okay? The code says what the code says, which is why I am committing to you to do this as is J by January. However, that review, the level of service standards, maybe they need to change, maybe they don't, I don't know. But the review during in chapter 48 is specific to city facilities and roads, right? So county road wouldn't change because we're adopting that county road level of service. But this is an internal audit of our facilities to determine if we need to modify those or if we are good to go with the level of service standards that have been adopted. Right. I know that probably doesn't answer your question, but I just want that's the best I can do right now on this last minute. Tom, may I, if I may, follow up. So you were, you read the level of service standards described in the Comprehensive Plan. And then you alluded to chapter 48 and the concurrency requirements. But I didn't hear you read what those requirements are. That requirement is the annual level of service report, not to be confused with the adopted level of service standards. In Chapter 48 is very robust. I actually think it's very well written. And it requires an internal review of the city's facilities to be prepared and submitted to the planning board and then ultimately adopted every year by the city council. Okay. And if we don't, is there anywhere in the law that says what happens if we don't follow what are called the requirements of concurrency? It's in the comprehensive plan policy 2-6? And what does that say? Deny issuance of development orders as defined by Florida Statute for any project for which I'm going to emphasize this. For which it is determined that the level of service standard in the plan has not been met. Or for which it is determined that the impacts of the project would result in lowering the level of service standard and the plan has not been met, or for which it is determined that the impacts of the project would result in lowering the level of service. So it's not, if you don't do this report, you deny it. It's if you deny it if it doesn't meet the level of service standards that are adopted. And that's- So that's okay. That's how it works. This last question now yield. So the way we consider petitions and projects and the level of service, does this mean that staff simply has to become to the City Council and assure us that the level of service is met with each project. Yes, yes, that should be happening. I believe it is happening. I can't speak for staff because I'm not involved in the concurrency review of these applications. I'm involved in, is this resolution legally sufficient and are they meeting somewhat of the codes? But yes, not only should it be in compliance with your comprehensive plan, each development on its own should at a minimum meet your level of service standards adopted in your comprehensive plan. And if it doesn't, then they either need to pay for the upgrade or wait until the city does it as part of its capital improvement plan to ensure the infrastructure meets that level of service standard. Thank you, thank you Madam Mayor. And just Mr. McConnell for the record because I can you go to the beginning of two and read what five says. Dr. Moult policy 25 in the concurrency management. Yes, sir. Development order applications will be subject to chapter 48 of the code of ordinances to ensure that development orders are issued in a manner that will not result in a reduction in the level of service below the adopted level of service standard for the affected facility. Is it up to two, three at that whole section? I just want to make sure that that's on the record on the piece on the development orders. Is it two, three? Would you like me to read it into the record or can we just submit the entire concurrency management system element into the record by reference? I can read each policy if you'd like me to. I just, it's the only one that concerned me in the fact that of the record, but specifically is the only reason that I have the concern. So two three is specific to roadway and two four is specific to, I can read them both. I just don't know which one you would. It's the one that says if it is not in concurrency that no further development orders will be issued. And you can read it and so I'm sorry I didn't have the have it in front of me. Is it? Is it? Yeah. I'm sorry. So that was two. Two five was development order applications will be subject to chapter 48. Okay. Of the code to ensure that development orders are issued in a manner that will not result in a reduction in the level of service below the adopted level of service standard, which I read prior device mayors comments. Okay. And then two six is deny issuance of development orders. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was. Okay. Thank you. I just. Councilmember Petronoff. I didn't have a question. I'm still reading. Well, I appreciate the appropriate questions about concurrency and level of service since not the first time. We've talked about this in recent times. The seven of us have been on council for varying lengths of time. I'm in my 60 year, some of you were in your first year. Some like the mayor have been either on council or in the mayor's seat for 13 years. So, you know, this is an issue that goes way back and many of us, some of us anyway, have had the opportunity to look at it in the past if we had wished to. So now it's come up. And I think we obviously want to make sure that we're doing everything appropriate to follow our code and our comprehensive plan. Mr. McConnell has told us today and he's told us in the past his plan for coming back to us with recommendations as to what we should do in this regard. And that will occur in a relatively short time, three or four months from now. Perhaps less. So, you know, what caught me by surprise today was the mayor's comments about, in effect, suggesting that we need to establish a development or a Torium, until then or perhaps beyond then. And I think that's, would be, if that's the issue before us, I think that's highly problematic and perhaps even worse. And I go back two years to just this time of year, right after Ian, when others who were on this council at the time proposed a development moratorium, weeks after Ian hit. And it created a reaction in our community that was substantial and a lot of anger, a lot of reaction. And frankly, created unintended consequences that hurt us as a community in so many ways. Now we're weeks after several more hurricanes. According to an email, we just got last night from our building manager over a thousand properties in this town impacted by Ian. More than half of those impacted with either a major or minor damage. And as we realized two years ago when the ill-fated and inappropriate development moratorium was proposed, you're not just talking about stopping denouvo developments from occurring. You're preventing homeowners who need to repair their properties in the short term from being able to exercise those rights. And as well as people who just want to improve their properties even if they weren't impacted by a storm. So the problems that would result from any suspension of development orders or a development moratorium are pervasive. And I have problems with us even discussing it or entertaining it, let alone implementing it. So I think we let the process, my suggestion is we let the process that the staff has already begun to continue, let them get back to us. I need a lot more education and information on this whole concurrency matter just speaking for myself. And then we can make sound decisions when we have that information in the not too distant future and not impose short-term actions that will just hurt an awful lot of people in this town. Just respectfully, when you make the comment on the moratorium, it wasn't the intention, I think, of this council to put a moratorium on development as much as it was to take a pause to look at the and assess the damage that we had. And there was also a lot of developers going and putting the fear out to our community and homeowners that they should sell and it put our community in a frenzy. So I just, you might have two different opinions. But my opinion was, it wasn't a moratorium. It was to take a look at what had happened to the community so that we could make good sound decisions moving forward. The second piece is I don't know because believe you me, this is I'm only doing my legal obligation for following the law. It's not something I want to be sitting up here doing right now. At all. But if you take an oath to uphold the code and uphold the comp plan, it's my obligation. I don't want to stop the projects that we have in the line at all. So I'm glad we're having this discussion because it shouldn't be my decision. So Councilmember Kramer. Couple questions first. Mayor, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Yeah, I'm. Thank you. Not your fault. I just have a basic disagreement with what's happening here. This is a very important discussion. It doesn't allow for any kind of public comment. What we're talking about here is the backbone of our comp plan. And for us to bring it up during public comment is a disservice to this community and I firmly object to what's going on here today. Thank you. I am going to allow public comment. So if it wasn't noticed, it was not notice mayor. Correct. I have a basic objection. I tried having this conversation a couple of weeks ago in correspondence and communications and basically was shut down. I believe you me. This is not the place that I wanted to bring this up, but this is what's before us. So Councilmember Kramer. Just a couple questions for the party attorney and maybe we can move this where it belongs. In 2014, this body said if we don't want to do that report anymore, is that correct? The minutes said that they directed staff and planning board to review chapter 48 to essentially clean up what wasn't required anymore that just never happened. So they were asking them to remove it because there's no longer, that was no longer requirement from the state. Is that the case? My understanding and it's probably an assumption. But the minutes look like. Right. It's because of the 2011 change. Yeah, that's what I see too. And then that group did not fall through. And so here we are and the assumption is the will of that group, even though the mayor was opposed at the time, was that we weren't going to use that reporting device anymore. So let's set that on a shelf. A court analysis is for Jay, our city manager. Part of our structure and our process to make sure that we are doing those things. Is that correct? In every project, we're going to level the service and currency that's built into everything that we do. Is that the case? Yes. So, Monday we talked a lot about process related to land use applications, including what we call right now, the site plan review process. And you heard planning director Martin talk about the fact that there are various departments and reviewers that are reviewing projects for co-compliance also for concurrency compliance. So these projects should not come to you until they have gone through those reviews and have been signed off on by those subject matter experts who have their responsibility to make sure that the eyes are dotted and teased across. here it is getting done and it stopped because this body wanted it to stop. I think we need to table this, let the guys who are working on it continue to work on it, they'll have something to us by January and let's get done, the work that needs to get done today. Thank you, Councilman Carrera. I just want to say I was Councilmember, not as mayor. And that's the only reason that it came to my attention when it really didn't matter who, what, where and how. It was, we're looking into how this happened. And when I found out that it happened when I was on council, and it was my vote, I just felt A, it made me aware of what had happened in the past. So I just don't want to relate it to the fact that I disagreed. It's just that that's what when we investigated it, that's what we think about. Yeah. Understood. And to my colleagues point, this isn't the time place or process for this. We've talked about it. It's moving forward, we're working on that part of it. It's irrelevant in terms of what's actually happening right now. And this body is not at any risk of whatever litigation or whoever's scaring this up. And so because of that, it seems moot and I really do believe we need it before. Yeah, I just want to say that only reason is because when I said I would make sure that we were following our codes. That's the only reason I'm bringing it up is because I made that commitment to our citizens. And we all did and we've talked about it now I think in five meetings or four meetings and they're kicking the can down the road. And we need to let them do their job and again, they've given us a timeline. Let's just move forward. Thank you. Mayor, I just want to clarify, we are regardless of what happens since 2015. Not only do we give you a timeline, we are coming into compliance with what the code requires by doing it by January. There's no point, I mean at this point, why do one for the previous year, we're focused on this year. We're doing it by January, we will comply with the code. Because I want the public to understand that when I interviewed and sat right over there, I said the same thing. It is my responsibility to advise you and is my responsibility to ensure that we are enforcing the code as great as we can. And what I will not do and what I will not tolerate respectfully is someone bullying or try to question my integrity as an attorney because I'm picking up a mess and trying to come up with a solution. So these empty threats, if you don't get a response from me, it's because you're threatening me, right? And this is to whatever citizen wants to email me. If you want to pick up the phone, you don't have to agree with everything I say. But I'm always available and you can always call me. What I won't deal with is threats. Law suits are going to happen regardless. We have to do what's best for the city. Every decision you make is in the best interest of the citizens period. As long as we're doing that and the record is clear, I will defend you rigorously, as hard and tough as I can. Thank you. I'm much Councillor Miller of Barton. Thank you. Like to start by saying I understand the mayor's concerns considering that there has been this requirement that hasn't been fulfilled. So I understand the consternation there. And I frankly appreciate you making sure it came to a head and was discussed. Perhaps it would need to be done in a different fashion, different manner, but nonetheless, here we are. for the city manager and the attorney. My understanding is that staff determines upon each project will determine if that project meets level of service standards. And we can confidently here today say that that is in fact being done with each and every petitioner that they come to force. Correct. The fact that that's being done for each and every project by our staff, competently done by our staff, does that put us in a position where we would be considered compliant? The fact that the staff for each and every project has a process of determining that that particular project meets the level of service standards. Does that put us as a city, as a body up here? Does that put us in compliance? Because they are doing that with each and every project. I think that's a city manager question. I'm addressing it to whichever one of you guys wants to answer. So, then I'll let you determine who you can answer that. We can tag team if you don't mind, Mayor. Yes, at the development application specific, like specific to the development before you, but I've said it once and I'll say it again. I mean, our code says what it says and we need to comply with the annual reports. But to your question, staff is reviewing concurrency levels for every specific application. So in that regard, yes. Thank you. There's no point in getting this annual report done prior to January because that's when the next one is due. Pursuing to code, it is due January of every year. Does this annual report requirement need to continue to be a requirement? Is this something that we should consider removing? That's a discussion for you all. Me personally, if the state doesn't require it but the code does then we have to comply with it. I actually think the code is a good code. Personally, on a personal level, I think it's a good process. I will say there's a lot of cities that don't have this process. But that's really up to you all if you deem it necessary. I wouldn't just go ahead and motion to remove it. What I would do is probably something similar that they did in 2014 and ask staff with the assistance of me and maybe the planning board to review things that may be able to be tweaked. But conceptually, it's a good idea, right? When application comes in, it's going to allow staff to look at the annual level of service report that was adopted and say, on their own, we're going to have our own report of our own city infrastructure. So it's going to be a good checks and balance. I do, that's my opinion. Okay, which is great. That's what I was looking for was your opinion on that. My opinion is based on what I was just told and that is that our staff with each and every project it meets the real. Analyzes to make sure that each petitioner is meeting the level service standards that we require. We certainly should not put a pause or more torment whatever word you want to use on our processes up here because I've just been told that our processes are making sure that we are in fact following the rules and standards that we've gotten place. Now with that said, we need to make obviously make a priority which you guys have already told us that it is a priority and it's getting, and it's going to be done in time to make sure that we will be compliant with that annual report requirement that we currently have on our codes by submitting that in January. So I believe we need to move on with our lives and get the daily business done here today. Thanks. Thank you. Vice mayor. Yeah, I just had two notes here, a couple of notes and I just want to make a comment. These level of standards are here to, well for instance, if you think the traffic in our community is appropriate, then we have room to grow. We can put more intensity of traffic on our streets. Right? And when do we stop? When is it too much? That's what we're talking about here, I believe. Right? Level of stand level, level of service for different areas of our community. When does it become a point where the burden on our water system is too much? Do we just approve everything? Have you ever been in the community where you think the traffic is too high or have you never been in a community where you think the traffic's too high? And if you think it's too high, who's watching that? That's what we're talking about. So we, and Mr. Booter schwar, in this concurrency discussion a level of service is met with a project, right? But in part of that code that was written, it said it must not reduce the level of service. So I'm going to be looking for a box that's checked or somebody to say not only is it going to meet the level of service, we can meet the level of service but it's not going to reduce the level of service. I think when we get to that point where we make decisions about projects and it effectively reduces the level of service we're in trouble. So there's a distinction between those two. So it says in fact one of the statements and I'm paraphrasing here a project will not result in a reduction in required levels of service. So we've got, you know, and I think your staff, I'm hoping the staff is doing that. I've never asked that specific question. Now, this matter in it overall, the city attorney, we know that the city manager and the city attorney, and this means that the city manager and the city attorney, and this means that the city manager staff is working toward addressing this issue with levels of service and concurrency, and we expect this matter to come before us in January. In the meantime, there's this issue that's on the table now. We're discussing it. It has not been noticed. So we can't vote on it, but we might be able to give guidance or request a consensus. So I've written a statement for consideration to direct the city attorney. And this is separate from the work delivered in January. We've got some time between now and January. To direct the city attorney to prepare written guidance to city council as it specifically relates to how city council can effectively and lawfully fulfill our duties in regard to land use matters and more specifically concurrency matters as prescribed in our codes and comprehensive plan. In other words, Madam Mayor, for your to address specifically the concern is to whether or not we're acting lawfully. The City Attorney initially had said that the City Attorney initially had said that he needs some time to really get his hands around this. And I think that if we give him that time and allow him to come back to us with guidance as to how we can, we've been doing it, but now it's an issue and that happens over time. We may have been doing this since 2011 with the right heart, right, with the right intent. But when an issue comes up, you have to address it. I think you do anyway. And I would like to give our city attorney if it's the consensus or the will of this council to give him the time to go ahead and look at that and advise us how we can fulfill our duties. That's my ask. Thank you Madam Mayor. I'll get a consensus but no further discussion. I'm going to go to, I'm going to allow public comment. Mr. Brooker. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Claiborcker 821 Fifth Avenue South was completely unaware of this issue was going to come up today. So forgive me if this is not very articulate. Concurrency requires a local government like the city to ensure that infrastructure is in place before concurrently with the impacts that the development causes. How does the city do that? The city or a local government typically does have an annual report. So it knows that the Carrier County has what they call AUIR, annual update and inventory report. So the County Commission is advised every single year what needs done from a capital perspective to ensure infrastructure is in place and to budget for it. So it's my opinion, certainly the city should have an annual process so that it can keep up with its legal and statutory obligations. However, Florida law does not allow a local government to stop development because it has not lived up to its obligations and ensuring that infrastructure is in place. It's illegal to do so. To the point that's already mentioned in a certain council members, the City of Naples actually does have a concurrency program and it is enforced. There are a level of service standards on the books. Whenever you hear a traffic impact statement, those traffic analyses are being compared to a level of service established by the city for a particular roadway network to ensure that it complies with that level of service. That's simply by way of example. In addition, the city imposes impact fees. They've been collecting impact fees for past decade. What are impact fees for? Capital expenditures. So every development pays impact fees, parks, fire, police to the city every single time a building permit is issued. If you wish to impose a moratorium, please follow the statutory requirements to do so and don't do it on the fly here today. Alternatively, to be fair and reasonable to those who are already in the pipeline, allow those petitions who are in the pipeline to go forward in the meantime. Specifically with Matter 11A, the replat for M development, the replat doesn't improve any type of particular development. It simply reparsals out tracks upon which development may occur. And then finally with respect to end development, the settlement agreement which you all approved a month or two ago requires that the replat be placed on the Sunist City Council agenda after administrative approval of the site plans is achieved. That has occurred today is the soonest city council agenda. That's in the settlement agreement. It's a contract. So I would ask that you honor the settlement agreement with respect to our reply. Thank you. Okay, council. We've had our discussion. There was a, I can see the consensus is to continue with land use matters. And I think you asked for a consensus vice mayor on future opinions. So may I just seek some clarity, Mayor? Thank you. I think with the Vice Mayor, because I started off this conversation with almost a disclaimer in a way, just in case I want to add to it a little bit. But my recommendation isn't very clear and I can make it right now. Let us do the report. Let us get it to you. Let us get it adopted and then we can have this conversation after that. If you don't mind, I just think it's, you know, we've got a direction on order. I mean, there's a lot of stuff and it's already almost November. So if we could just focus on the report, get it done, comply with the code, then I'd be more than happy to have a discussion after that. Thank you. Any further, yes, Prachanath? I have a chance to weigh in yet. When we are looking or when staff is looking at these reports, they are assuming they are going to the conflant concurrency management system and going into the standards here, which talk about things like the number of basketball courts we need per person, the number sort of a water retention, some of the road grades, et cetera. And these are the ones that are being looked at and staff is finding sufficiency, is that correct? That is correct. Okay, so we are doing that on a project by project basis. I am not for a moratorium on this. But I do think that when you do look at what, that report that we're going to have on an annual basis, I think these really need to be updated, especially in the recreational facilities that don't really have anything to do with development. But they need a refresher and that's part of doing the comp plan. But concurrently, it would be good to use these that are written just as a report card for how we're doing in the last because we haven't had one in 15 years and in total. And I don't know how that happened but it did and I think that it's, if January is the right time that you think you can commit to, I think that's great. And you don't think that we're breaking any laws by continuing to issue development orders without having this annual report. Then I'm all for it then. I'm all for going through these and not doing a moratorium. And then it's going to take a while. It's going to take many months for us to update the comprehensive plan with new measurement systems. And I think that's a lot of good thought. And I think they should be done separately. So January is just one of the code requires staff parent for February hearing. So I just thought that was the appropriate time because we should comply with the code and that's what it says. But to your point, Councilmember Petronoff, that is exactly why these reports matter. You do them annually. You determine if you need to add to your capital improvement plan. You determine if you need to do a comp plan change, etc. So that's the perfect order of how things should happen. We adopted in February, we'll take a deep dive, you'll staff will identify, hey, maybe we don't need one every 5,000 basketball courts, or maybe we do, right? And this is going to be a good conversation, and any changes that need to happen will be done through a couple of minutes. And we'll be picking right up where I actually viewed that tape where back in 2014 when this thing was 86th. And I remember council member Saad was the one that commented in particular on the recreational facilities and how they were built and how we need to take a look at them. So we're only a decade behind. So thank you. I, first of all, respect to this body. It was my duty to, once I had the awareness of the code and comp plan. It's my duty to bring that to the attention of this body. Again, it wasn't to derail or to stop any development, but to simply follow what our code says, which is what I took a note for. So thank you. And we do need to move on with today's business but I'm going to take a 10 minute break so that we can move through. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Okay. Okay, we're back from our break continuing on with item 11A. Mr. McConnell. Yes, thank you, Mayor. A resolution relating to a subdivision replat, approving and accepting the preliminary and final recorded pla for 900 block Fifth Avenue replat. A replat pursuant to Article 2, Plats of Chapter 54, subdivision standards of the code of ordinances, City of Naples, a property located at 936 Fifth Avenue South and 975, 6th Avenue South, containing approximately 2.472 acres and owned by Fifth Avenue South Holdings LP, and Niko 900 Fifth Avenue South LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, more fully described herein, requiring recording, approving subdivision petition 24-SD1, and providing an effective date. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Brothers and gentlemen, please raise your hand. Thank you. Madam Clerk. I'm familiar with the site no contact. Pardon? I'm familiar with the site no contact. Christian? I'm familiar with the site that conversations about this petition with the planning director and the city attorney. I can't remember a camera. I'm familiar with the site no contact. From the site no contact. I'm from here with the site. I've had conversations with city staff about it, but in no contact. And I've kept an open mind about this whole process. Thank you. And I have met with the petitioner and I've met with the attorney, staff and members of the public that sent in comments. And with that, Ms. Martin. Turn it over to the petitioner. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Brooker. Good morning, Mayor. The council. My name is Clay Brooker with the law firm of Chephi Pasadomo 821F, 821 Fifth Avenue South. Our firm represents the applicants Fifth Avenue South Holdings LP and NICO or NECO 900 Fifth Avenue South LLC in this application to replat the 900 block of Fifth Avenue South. Here with me today is Andy Peniv representative for the applicants. Shown here is the 900 block boarded on the north by 5th Avenue south, on the south by 6th Avenue south, on the west by 9th street south, and on the east by 10th street south. This report is required by the settlement agreement recently approved by city council and the litigation that focused on the legality of underground parking in the city. If you recall, the settlement agreement approved the conceptual development of both the 900 and 1000 blocks of 5,000 new south without underground parking and without vacating any existing alleys. The settlement agreement requires, among other things, the replatting of the 900 block while retaining its existing alleys and that is the application before you today. Here is the operative provision from the settlement agreement. Here is the existing Naples Seaboard and Gulf Railway Company from28, which replatted a portion of the 1923 plan of Naples subdivision. This plaque contains the 900 block amongst many others. The plaque is a little awkwardly oriented up here to the top, is west towards the Gulf of Mexico, and here to the right is North. The 900 block is located right here if you can see the red cursor on the screen. Because of the awkward orientation of this plant, I've rotated it so North is up here, and I zoomed in on a 900 block again, a 900 block is here with fifth avenue on the north, sixth avenue south on the south, ninth street on the west, and tenth street on the east. A clearer picture of the existing platform, a 900 block is here, again fifth on the top, sixth on the bottom, ninth on the west, and tenth on the east. Note that the block was originally platted to be comprised of many slender rectangular lots and alleys cutting between them. The purpose of this application before you today is to replace all of these slender rectangular lots with just three larger tracks, which tracks will accommodate the conceptual site plans approved by the sediment agreement. As I mentioned, the replat will also retain the existing alleys, and the keyword there is existing because the alleys, as you see them here, have been revised over the past 75 years. In 1949, this portion of the Eastern North South alley was vacated. At the same time, this new East West alley connecting to Tenth Street South was granted to the city. In 1958, this portion of the Eastern North South Alley was vacated, so by this date, all of the Eastern North South Alley had been vacated. Finally, in 2017, the originally platted East West Alley was vacated. These alley revisions result in what exists today. The Western North South alleyway remains fully intact here, as well as the east west alley that was granted to the city back in 1949. The proposed plat retains those alleys and otherwise creates three tracks, track A here, track B in the middle, and track C in the southeast corner, to accommodate the conceptual development approved by the settlement agreement. Everything you see here complies fully with the settlement agreement, also as confirmed by staff in the agenda memorandum, this proposed replat satisfies the applicable criteria in the code. We therefore respectfully request approval. But before I conclude, late last night we learned that there was a scrivener's error with respect to general note number six on the first page of the plat. That note addresses the apical zoning for the property and failed to call out the fact that tracked A over here is C2 while the remainder is D downtown. down town. So I would respectfully request that revised language be entered into the record and approved that simply calls out the correct zoning for the pieces of the property. And that language could read something like this. Track A is subject to the requirements of the current zoning classification of C2 commercial district per chapter 58 article 2 division 20 of the city of Naples Code of Ordnances and tracks B and C are subject to the requirements of the current zoning classification of D downtown district, per chapter 58, Article 2, Division 30 of the city of Naples Code of Ordnances. So that was a scripted there that was discovered at 12, 15 a.m. last night. And I apologize for it, but it's simply correcting a zoning note on the face of the plant. With that all conclude and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Brooker. When you just read the language was that in the Information that was submitted today as supplement it was No, man, it was not it was emailed to Miss Martin this morning first thing after I read the 12 15 a.m. Email from last night Okay, and Has that gone through so I'll let Miss Martin answer that. It's just a correction to one of the general notes that's on the proposed plat. It's just adding the C2 language. The only reference zoning for the parcels is D downtown and they just want to add C2 because that tracked A, which is remaining unchanged, is currently zone C2. So when it was brought into the D downtown, it was what building was brought in. So that to that change? Tracked, what will be on the proposed plot, what will be Tracked B and C, are currently zoned D downtown. Tracked A, which is unchanged, currently has a building on it, has and will remain C2 zoning. So they're not proposing any change to any of the zoning with this request. That general note just acknowledges what the current zoning is and there was an error by not calling out the C2 zoning of track day. But there's no changes today are proposed to any of the zoning of any of the parcels. Thank you for that clarification council. Any questions for the petitioners agent? Okay, seeing none we'll go to thank you. We'll go to staff report. Good morning, here at Comartan Planning Director. You have a request before you today for a subdivision replat. This is for the 900 block we're calling it. This is the M Development Project. As you recall, City Council entered into a settlement agreement with the property owner, the petitioner. That settlement agreement laid out a process for this project to follow. The requirement was following the administrative approval of the site plans for these two parcels, which are shown on the proposed plan as tracks B and C. Following administrative approval of those site plans, that they would go to City Council for a reply. So they are proposing today to reply the entire block. Like I said, track A, what is shown as track A is an existing building on track A, will remain unchanged, they're not proposing changes to that building. And the alley that separates track A and track B remains unchanged. They are not proposing the vacation of any existing alleys. They will remain within the track. They're just proposing to create tracks B and C to accommodate the proposed developments that you saw in the settlement agreement. So this is just fulfilling the requirement in the settlement agreement to replat the properties. And we did send out a notice to all property owners within a thousand feet. We did not receive any staff to not receive any responses to that notice. We did find that the request is consistent with the subdivision standards in your code of ordinances. And with the comprehensive plan, it is consistent with the settlement agreement that was approved by City Council. And that's all right. And just for the record, the settlement agreement. Which is in the packet material, so that settlement agreement is in there as well. And I think I referenced it in the staff report as well. The applicable section of the settlement agreement is referenced in your staff report. I don't have pages on here. Three. Page three. Beginning on page three. It's on the screen as well. Yep. And the additional items for the record is that need to be accepted by Council or what was the changes? Oh, I think the supplement that you're referencing is a supplement to the resolution. Matthew might speak to this more than I can, but it's not a, there are no substantive changes. It's just a stylistic rewarding view of the title, all the same information, but in the rush to get this published during the hurricane, we weren't able to have the clerk's review ahead of publication. So the clerk had the opportunity to review it right after publication, and then those are the changes she's recommending. In addition, Mayor, if I may. In addition, what was initially uploaded was an unsigned version of the applicant attorney's opinion letter, which is required pursuant to statute when dealing with replettes. So as part of that supplement was the signed opinion letter from Mr. Brooker's office. And I do want to clarify something when Mary Udemy's appropriate. I don't know if now is the time. I think it would be perfect. So I do want to ask staff a question that I already know the answer to but because there's been conversation on this settlement agreement. I want to clarify for the record that even if the settlement agreement didn't say what it did. That if someone applied for a replat they would follow the same process that we currently followed. Which means review and straight to city council. This is just a replat, this isn't, they're not create, they're not placking unplatted lands, so it's just a replat. Yeah, I just want to confirm that. And I also want to just mention for the record that the notice requirements in chapter 54. So it seems to me that at some point the city adopted notice requirements for all applications in chapter 46, 45, which require 30 days prior thousand feet radius notice. I want to make that distinction because that's what the city complied with. When you look at the subdivision standards specifically section 5431, it does call for 500 feet radius. So I've noted it as a cleanup. It seems like that overarching chapter was designed to be general for all applications. This seems to be left over from when that change occurred. So I do want to just clarify that for the record. We did the 1,000 feet radius as we do for all the quasi judicial editions. Thank you. I am a Vice-Chair and Council Member Martin. Thank you Madam Mayor. Erica, if whoever is controlling the screen, if we could go back to the picture where you had, I believe it was A, B and C. There you go. So that's titled the Proposed 900 Block Replat. And I see A, I see what used to be the old Wells Fargo building and some offices and then track B and track C there. That looks a lot like what's there right now. So just explain to me what's being re-platted. So that's the existing flat from 1928. Those are the platted locks on that property right now. Okay, so go back to what we first had on the screen. So if that's what the platted is on the lot, why are we looking at this that's in place now? This is not in place now. This is what in place now. This is what we're proposing. This is, we don't have that building on the corner. We do have the building on the corner, but we don't have. We don't have tracks A, B, and C currently. Tracks A, B, and C do not exist as a replat. What you currently have, your currently goal description and as a replat. What you currently have, your currently goal description and your current is that. So St. George and the drags? Yeah. We really need the survey. Really what we have, some of the alleys have been replatted. So St. George and the dragon is on all those various lots right there when it was built. It was not replanted. It was on several different lots. Correct. Interesting. Okay. It was a parcel. That makes total sense. It was a parcel, but not some divided in every part. Thank you. Thank you for that. I have a different time. Complete. Yeah. Council Member Barton. A quick question about the alleys. The picture we got up right now shows the alleys that's going from the east to the west, and it stops in the middle of that larger square, if you will. Right above are just north of Traxi and the alleys appear to stop there. But I know that that alley goes all the way through. So what are we looking at here versus what is there now and the fact that we're not vacating any alleys? Looking at the difference between a platted alley and just the existing conditions. You have roadways. Okay, so the driveways and passes. It seems that alley goes all the way through. What you're telling me, it really doesn't, because according to our plack, it stops halfway through. The platted alley does not. You can drive all the way through, but the formal alleyway stops right there in the middle. It's basically a driveway pass that. Okay. All right. That's fine with you. Thank you. Ms. Martin, the document that the replat within these documents, can you just have me locate them because it's not part of that? I mean, I want to make sure what page this replat is on. So it's the document in your packet that's titled proposed plan. Okay. Which in this is a snippet of that. What's on your screen right now is a just assumed inversion of that. Is this a survey? No, that's just the proposed replat. There's a survey, but the survey shows existing conditions. The proposed replat is just that. Okay, I have Councilman Chrisman. Yeah, Ms. Martin, you've been also undertaking an administrative site plan review for this project. Two, yes. Pardon me? Two, there's two separate site plans, but yes. One for B and one for C, you may. Yes. And what is the status of that? They were found sufficient. They've been found sufficient. That happened. And assuming that the approval. The project and what are the next steps? So the next step would be final design review for those two buildings, the building on track B and the building on track C. Like I said, no proposed changes to track day. That's an existing building and that will remain unchanged. But those two buildings would go for final DRB. I'm sorry, the 1,000 block is represented by what tracked? None of them. So we're just looking at the 900 block. And I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry the 1000 block is represented by what tracked? None of them. So we're just looking at the 900 block, but part of the overall project is the 1000 block. Yeah. And that will be coming for you in the future. And the 1000, well, but for purposes of the 900 block, the year review has been completed. They need to go to DRB. There'll be nothing further coming to us here. Correct. Yeah. And this project can then apply for a building permit and proceed. And it'll be on track. And I'm asking these questions really for the benefit of the public. Sure. I know the answers I think to most of my questions based on our prior conversations, but the project will proceed B and C as a mixed use development commercial fund. Yes, two mixed use buildings and a pumpkin garage. And a pumpkin garage. And a above ground. That's very clear. Very clearly the drawings for the public's benefit in the settlement agreement at the end of the settlement agreement. There are actual conceptual drawings. So you can see what the buildings look like and what the composition of those buildings is. Thank you. Council member Petrino. I guess thank you. So this is the last bite of the apple and we've been brought to our attention is from the NAA's perspective on getting some notification to future residents on noise. Or, and there could be other ways to do it, but the two that I'm familiar with is a simple disclosure, which the downside of that is that we practically found is once the property flips to a second buyer, they become unaware of it if they buy, you know, they're not noticed anymore. And the second method that's more thorough that we used at the last property that we approved was an navigation easement. And so given that this is in a very busy flight path and are there 20 units I counted between all of these buildings? I believe so. 15 in track B and 5 on track C. Because I think that's where I think it's the home versus the commercial that would raise the issue of noise. You know, I'd like to have a discussion of, you know, among my peers on what they think about requiring a notice versus an navigation easement versus nothing. And how important is it? And, you know, knowing you, you all know that it's under the flight path that when you worked with the developer, did you talk, did this subject come up? I didn't actually work with the developer on this one. I wasn't a party to that, but I think we have noise contours and there are properties within those contours and there's a special process, there's a specific process for those. This is outside of that. So similar to the one in the Commons, they voluntarily entered into an navigation easement. There's nothing in our code that would require some special treatment for these properties because they're beyond the actual noise contour. So there's a lot of people asking. Unfortunately, I think what is their 20 property, 25 properties that fall into the noise contour. So in the FAA determines that. And basically, because it's seasonal, you know, their determination is we do not have a noise problem. Except for a teeny tiny corner that were the, you know, the problem is. So given the practicality that it gets very noisy over there, we don't have it in our codes. I think it's a good conversation. With the petitioner, there's nothing that I can require or enforce on this, but it's a conversation. Yeah, I just want to make sure that, you know, a lot of people come down here and like myself and purchase in the summer when the season's over and it's less crowded. And because it's such as a seasonal airport, it's either really busy or it's pretty dead. And you know, if you've come during the time of a dead, I mean, I guess you could go back to let the buyer beware and noise and know that. But you know, we have an opportunity here like it sounds like Lee County was a little more proactive and actually has a process in place to notify people outside of, that's probably outside of their noise contours given the size of their personal. I'd like to hear from the. There's something like that I would say, define an area because, you know, when something comes into my department, we have a map that we look at if it's not within that area. So, you know, if we define an area that's, you know, within the flight path or something, that would be something to look into. But I wouldn't, please don't leave it up to our discretion on whether this is within some sort of proximity or could be a problem, you know, let's define where exactly we want to take a closer look. You know, I just want to have a discussion going about, did we consider that and is that the, you know, in doing the right thing, I don't know how, you know, what the law says and what, you know, what, what our obligations are in our codes, but what is the right thing to do for this population that is coming in and there are 20 home buyers that and I assume these are going to be beautiful and they're going to be expensive, you know, you know, they're going to have a lot of amenities to them. They could quickly become 20 more people that become real, very loud about the noise issue. And when you were thinking about this for the, I don't know who's here from the developer, what were your thoughts around doing the right thing by your future buyers. So, uh, playbook or input? For the record, playbook or, um, we're outside in the ways contour, um, but, uh, in turn, and for purposes of today's re-plat application, this doesn't approve any particular development. That is in the site plan, uh, perspective now, um, or in that process. Obviously these site plans don't come before the city council. So you're coming about this as our last bite of the apple is appropriate. So what the developer or the applicant is willing to do is to represent to you that there will be a disclosure to all potential unit buyers of the airport proximity and associated noise and all of the documents that go out to potential buyers. And we've got the, I think we have some best practice language that we have. We have some language right here. Yeah, that was, you know, that I think Mr. Rosansky. We can provide this to Clay and see if there's an agreement with that language. In the key, up it. Sorry. Quay, key, up it. Yeah. The comments. Right, so yeah, there's already language that's been crafted. It was seen in the comments, but was a few months ago. So we'll work with the airport authority and perhaps just adopt that same exact language that was already approved for the commons units and agree to Just make those full disclosures to potential unit buyers for here this property. Okay, and that's satisfactory to Mr. Rizanski We're gonna send that right to you and Mayor if I may because I believe Mr. Rizanski probably put 11 a on the public art. I don't know if he did or not, but I may, because I believe Mr. Resancy probably put 11 a on the public card. I don't know if he did or not, but I don't know if he was under oath. You want to adopt his public comment into the record since we're discussing it now. Because it's not part a public comment slip. So if we want to adopt his testimony or his public comment into the record, he'll have to be sworn in, correct? Or restate on this item? It's up to you all. I just, because we're discussing it and now making it part of somewhat of a condition. Yeah, I think it's part and parcel of this whole discussion, so I think it would be, you know, we would have no objection to incorporating it even though he wasn't sworn. Okay. And for the benefit of the record, I'll just sale of the condo units that the ab- well, not abigation easement. Include notice and notifications of airport proximity to all owners, licees, and residents as part of the condominium, covenants, conditions, and restriction documents. So is that that's the language that was adopted for in Lincoln? So we'll- I think I see two heads nodding, I think that's- That's- I would be satisfied with that. Mr. Berker, it's okay with your petitioner. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. I have a panel on the screen. I was just in that. That was perfect. I'm not- It's a talk spot. Vice mayor and then I just have one question for the attorney. Yeah. Thank you Madam Mayor. So I'm not really sure what's happening here in regard to city councils engagement or or actions related to this required notice. That portion is very important to the community to discuss. Now if it's something private between the developer and the airport, I don't think we have anything to do with that. If we get involved and are going to completely understand the wording of what's being placed upon the developer, and if this is a practice that's going to go forward, then I think it warrants further discussion. For instance, if we're noticing and the airport and the city can say, well, you know what? As a comment that has been made often here, you bought knowing that there was an airport here. You bought knowing that there's X amount of aircraft traffic. Well, aircraft traffic has increased 300 percent over the last 15 years. Who knows, and we should expect that kind of increase over the next 15 years, maybe more. So let's don't preempt the ability of those who are buying to have a say or an opinion or fight for a better quality of life as it relates to the airport. Again, if this is something private between the airport and the developer, I have nothing to do with that. I don't think government should have something to do with that. But for government to bless this, I think that before we do that, we need to properly notice it. We need to ask for input from the community and go from there. The easiest thing would be for Naples Airport authority to come forward and say, you know what, where we're at right now, it's not going to get any worse. In fact, it's going to decline in nuisance and maybe work from that angle. But again, this is not on the agenda. I think that it needs a fuller vetting. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Mr. McConnell. I just heard from the staff member. I heard from this. Exhibit B. Or maybe it's Firmess Martin. This information will be filled out when? Of the proposed plan, when will the signatures? If City Council approves this, then all that information will be filled in and signed. Those are all the signature blocks for all the different parties. Okay, I'm just because of, for myself, you know, usually putting the surveyor and all of this information be filled out prior to the signature of the city engineers and- It will be. Okay. Before everyone signs it. And then it'll come back for us. It will not come back. So if it gets approved today, it must be recorded within 30 days and as part of the recording. Remember, we're changing a general note that was proffered. It will be circulated for signature. So all of that will take place. And I believe our code requires a certain type of paper as well. Mylar's. Thank you. Okay. All right. the my lars thank you okay all right I have counseling christmas and local petitioners closing remarks yeah I just I'm I thought we had clarity on this disclosure matter and now I'm confused so I want to try to unstraighten it. Ms. Martin testified that we have no ordinance on the book that requires this disclosure. And if there and I don't know whether we have that authority to impose a, to create an ordinance that would impose a disclosure requirement or an application easement or both on properties that cover a greater geography of the city, but that would be a matter to take up at some future time. My understanding is that all we're doing here today based on Councilwoman Petronov's good suggestion was that the petitioner has voluntarily, which we can ask for as a voluntary agreement to place that disclosure requirement in the documents relating to the sale of the condos and they've agreed to that and there's really no further involvement by the city of Naples or this Council and no need to bring anything back to us in the future, this matter is fully taken care of. That's my understanding. So I just wanted to say that and make sure my understanding is correct. Yes, I think the vice mayor was saying it would have to be something that comes before us at another time. If we wanted to go further. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. All right. Okay. Mr. Brooker, any closing remarks? I have nothing further. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion then. Can I do that? To approve resolution on item 11A as presented. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Kramer. And second by Vice Mayor, Madam Clerk, please pull the council. Does that include the revised language, the revised note? Thank you. Yeah, can we include that in my motion? Also, if I may, Mr. Broker, is there a, Scrivener's, edit to the resolution I need to be made? I believe I saw any more. Yes, we notice that the resolution actually talks about retaining the existing east west alley. When we're proposing, we're retaining all existing alleys. So the resolution probably should be revised in that sense because we're retaining all existing alleys. So the resolution probably should be revised in that sense because we're retaining all existing alleys, not just the East and West portion. We noticed that last night as well too. Not our, we didn't create the right. There's a whereas clause that says section that references the settlement agreement, says provides the plaintiff agrees to submit an application to re-plat the parcels comprising the 900 property which will retain not vacate the existing east west alleys and they would like that to say will retain i.e. not vacate the alleys, the existing alleys. So all of the existing alleys, both the north south that runs between tracks A and B, and that portion of the east west alley between tracks B and C. So the second remains with everybody's on the. And what was the other piece of that, Mr. McConnell? The general comment number six on the plat itself, just specifying that track A, the zoning district for Track A is C2. And there's proposed language that I can read into the record if the council would like that. Yes and it's going. If you look at the proposed plat, there's general comments in the bottom middle of the page. I believe there's eight. Focus your attention on number six. What it will read is, track day is subject to the requirements of the current zoning classification of C2, general commercial district, per chapter 58, article two, division 20 of the city of Naples code of ordinances. Tracks B and C are subject to the requirements of the current zoning classification of D downtown district per chapter 58 article 2 division 30 of the city of Naples code of ordinances. Okay. So you want to- What is that it got to be? Here- Okay, when I say ask presented, I mean all of those things. Okay, so I say ask presented, I mean all of those things. Okay, so I make a motion. So, approving the resolution item 11A with all of those amended changes that you guys just made. Second. Madam Clerk, do you have those changes? Yes, they're with you. Thank you. Are you saying you're at just in? Yes. Councilmember have those changes? Yes, they're with you. Thank you. How you say your address? Yes. Council Member Pettinot. Yes. Council Member Pettinot. Yes. Council Member Barton. Yes. Council Member Cramer. Yes. Council Member Pettinot. Yes. Mayor Heightman. Yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you and that. Thank you for your patience today. We're going to 11B. May I? Yes, Mr. McConnell. A resolution for the purpose of determining a amendment number one to site plan petition 20-SP14 to depict the building footprint of commercial pad C, which site plan was previously approved by resolution 2021-14639 on property owned by WSR Naples Square commercial LLC, a Florida limited liability company and located at 325-123 south in in the downtown district of the Maple's Square Plan development more fully described here in and providing an effective date. Thank you. Swearing in. For all those intending to offer testimony, who are not previously swearing, please raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, just closuresures councilman Mayor Penamann Again, no contact familiar with the site I'm familiar with the site some contact with the petitioner No other communication. I can't see Chris. Similar with the site, no contact with the petitioner of conversations with the planning staff and the city attorney. Council Member Kramer. familiar with the site, no contact. familiar with the site site no contact. Vice mayor? I'm familiar with the site. Ben to the site had correspondence with some residents. And no contact with the petitioner and maintained an open mind throughout this process. Thank you. I'm familiar with the site. I visited the site. I visited the site had a question about parking from Naples Square owner and no other contact. Thank you. Mr. Wooker. Good morning. Good morning, Mayor City Council. My name is Clay W Brooker with the law firm of Chephi Pasadomo 821 Fifth Avenue South. Our firm represents WSR Naples Square commercial. In this application to revise the site plan for the tract known as PADC located in the Naples Square plan development at the southwest corner of Goodlitt-Frank Road and Third Avenue south. The site plan of MMA application represents a downsizing in terms of the square footage of the one story building footprint as compared to the site plan that the city council approved in 2021. Here is a resolution that approved a 5300 square foot commercial building on Pad C in 2021 at this location. Before you today is a proposed amendment to that site plan which reduces the building footprint to 3,500 square feet with 500 square feet of outdoor dining area. Other than the reduction in building footprint, no changes are proposed to the site plan that City Council approved in 2021. So parking, utilities, traffic circulation will all remain as already approved. After a couple of long postponements, the PAB finally considered the merits of the amended site plan last month. At that hearing, we explained that the council council has a second. At that hearing, we explained that the proposed building has 25% less square footage than the site plan approved by city council in 2021. Ultimately, the PAB voted to recommend approval by a 4-3 vote. City staff has issued the sufficiency letter for this site plan amendment indicating that it complies with all applicable code provisions. Here are the criteria for site plan approval in your code, again criteria with which city staff has found compliance. Our architect, Mark McClain from MHK is here to review the site plan with you. Our civil engineers from Baraco and Associates are here to explain the storm water system, and they can answer any other questions you may have in that regard. The PAB spent some time discussing maintenance of the storm water system, and we have since met with the President of the Master Residential Association, an annual inspection plan has been agreed upon and the cost of maintaining the system will be shared. Finally, our landscape architect, Christian Andrea, can show you the proposed landscaping for the site. With that, I'll conclude and turn it over to Mr. McLean. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Mayor Council. If a lot of my presentation looks familiar to you, we've seen it just recently when we did on court. At one point we had these two together and they got separated by PAB, so we just kind of separated the slide. So I'm going to show you a lot of what we did before. I'll be as brief as I can. And if we have to come back to something, we'll come back to something. So here is the initial site as, I'm sorry, Mark McLean, MHK Architecture, 2059, Tammy Amitro East. Here's the overall site plan of PUD. As you can see, the small square on the bottom is pad C of the overall PUD, the orange district that it lays within the PUD is the D downtown district. The traffic that we talked about in depth in the on-core presentation is the same traffic pattern. The parking remains exactly the same traffic pattern. The parking remains exactly the same. I think we discussed joint on-court that this building cannot be occupied until on-court is built because it's the totality of the parking so they will get linked back up with your approval today. If we look specifically at building C itself, it's a 3,500 square foot restaurant use with a 500 square foot outdoor dining area. The parking that is allocated around the space is for the 4,000 square feet. It would require 12 of the overall parking spaces. As you can see, there's nine on the east side, sorry nine on the south side, six on the west side. So essentially just the redistribution of spaces through the entire PUD, we put the extra spaces around this potential restaurant space. Again, just a commercial shelf space and a roof space, some 2D elevations as we just get to a building section that shows the overall height is very compliant at stories, several stories shorter than other items within the overall master plan. There are a lot of different areas that are in the area. There are a lot of different areas that are in the area. There are a lot of different areas that are in the area. There are a lot of different areas that are in the area. There are a lot of different areas that are in the area. There are a lot of different areas. There are a lot of different areas. There are a lot of different areas. view from the from the from the north. You can see the parking lot between the Marriott and the restaurant. Some zoomed in views of the restaurant itself. This will have to go back to final design review board but it's almost identical to what we had in preliminary design review board. Again a view from the South looking north and from the South looking west. And that's basically the building itself. It's a very simple restaurant, a smallish restaurant at 3,500 square feet inside and a 500 square feet outside. With that, I would be available for questions, but I'm gonna turn this over to Jeff at Barakao and Associates for his presentation. Good morning, Council. Vice Mayor and Madam Mayor. For the record, my name is Jeff Wasco. I'm a professional engineer, licensed in the state of Florida. And my resume is on file with the city. I've worked at Baraco on Associates for the last 12 years and I've been involved with the design of Naples Square since 2014 along with the engineer of record Carl Baroque. Go to the plans here. So I'm going to discuss the storm water management system as clay and mark have both mentioned. This is a petition just for the building change on pad C. I will try to zoom in here just so I can point out. So the pad sees drainage, all connects to the overall Naplesquare Water Management System. It's that overall Naplesquare Water Management System consists of a rock chamber, a retention rock chamber that captures all of Naplesqu Square runoff and provides the water quality volume and accordance with and approved by the South Florida water management district. There's really not too much else to say about that. I see somebody's moving the screen here, but as you can see all roof drainage and all drainage from the site will be collected and I'm going to use my pointer real quick We'll be collected by these yard drains and then Convade to the Naples Square stormwater management system And I'll be available for any questions With that I think we're going to go over to Christian Sure with that I think we're going to go over to Christian. If just our business for presentation and then we'll come back. Sure. Good morning Christian Andrea, landscape architect with architecture land design. Morning. Morning. Sorry, not engineering. David, sorry. The page turned things not working. Let's go this way. I can zoom out. Let's fit into page full screen. Thank you. Thank you, David it's a page full screen. Here we go, thank you. Yeah, thank you, David. So this is our existing conditions. We've added some pictures there that kind of show what the site looks like from within, looking back at the buffer that currently aligns the roadway coming in and the water features and whatnot, so we just put that in there for some reference. This is an overview that Jeff's plan kind of reflected as well. Now the planting plan, as always, we typically try to accommodate the building and integrate the landscape to complement the building features. Without getting into super detail, we have shrubs and foundation planting around the entire perimeter. We've reestablished a buffer along the north side of the site here. This is a Cluzia hedge here to create further privacy and whatnot. We believe we're able to save all the existing vegetation that wraps around. And if for whatever reason we have to remove something, we'd put the same plant back so we'd keep it consistent. PAB at one of the comments was to ensure we had adequate screening around the dumpster. So we have a healthy sized head around the dumpster. There is an existing oak tree here that had once previously not been indicated. Together with that, in addition, we added some more califillum trees. These are a dense buffer along this kind of median strip here. That further privatizes that motor court. I think we have a pretty effective screening in there. Then just coming back and filling a variety of shrubs and ground covers along the base and foundation of the islands in the building. This is just a sampling of the plant pictures and I'm happy if we need to look at anything specific, happy to address that but I will defer back to Mark, whoever else is next. Or Clay. Thank you Madam mayor that concludes our initial presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you may have Do thank you. I'm just curious about the mechanicals a little bit here you pretty close to building C You're showing the mechanicals on the second story? I know, ma'am, there is no second floor. Those are on the roof. Those are on the roof. Those are on the roof and they'll be fully screened. Okay. And again, I'm looking at this, with a, you can't have a roof on that right? They'll just be on the on the roof You're showing mechanicals right yeah, yeah, so there's mechanical screening let me see if I can find it better in one of these Aerial views so the mechanicals are in the middle of the building on that roof So like from a street view like this, this is how it would look. You would not even know that they're on the roof. And they have screen around them on the roof itself, like an allover around the mechanicals. OK. So the mechanicals are closer to the road than they are to building sea. Well, they're kind of in the middle. They're right in the middle of the roof of building C. OK. So there's a mechanical well here that they sit down in. And then there may be some kitchen equipment up on the roof itself. But it's all, none of it will be visible if you're up in Naples Square 4. You may see some of the equipment on the top of the roof. But that's any building that you look across the street too but we've got it all completely screened from the ground. There's no equipment on the ground. Okay. That was my part of my concern. Thank you. Yes ma'am. Vice mayor. Thank you. I have two questions. One for Mr. Wasco and one for Mr. Andrea. So Mr. Wasco please. Thank you. Mr. Wasco again for the record. Yeah, thank you Mr. Wasco. David if we could go or whoever's controlling to the storm water plan, there was a drawing and it kind of, yeah, I think it gave a description of how the water would flow and where it would go. Are we on the right slide? Yep. Okay. So, as you can see and as the public can see, we're getting to the point where we're finally building out this piece of property. But it used to be a lot of sand and dirt and stuff like that. So we had an area where rain storm water could absorb and then some of it would go into our storm system. So now we're counting on a designed system to capture that water and prevent flooding, right? So on this, on what you've been involved in, can you show us where the entry points for the storm water if there are some specific entry points where it goes into the system. Yeah, so the majority is going to get to the system based on overland flow. So the site will be graded as such where it's encapsulated by the perimeter berm and the rest of it will be directed towards the parking lot or Whatever does not get to the parking lot will be captured in what we call yard drains Which is this dashed line that completely surrounds the building? So if you follow that up you can see where it connects to the onsite overall Naples square drainage system Okay, and where is the lowest elevation on that piece of property? The lowest elevation would be the yard drains themselves that that way any surrounding ground goes to those yard drains. So okay and I believe we had the elevation stated on there so that's rim elevation of five that would be the lowest point within that parcel. Okay, so that water is going to go to... Yeah, and I'll here I'll highlight it with my cursor. It'll either go to one of these and you can see there's an elevation of six in between, which will create a slope down to one yard drain or a slope to the other drains drains and could you just show us the vehicle parking as it relates to that where that drains the view you mean the parking spaces that surround the the building yes yes that's okay that's it over here yep okay I understand okay that's that's what I needed to know. And then for Christian Andreia. Yes sir. Christian, you know, all the times that we've looked at these plans and the landscaping plan. I think following this recent storm, I'm becoming a lot more in tune to deciduous plants, plants that shed their leaves. And my question is, do we have any issues with those type of plants or those type of trees in this landscaping plant? Because if we do understand why. That's an interesting question. I struggle with that, even though we do use deciduous trees, we have oak trees here for the canopy. Trying to think what we would use in lieu of that. There are califillum trees are relatively non deciduous, so that's a good choice and we do use that plant. So is it worth, I think there's three oak trees on here so it's not a lot or one, two, yeah, three oak trees. So it's not a lot. I struggle with that my own parking lot, my own house, my car fills up with leaves, not just from storms but just from the sense of falling or not. I don't think we have overly created leaf litter here, but it's an interesting thought that we should probably be respectful, but our parking lot tree of choice tends to be the oak trees. And we do use them just because the size of canopy is quite nice. Mahogany shed like crazy, the structure is weak, so there's some issues with that one, and then the little fruit that comes off and den's cars. Yeah. It's a problem. But it'd be interesting to see as a profession if we start to favor a little less deciduousness, but then there's also a big push for native. So there's a pendulum back and forth, and the leaf litter has just been an accepted byproduct that we've dealt with, or accepted. Yeah, and I think we had a commitment from Mr. I think it was McLean, or maybe it was Brooker. Somebody said that there's an agreement to maintain this system so just recognizing that deciduous trees puts an extra burden and Just has to good properly manage right so I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning for the record. Leslie, don't worry about the city and the April's plan department. My resume qualifications are on file with this item and I've been previously certified as an expert in planning and zoning matters for city council. Item 11b is a request for approval of amendment number one to Site Plan 20 SP 14. The petitioner mentioned, the petitioner's agent mentioned in this remarks that the original approval of Site Plan 20 SP 14 was granted in May of 2021 by resolution 2021-14639. for 639 and that was for the development parcel south of third and included the mixed use building where the AC Marriott is some surface parking. And then it also included a maximum size of future development in this area that we're calling commercial pad see. It was identified on the site plan as commercial C and it had a maximum size of 5200 square feet of commercial use. It did not include a building footprint. And at the time of staff review, I identified that there was not a footprint here that it was just a maximum development potential in talking with petitioners agents and they understood they didn't have a plan specifically for that at the time. They wanted approval of the development potential and understood that if a building foot print came back in that that would be an amendment to the site plan. So the site plan that was approved in 2021 had development potential up 2,500 or 5,200 square feet. And they understood that amendment would be required to actually put in the physical building footprint in this location. So fast forward to 2022 and they submitted this amendment, providing this footprint. And the footprint is in fact a smaller in size. So 3,500 square foot building footprint with 500 square feet of possible outdoor dining area. There are no changes to the circulation, there are no changes to the ingress and egress, there are no changes to the potential for the utilities or for emergency services. All of those items are remaining in effect in terms of the site layout. There are no real changes to the site layout but for this building footprint for commercial pad see. We took this change through the administrative review. City staff found it sufficient with the criteria provided for site plan. And it was scheduled for public hearing because this is a site plan and a plan development and City Council has the review and approval authority of site plans and amendments to site plans and a plan development. At the initial planning advisory board meeting in December of 2022, there was a lot of discussion about potential traffic impacts and that was sort of the beginning of the request for the larger traffic study and this project has been delayed for some time because of that particular traffic study. The petitioner contacted staff in the middle of 2024 and wanted to get back on the agenda to get the project moving. So ultimately the Planning Advisory Board considered the petition at the September 11th, 2024 meeting and considered again the traffic impacts and the impacts in the particular area. And ultimately by a vote of 4 to 3 it recommends approval to City Council of this petition. This amendment with a number of conditions. And the petitioner agent mentioned that one of the things that the Planning Advisory Board talked quite a lot about was the stormwater system and the maintenance of the stormwater system and who's responsible for what? So with the conditions that were recommended by staff, which are the first three, which related to signage and parking calculations, and I'm happy to go into those in detail. They also provided some additional conditions, which were that the petitioner will work to devise a storm water maintenance plan for track C1 to be provided with the documents for the City Council for their review. And the petitioner will work with the Property Owners Association and compliance and consistent with state permitting requirements to devise an actionable master's from water plan. Reaching out to the petitioner prior to the publication of this item, they said they had, that their meetings with the Property Owners Association have been delayed somewhat by the recent strong suite had. And so you'll see in your agenda memo, it was our staff's understanding that they had come to a verbal agreement but didn't have official documents in order to forward to city council related to those two conditions that PAB recommended. So when we get to the point of making a motion, if that's the will of council today, you'll see in your resolution conditions four and five where we kept in the resolution, but those were sort of action items that the PAB wanted this petitioner to take prior to your hearing. So it may be appropriate to remove conditions four and five if you find that the petitioner has provided sufficient information in their remarks with respect to those storm water, ongoing storm water maintenance agreements and plans that they have. The other two conditions are relatively straightforward conditions with respect to signage being consistent with the Naples Square Plan development. If they want to include signage that would be part of a uniform sign plan, which is an option they have in the PD, that would require another review by City Council for approval of the uniform sign plan. That's my understanding that is not there intent, but this is just a reminder that that would mean they'd come back to this body again. Number two is related to the parking calculations council will remember that the parking, the commercial parking is pretty integrated in Naples Square. And the petitioner has been made aware at every stage. I think they get a little bit frustrated every time I remind them. Don't forget your parking is integrated here. You cannot open on-core and commercial see until everything is completed. These two are interdependent. And so we can we construct C but until all the parking is constructed at on-core, this one's not going to open. There's an integrated nature. And so, condition two details that. Condition three, final design approval for track C-1 is required prior to the issue into the building permit, just get a reminder. And then those, that conditions form five are the ones that were, the ones recommended by the Planning Advisory Board. So with respect to those being met, those are, I would direct your questions to the petitioner since they didn't give us a document to be able to forward to you as well. With that staff's available for questions related to this amendment, and I do have additional subject matter expert staff available for their areas of expertise. Oh, I should, excuse me, I should one more thing I should mention is that we did send on a notice to surrounding property owners within a thousand feet, all communication that we have received, how it was included with the package materials related to this request yield. There's there were some overlap sometimes with the encore project and this one is they were kind of tracking similar but everything we have received has been included. Some questions on the stormwater issue. I'm a stormer. Is there somebody who I didn't see Mr. Bliss back there? Have you been sworn in? I had a bliss of the streets of stormwater. Good morning, Mr. Bliss. So I just want to make sure I we understand these conditions four and five. So first question is, the petitioner needs to meet our current stormwater ordinance. I think that was a condition from encore. That was the condition that was added during an encore as review from the last petition. Yeah, so just for clarity say this petition, well it's the same petitioner but they must meet on this site our storm letter. It's one site, you have one PD. Because it's one PD. Correct, sure. And four and five use the word maintenance. Refer to the word maintenance, refer to the word maintenance. So am I, I'm going back to a discussion we had on Monday in a different context about our stormwater ordinance and how we go about trying to ensure and encourage maintenance of properties and requirements for that is what's implicit here in 4 and 5 is to have greater clarity from the petitioner as to how they will ensure that the standards within our stormwater ordinance are maintained on the site over time? Is that what's in blood? I think there's a diversity of maintenance and inspections. I think it maintenance be a routine maintenance after a rain event you know check your drains make sure they're not clogged. That's that's a routine maintenance that they need to have a maintenance plan for a certain rain event to go through and just check your system for debris. The inspection is a different inspection policy like every five to four years. I think there's a difference in its value. It involves the third party. I would like a maintenance plan just so they can have those regular routine. Good point, good distinction. But I mean, the maintenance, we're still getting at the question of maintaining the stormwater improvements and trying to ensure that they're maintained is the inclusion of a maintenance plan something that we have required in other commercial petitions that have come before us during the building permit process. I'll require that maintenance plan for that being a common place to have this I try. Yeah. Yeah. And by attaching it as a condition, it's just making it explicit that this is going to be included in this developed and included in this case, and that also that it would be done in cooperation with the property owners' association. Yeah, the language could be modified to something to the effect that a stormwater maintenance plan as you know, as agreed to with the property owners' association will be provided at the time of building permit review to satisfy stormwater maintenance requirements. Something to that effect. So we sort of combined four and five into a new condition related to that storm water. But that was a concern of PAB, was that let's just make sure these things are getting maintained the way they're supposed to be maintained. Yeah. I understand better now. I mean, I agree with the objective and I just wanted to probe a little bit to understand to what degree this was something that presumably would have been done anyway as the, through the building permit process, what we're really doing is creating some emphasis on it and making it an explicit condition in this case. Yes, sir. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. There was some discussion about integrated parking between Encore and Building C. I have a follow-up question, but just to make sure we're level set, could you describe or just explain that integrated parking between Encore and Building C? Yes, sir. So the commercial parking requirement in the downtown district of the Naples Square Plan development is three spaces per thousand square feet. And so across both the parcel south of Third Avenue South and the parcel north of Third Avenue South. So for this for sake of understanding sort of the AC Marriott parcel and the Encore parcel. There is a certain amount of square footage of commercial uses and those generate a parking requirement across both those parcels. The parking is the split also between both of those parcels. And so when combined, when the total commercial area is combined and the total parking is combined, it meets the requirements of the plan development. I believe the AC Marriott site or parcel is short maybe two or three spaces, and I remember the exact, for everything that is on that particular parcel, but the PD allows that parking to be anywhere within the downtown district. And so those spaces are made up on the encore parcel. And so that is the integrated nature that whatever commercial activity operates in this commercial pad sea cannot operate until the parking spaces are constructed and available on the encore parcel. That's the integrated nature we're talking about. Okay. And I have been reminding the developer and their team about that since the site plan came through in 2021. Okay, so as a follow-up to that. So I think you very clearly explained the integration and how one depends on the other to be compliant with code. So what type of activity would occur at Encore or the other building which would impact parking in a future state for building C. In other words, if parking was restricted or not available, what would happen? If they're integrated. If parking is restricted at encore? Something happens. So the commercial parking would need to be available at all times for all the commercial activities to function. Okay. Consistent. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I just wanted to get that on the one everybody to hear that because they're integrated. So they're not separated and that parking needs to be available. Correct. Now there's there is residential parking on-core that were in individual garages. That is not included in this commercial integrated parking just so that's clear for the record. Thank you. Yep. Just one quick question and this for community services. And it talks about, you know, that it, let's see, it's on. Let me turn to that section. It says that it's adequate. And let me just find that. Here it is. Okay. The proposed redevelopment does not impact the city of Naples, blah, blah, blah. Public, it does not have the urban forest. So do we look at the as is condition and see that it's just a blank slate? Or do we say, you know, what do we want our urban force to be tied to our comp plan? Because clearly there's very little greenery on this development, probably the least in the city. And it says it fully is sufficient. So I'm just wondering, and on what yardstick is it measured against? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that one because that's a review that's outside of my expertise. That's from our city, Arborist, and she's not available for, she's not here today to answer that particular question. I can say that the green space in the PD had, you know, what we talked about that before, that it was part of that linear park along Goodlett, and I know certain council members had different thoughts about that, but that's where it was concentrated overall when this development was included. With respect to this little corner of the PD, there is quite a bit of landscaping in this particular corner that is sort of buffering along that intersection with third and good lit. Probably there's probably more landscaping in this particular area than maybe any of the others in the plant development. There's a nice concentration right at that corner and that is going to be maintained and improved from its existing conditions. So- I just like to maybe the workshop understands, you know, what we're measuring against when these things fly through. Because it's seen, you know, we ought not to have it if there's, if it's not really a measurement. And it should be tied right into what we want to do as a city, as expressed in our comprehensive plan. And the other piece is really, well, I guess you can't answer it. I was surprised that it was, there were a lot of palm trees shown on this, which are very pretty. But there, you know, I know that Heather does that Heather does not, she's craving the shade. And that is the new norm that she's pushing developers for, so I was surprised to see the palm trees there. But she's saying everything is fine. I don't want to hazard comments on somebody else's review. Thank you. So we're talking about Pads here. As a part of this overall plan development. This particular site plan that we're proving here today met all the requirements for green space and height and restrictions and zoning that gets along with this plan development that has been approved and has been approved for years. Yes sir. And in fact that the this particular location had 5,000 square feet now we got about 3,000 square foot building. With 500 square foot of a battery. So on this little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little little question before I make my assumption was there an increase in the size of any parking? No the parking the parking configurations the parking lots the drive aisles have all remained the same since the 2021 so we've got a smaller building parking hadn't changed so I'm now going to jump to my assumption which tells me that there's probably more green space on this thing than that was originally approved for the 5,000 square foot building. Yes there's a little bit more landscaping included. You look great. I just have a question about the level of service for what was submitted by, I guess it would be for our staff. The site plan approval, 20 2023-15096. And there's a traffic impact study prepared by StanTech from April 23. It says 2.1 future traffic volumes. It says that the Naples parking garage was assumed to be primarily utilized by future projects detailed in the Naples plan development level of service build out analysis. What document are you looking at? the Compage 842 872 sorry Those page numbers aren't on the digital file. Well there's also a number 14 so I don't know if that was a PowerPoint at some point. Do you know what document that is? It's right before the MHK architectural. This was made by Sheffield Pasadoma on the bottom left. So I assume it was done by the petitioner. Is it the presentation? Is it the petitioner's presentations, perhaps? No. The petitioner? I believe it's a Chevy Pasadena power point that's included in our material. So it might be presentation number one. I'm not sure what you were saying. It's after your Naples square PD time frame. So I included, my presentation had a blank page in between my initial presentation and then slides that were included in the event some other issues came up but I Didn't discuss them or show them it was just in the event. I needed to explain the history of the Naples Square PD development in general I appreciate that it says the commercial pad scene Naples City Council hearing October 16th 2024 so you're saying that it may not have been part of your presentation, but it's part of your submittals. Right. So from page 9, onward is for just backup slides and the event, I needed to answer answer questions but we're not part of my presentation. Okay but they're still part of the record so can you explain or how staff used in their calculations this information given about the municipal parking garage? Is that me? Mayor, just go out so I can follow along. What slide are you on? I'm sorry. It's in the petitioners presentation. It's at the end of the thing. It's page 14 of the petitioners presentation. It's at the end of the thing. It's page 14 of the petitioners presentation. All right. Thank you. Position presentation number one. It looks to be a screenshot from the resolution approving the site plan for the city's parking garage. Yeah. Maybe it's best that we put that on the screen. I think. Right, the vision one. Is this have to do? That's it. Is this have to do with the public service district? I think that Alison Bigger for the record. Thank you. I believe there was a level service buildout analysis that was put together. That was actually under the offshore playhouse, but that was from the Naples Square Division. So they evaluated and looked at the entire area and they broke out all the developments that were being proposed and evaluated and did a full on low-level service analysis that was submitted. So I think that may be in reference to that document. Okay, but it does make the statement that Naples Parking Garage was assumed to be primarily utilized by the future projects detailed in the Naples plan development. Is that what we understand as a body? I may have assumed wrong. I thought they were talking about Gulf Shore playhouse at that time. I believe that last paragraph there is related because this was related to the parking garage site plan. And the parking garage was for parking. It didn't have a use that it was generating the parking. It was providing parking for others in concert with the Gulf Shore playhouse. And so that, believe that that's what that statement is related to. I can assure you mayor that in every conversation that we at the staff level have had with the developer, with respect to the downtown district, or with of this Naples Square plan development, they have to provide the parking they generate with their uses on those parcels that utilizing the parking garage for their required parking is not consistent with the plan development. They have to provide that they're parking they generate on their parcels. I realize this, but this is the information that was provided that I just, if there's ever a concern about the garage being used for the Naples Square Plan development level of service build-out analysis Is that what we have an understanding of? Well again, this snippet was provided by the petitioner. I don't know if- Explain why this was provided in the packet and what the point of including this was, because- Sure, absolutely. This does not have to do with the subject of property. As I believe Ms. Delmer just confirmed, our parking on within the Naples Square Plan Development is self-sufficient. It doesn't rely upon the parking garage at all. The reason I placed these slides, there's some other slides that deal, this one deals with the municipal garage approval, there's other that deal with the Gulf Shore playhouse approvals and there's more towards traffic generation. There's a lot of talk about traffic and both the municipal garage and a playhouse were approved based upon this level of build-out analysis that assumed the entire plan development being built out and still no adverse impact on the road network. So I was using that if the municipal garage and the playhouse were assumed or approved assuming full build out, here we are today getting up to the last step of the full build out, we're okay with the traffic analysis. That was the reason for those slides and frankly I didn't see any need to bring them up during my initial presentation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions? Just one question. Is there still one piece of property that's left. Okay. There is, the wind parcel is still pending development. You will be seeing that coming up in the coming months. But since that's a pending quasi judicial, I'm not going to say much more than that. It'll be on an upcoming agenda. And does the Marriott still have a piece to its development? No, ma'am. Okay, so that little B part that's listed on here has been taken off. That was a commercial tenant space, and I think they're working to fill that space with a tenant, but it was that development potential was approved with the initial site plan in 2021. So that is available for them to add commercial. But that parking was already the parking need for that was calculated and provided as part of the initial site plan in 2021. Are they part of the overall pool? Yes, ma'am. That parking's been accounted for. Okay, thank you. All right. No further questions for staff? We'll move on to closing. Mr. Booker. Thank you. Any deliberations, Council? Mayor, I have a suggested change to a condition with respect to the storm water. If you would like to hear it before. Yes, please. Okay. So sort of combined four and five. So we would remove conditions four and five from your resolution instead replace with a storm water maintenance plan for track C1. In cooperation with the Naples Square Properties owners association will be provided at the time of building permit review to satisfy storm water maintenance requirements. And I can provide that to the clerk too. Are there any other changes to the resolution? Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the resolution with the removal of conditions four and five in the replacement with a new condition for as outlined by Deputy Director Dolmer second Okay, I have a motion for approval by council member christman and a second by council member Hutchison madam clerk Please pull the council Councilmember christman. Yes, council member patronon. Yes, council member Barton. Yes council member kale. Yes. Council Member Barton. Yes. Council Member Kramer. Yes. Vice Mayor Hutchison. Yes. Council Member Pounderman. Yes. Mayor Heintman. No. But it passes six to one. Thank you. That takes us to item 11C. Mr. McConnell. Yes, Mayor. Thank you. A resolution for the purpose of determining site plan petition 24-SP3. Pursuing to section 46-33 of the Code of Ordnance is City of Naples for a landscaping project exceeding 10,000 gross square feet on property owned by park shore towers condominium within the park shore plan development and located at 4251 golf shore boulevard north more fully described here and in providing an effective date. Thank you. Madam clerk swearing in to all those attending the testifying if you could please stand and raise your right hand if able to do so. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Just Glosier's Council member of Parliament? I've had no contact and then vaguely familiar with the site. Pardon? Just some brief communication with staff. Kristen? No contact other than conversations with staff have not visited the site. Councilmember Kramer? I was contacted by somebody living there. I have looked at this and I am familiar with this site. Someone on the site and no contact. Vice mayor? You know familiar with this site. And conversations with residents, no contact with the petitioner, and kept an open mind throughout the process. And I'm familiar with the site and I've had no contact. So thank you and good morning. Good morning Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmember. My name is David Drape, see my resumes on file. I'm a registered Florida Landscape Architect, and I'm here to present this project to you. And thank you for this opportunity. For the record, Eric Francois, I'm the president of W.J. Johnson, and we're here on behalf of the Owners Association. Thank you. Good. How was this thing? Is that working? Here you go. Association. Thank you. That's that. Welcome. There you go. Yeah. We're worried about two and eight. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is the location map, a partial tower, a lace between the Gulf of Mexico and the Nation Bay. And this is an aerial of that site. Which is the wrong way. And this is our project site circled in red. And this is our project survey by a Boranque and this is the site 10 years ago beautiful beautiful landscape Another another view. This is a north of the entry and Another 10 year ago. So it's a really a place that the residents really enjoy. In 2010, this is a parking garage underneath, and it's a landscape garden on top of the roof deck. And in 1910, it was removed the planting vegetation to re-water proof the roof. But there's two areas with the water feature there. And then here, that we're not renovated because they don't have to destroy the water feature to do so. So to water proof the roof, this is like the substrate to concrete. And then there's water proofing membrane, a root barrier, a water detention area, the soil, and then the planting. And this is the plan to do so. And this is what the landscape looks like today, after Hurricane Andrew, it was really devastated and it's set like a room since Hurricane. And there's another view of the north and another view looking to the north east. So this is our demolation plan and the blue is the water and the brown is the rock features. And this whole side is pretty much a big water garden. And here's the rooftop part of the garden and rooftop part of the garden here. So to remove, to waterproof this roof, they have to remove this water garden. And to get the equipment in here, they have to ring soil and bring bulldozers up on the roof. So it's quite a mess. So therefore, this is the area that we're going to renovate where the water features were removed. And this is our master plan and I'll go into this in more detail with you as we proceed. The existing landscape here on the left shows the heart, the impermeable in brown and the permeable area in green. And then a proposed landscape is the same key, but you can see that there's more permeable area. We've gained almost 3,000 square feet of permeable area. This drawing shows the proposed parking. We're proposing to add four parking spaces here and two parking spaces here. And then with the water feature, there was no access, pedestrian access to the front door, except for on the road and we're proposing to put a sidewalk from the parking up to the front door. And here's the front door right here and that sidewalk makes this front door accessible. So going into a more detail of the garden, there's a pergola right here at the entry into the, this is like a courtyard. There's the tall tower, the roof garden, it's up eight feet above this area and the fitness center and this is a wall on the east side. So here's our sketch of the pergola. The main feature is a water wall. It's a 16 feet wide, 10 feet tall. And that will replace the waterfall of the water feature. And then we need to replace the stairway up to the water feature. And then there's that, we need to replace the stairway up to the roof garden. And this is the community identification sign as you approach the front door. So, the courtyard, which we call the plaza, is a series of sitting areas, pat call the plaza, it's a series of sitting areas, patios or plaza, wherever you may call it. This is an example for one, it's a permeable pavement and the water will percolate through that into the ground and these are the details of how that would be put together. And this is the overall water management plan. The, just mentioned that the roof itself is a water detaching area. It'll probably take about an inch and a half to two inches of rainwater, and it'll detain it before it runs off into the system. We're proposing a rock trench on this lower slope to catch the water that runs from here down. And in here, we're proposing a similar water trench for the water that runs from the courier and goes into there. And then this is the existing piping that takes the storm water into the system. And we're going to tie into that. This is a detail of why that water retention system looks like at the low-rand of the courtyard. And this is in plan. There's two catch basins. And then there's another one that's a clean out for it so that it could be maintained. And then this is a perforator pipe. So the water running from the catch base and it's run through this water Detention system of gravel and then it comes out and goes out into the existing pipe And this is the lighting plan low-vortices lighting low, and it's a turtle friendly. And it's just a bare necessity of lighting for safety. This is the irrigation plan. You'll notice there's a lot of zones, a lot of valves, because when you bring plants in from the nursery, they're on like intensive care, and you put them in the landscape, and if the irrigation is not adequate, they're going to suffer. But as the landscape develops, then these zones could be turned down, and some of them turn off. So it was really a water-conserving irrigation type design. And these are the, It was really a water-conserving irrigation type design. And these are the, this is the plant list, specification that can trees that we're gonna put into the landscape. And this is the landscape plan. It creates a kind of a gathering area for the residents in the middle for small post-e stamp line. Here's a terrace. Here's a lower terrace in front of the water wall. And here's another terrace over here with shade trees where they can sit in comfort and enjoy the outdoors. This is the rooftop garden. We're restoring that. And here's the rooftop garden, we're restoring that and here's a rooftop garden. And then this is the entry, a couple of palms to create kind of a gateway up here. And this is the sign here. And these are native trees and native shrubs under it. And then we also put ornamental palms and shrub bringing ground cover. A neat aspect of this is the jasmine and minima to work ground cover instead of grass. So it's a water-conserving energy efficient design. That's our presentation, if I might answer any questions I'd be pleased to. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I have Vice Mayor. Thank you for the presentation and thank you Mayor. Just a couple questions for you. Are the requirements related in as far as you know, are the requirements related to the storm water management system influenced at all by the installation of permeable pavement? I know, can you rephrase that question? Yeah, if you're gonna install permeable pavement, which I believe is your plan. Yeah, if you're going to install permeable pavement, which I believe is your plan. Yes, sir. Does that have any impact at all, any credits given, anything at all related to the storm water management system for the entire project? Well, I believe it should. Yeah. It's a water doesn't run off and just go down the drain. We all know that things happen and things that are permeable become unpermeable and pervious, right? So what's involved in properly maintaining a permeable pavement system over time? if no longer functions and it would be replaced. It's a choice, the client may, they request that kind of payment there and we made a work. Oh, I like it. I just was interested in a little bit more detail on it. Yeah. It's like anything. Things need to be upgraded every time. Thank you. Thank you very much.. Thank you. Madam. Council Member Christmown. Mr. Drape, so thank you and you put together what looks like a wonderful plan. So thank you. Great work. I just had one question. This, the need for this was, as you stated, I believe, really in response to damage done by Hurricane Ian. That's right. Plus the age, the roof that needed to be re-waterproof. And therefore, the water feature has to be removed. So it aged out to some degree? Yeah, it's about 39 years old this year. And the roof, water proofing is good for about 20 years. Yeah. So if this plan is implemented, as I think it will be, since Ian, we've had a few other weather events here in town, what are you, I'm just curious as a quality professional in your field, how do you think this new plan if it had been implemented prior to some of these recent storm events, how it would have weathered? Nothing is hurricane-resistant, 100% obviously, but do you feel like what you've got here is something that will perhaps better be able to withstand many storm events than what was there previously? Do you have any thoughts on that? Yes, sir. We've actually designed elements in to withstand storms for one instance, flooding. We're putting the mechanical equipment up on the garage top instead of down in the courtyard. And say, well, it's above the flood zone. Water detention, it will slow down the water that comes out. I think it's a modern landscape design. And the clients are very wonderful because they wanted to be a quality landscape. So it should be good for hopefully 20 years. Yeah, very good. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. No further questions for the petitioner. Asian. Okay. Thank you again, sir. We'll go to the staff report. I guess good afternoon. By two minutes. Council and mayor, Jeff Brown with the Planning Department. Petitioner requests site plan approval to renovate approximately 33,000 square feet of landscaping, understandably with the project this size, the scope of work, encompasses several elements. You've heard the specifics from the petitioner, but to reiterate, the project includes replacing the existing grounds with new plannings, furnishings, hard-scape lighting and signage. The petition has been reviewed by all city departments. Staff finds the project has met the various criteria for site plan review. Last month, the planning advisory board recommended approval unanimously with one condition. The condition was that the petitioner provides some additional technical information and documentation to address some comments that would be necessary before issuing building permits for the reviews in flood plain and storm water. The petitioner provided that documentation. It has been reviewed by those various departments with no objections from the city. For notification, we notified almost a thousand property owners within a thousand feet, the subject property in August. To date, staff received two phone calls regarding their quest. They were from residents asking how they could view the plans. They were curious about seeing what it looked like. I didn't hear back, so I assume they like what they saw. Pursuant to 4633 of the land development code, which I'm sure you're well aware of, City Council approval is required, because this site plan exceeds 10,000 gross square feet in landscaping changes and the property is located in a plan development. Should council wish to recommend approval, staff would recommend two conditions, they're noted on the resolution in there. First, all signage will be required to comply with the signage regulations in Section 5035 of the Code of Ordnances. And number two, the Landscape Architect will provide certification that the landscaping installed is consistent with the plans approved by City Council prior to final inspection. So that includes staff comments or some available for questions. Thank you, Mr. Rummer. Council, any questions for staff? Well, there you have it. I have no public comment. So closing remarks by the petitioner. Disregard? I don't think we have any more. I'd like to move for approval unless anyone has any further comments. I have a motion by Council Member Petr enough for approval and a second by Vice Mayor. Mayor, I'm clear. Please hold the council. Yeah, question. Do they have to be subject to the two? Did you not have two? I did. Okay. Okay. So the approval is including the subject to the... Okay. The second remains. Mayor Clerk. Council Member Peniman. Yes. Vice Mayor Hutchison. Second remain. Member Clerk. Councillor Member Penhamton. Yes. Vice Mayor Hutchison. Yes. Councillor Member Petronon. Yes. Councillor Member Barton. Yes. Councillor Member Christmas. Yes. Councillor Member Cramer. Yes. Mayor Huffman. Yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. It's going to be beautiful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's gonna be beautiful Thank you We're in a time for a break Shiv Lunch is here if you wanted to do a quick 20-minute lunch break come back at 12.30 and not got these couple of items It's up to you. Okay Council will have a However long you wish but but I just want to let you know that your lunch is here Okay 20 minutes Yes, okay, we'll return in 20 minutes and it's 1206. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Okay, today is Wednesday, October 16, 2024. Naples City Council regular meeting. Council's just completed a lunch break. In prior to break we completed agenda item 11C. We move now to item 11D and I go to our city attorney, Matthew McCunnell. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. A resolution determining petition 24-AA2 relating to an appeal of an administrative decision pursuant to section 2-84 of the Code of Ordinance's City of Naples to reverse an administrative determination denying the building permit for the installation of one-guide piling for property owned by William Wicca as trustee of the William B Wicca revocable trust and located at 300 bowline drive more fully described here and in providing an effective date. Thank you. I go to staff in Mr. McColle. I have a public comment on this. And on this one we're going to have disclosures. We are. Yep. Okay. And swearing in. Provost and attending to the upper testimony you were not previously swearing in. Please rise and raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give? Be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you and council. We'll go with disclosures, councilwoman tenement. Yeah, visited the site met with Mr. Lombardo and that's it. Thank you. Same, visit the site met with the attorney brief conversation with staff. Visited the site. Met with the petitioner and his agent and Also discuss this petition with staff. Thank you, Councilman Kramer. I visited the site and I met with the attorneys for both parties and I did talk with staff about this. No contact. And familiar with the site, no contact. Thank you. I think it's appropriate to let the pellant go first because normally after public comment he may want to reserve some time for a rebuttal. So I think we should start with Mr. Lamardo and then hear from staff go to public comment. I believe public comment is probably Mr. Broker. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes, just your name and Good afternoon council. My name is Zach Lombardo. I'm with the law firm of Woodward Pierce Lombardo 3200 Tami Amy Trail North As described I represent mr. Wicca the trustee of the William B Wicca Revocable Trust, and importantly here, the owner of 300 Ball line drive. And today, this is an appeal regarding an administrative decision for the permit application, PRMR2307429. This is a permit application to add a mooring piling and a stringer to an existing and permanent dock. The original permit, it was from 2005, permit 36384. And I just want to confirm before we get too far into this that I may reserve rebuttal after the public comment to close. Is that, yeah, noted. Thank you very much. So just to highlight the nature of the appeal on the screen before you is the review comment, which is the specific administrative action that we are appealing and seeking to be overruled. The staff interviewing, the application has cited that the proposed work, that's the addition of the moring piling in the stringer, violates section 5693, beef eight of the city's code, which states that no peer or boat lift, which here would include the moring piling, may be constructed, which inhibits the use or eight of the city's code, which states that no peer or boat lift, which here would include the mooring piling. Maybe constructed, which inhibits the use of functioning of the neighboring peer or boat lift. And so what I think would help frame this the best is to go through the permit history on this particular file. And so I want to start as an aerial from 2005. This is the original construction of the dock and what can be seen in the aerial is the location of the boat. The boat here is the same boat through the present, and it's been in the same location for 19 years, 2005 to present. But the permit history unfortunately has some confusion in it that I think can be demonstrated by looking at the permit file itself. In 2011, there is a permit file to modify the existing doc. On the screen here, you can see what the changes were. It was to extend the center peer out to the protrusion limit of 30 feet and to add four mooring pilings. I believe there's a laser pointer on this, but perhaps not. Okay, here we go. I want to highlight. Oh, well. This is the best. I think it's not Well. Is the use of that to be heard? The case is not needed. Oh, perfect. This here is the mooring piling in question today. This is the permit for the 2011 modification. And I want to confirm that this permit was applied for issued and then built. So here is 2011. That was constructed. The center piece was constructed and that mooring piling was constructed where the confusion comes in is what happens next There's a revision made To move the boat lift which was here out to these back mooring pilings Now again this mooring piling was part of the base application So this was applied for, permitted and built. Here is a picture of the boat sitting in the now further back boat lift. There's a side view of this that you can see. I believe Mr. Brooker has submitted an exhibit C in his letter that shows this era of time from the side view. And importantly, when this happens, the city staff points out that this is starting to look like it's creating an issue for the neighboring dock. Moving the boat back is causing a problem. And so what happens, even though the permit was issued, Robin Singer at the time issues a memo revoking the permit. But I want to highlight something very important in what Robin Singer says, and it's the last sentence here. She says, as such, the revocation would apply only to the permit revision approved in September, which extended the lift and piling. And this is where the ambiguity and the record shows up. Because the revision did not place the piling, it only moved the lift. The original permit application placed the piling. So if this remained, which is what happened, this remained, and this was revoked, what was revoked was the boat lift issue. And so there is this unfortunate confusion in the record driven by this memo, which only revokes the permit revision. So regardless, in response to this, Mr. Wicca moves the boat lift back. And so all this, by the way, is at his cost, he's following city instruction, he's building what they're telling him he can build. He's unbuilding what they're telling him he then can't build. And in that process, that mooring piling gets removed. But to just drive this point home, that mooring piling was part of the original permit that was not revoked. And I think at this point, it's important to address the elephant in the room because there's a piece of this discussion that was heavily focused on by the Planning Advisory Board that I think this provides some light to because here's the current site, there's an existing piling in the water, but yet as we're standing here today, this is a permanent appeal. That means that the permit has not even issued. So there's a piling in the water without a permit that led to a code enforcement case. And that needs some kind of explanation. Because why did Mr. Wicca put this in the water without an permit? And while I don't believe it's strictly relevant to the decision today, part of the answer is, it is in the city permit. It's in the original Unrevoaked 2011 city permit. There was a statement made by Mr. Brooker to the Planning Advisory Board. I know it was figuratively, he said that under the cover of night, Mr. Wicca goes and syncs this piling into the water, knowing he couldn't do it. More accurately, I would say, under the cover of a city permit, this city permit, that mooring piling was placed in the water and could have been there was never revoked. And so that ambiguity is what we're here about today because when Mr. Wicca applies to put this simple mooring piling into the dog, city staff tells him that creates that navigational issue, which leads us to the question on appeal, I'm sorry sir. Okay, the question on appeal is just that, does the mooring piling and stringer inhibit the use and function of a neighboring peer or boat lift? And if we look at what staff said, they focus on prior staff decision, the Robin Singer memo, the letter from attorney Robert Pritt, but those documents address the boat lift. They don't actually address the mooring piling. So I would suggest to you, this is actually a matter of first impression for you to determine whether or not this impacts the usage of the neighboring boat lift. And so to answer this question, my client, as part of his review comment response, retained an expert navigational witness, Captain Stars. His report is in our packet. It is located at page 16 of our application packet. And Captain Starons took a look at the site, took a look at the drawings, and concluded, and I've concluded some pieces of it in here, but all this is in your report. That it's perfectly functional to use the neighboring facilities with this mooring piling. And a large reason for his conclusion here is because the boat itself has always been in this location. There's never been any doubt in the city's permitting history that the boat can be here except for when the lift moved back. But we've put that back. So he's concluded there's no navigation issue and interestingly what he further concludes is actually a slight safety improvement. Because these boats sit up on lifts, these are jet ski slips over here and so jet skis sit lower on the water and lower units can be obstructions when you're sitting low on the water and so putting the piling here gives you something to push off on. And you know and I think there's been some questions about well why why have this piling at all I think there's four primary reasons but I would also suggest that the standard is just within his allotted space, within the protrusion limit, Mr. Wicca can build things that don't inhibit the neighboring dock. Whether it's a good idea or not, but here are the good idea reasons. One is it helps guide the boat into the slip, much safer fashion we're dealing with inches on either sides of this vessel. It adds an additional access for maintenance and cleaning. It provides additional tie down location for storm events to keep the boats safer on the lift. And then finally, per our expert, it provides additional safety for the neighboring facility. So I want to then get to, I think the next big question. So the first elephant in the room is, we'll hold on a second, there was no permit pulled. And I would suggest that that was, you know, a product of confusion in the permit file. But we are not here saying we don't need a permit and we're not saying that should have been how this works. We need a permit, we've applied for a permit, we can't get a permit until this question's resolved. The second big elephant in the room is, well, what's different than 2012 when this got revoked? And the staff report, it's a big focus in my reading of it of, this is a groundhog date. We already did this. But when you look at the source documents, the singular memo, and you look at the print letter, they're focusing on different things. In fact, the Robert Pritt letter talks not about the piling or even the lift. It talks about the boat dock extension in between the two slips, which if we scroll back here to the singer memo, Robin Singer states that since the vessel is more between the pier and the neighboring property, the extension of the pier would not inhibit the user function of a neighboring boat lift. And yet looking at the PRET letter, that's not what he says. He says it seems to be the issue that they're extending the dock five feet further into the water. And so there is some serious permit confusion here that is, to the point that, there's not been a determination that this piling actually inhibits the use. But that's not where our burden of proof is. Our burden of proof is we need to show you it's not a problem, which is why there's the Stalin's report in your packet. That, a navigational analysis, will not perform in 2012. And to my knowledge, there's nothing in the record contradicting that report. And as we know, this is a quasi-judicial hearing. The standard is you must make a decision based upon the evidence that you have before you. And what I see in the staff report and what I see in the record today is pointing to things like the singer memo and saying we already made this determination, but respectfully this determination has not been made. And we have put into the record a captain's analysis that that piling does not create an navigational issue. It's a very small adjustment. It's essentially where the boat already is. And so if the rule is that we cannot inhibit the neighboring boat facility, that has been met by the evidence that's before you today. I want to offer a condition to this. We offered this to the neighbors. They were not responsive to it, and that's fine, we still would like to offer this as a condition. To clean up the permit history, I think it would be important that in overruling this, a condition be placed on this that says that the lift cannot move backwards. It has to stay where it is now, because that definitively is what staff was concerned about. And it makes sense because the boat moves five feet further out into the water when the lift moves back. So we would like to offer a stipulate to a condition where the boat lift can't move. The piling can be there, the stringer can be there, but the boat lift has to stay where it is now. It cannot at a later date be moved into the water. And so based on the evidence that's there, my view and then looking at that burden shifting, this is clearly something that impacts the neighborhood 286. And we don't have a letter of no objection from 286. So I don't want to, I'm just putting this in here because it was a notice hearing and we had to send out lots of mail and receive responses. But clearly 286 is the party that is at issue here. And I think from the city's perspective and 286 owners perspective, the Freemans perspective, it needs to be shown why this one-moring piling creates a navigational issue that stops them from using their dock because by all accounts from our expert looking at the maps, looking at the site, it does not do that. And in fact, the city itself issued a permit for that piling that was never revoked. And we're not here traveling under a theory that somehow a permit that was never built on 19 years ago is a good permit. We're here trying to get a new permit. But what I'm saying to you is staff didn't revoke this permit because the mooring piling was in the way of the neighboring dock. And that matters for today's consideration. So if you have any questions I would love to address them. I'd love to reserve the rest of my comments after the public comment. Thank you very much. Council we can entertain questions for the appellant now or we can go to staff and allow them to speak on the matter and then go to questions. Any thoughts? I'm ready to start. Okay. Let's go to staff. Eric, Martin, Planning Director. You have before you today an appeal of an administrative decision. This is pursuant to section 2-8-4 of your land development code or of your code ordinances. This is for the property at 300-balline drive, and it's an appeal of a decision. The planning department's denial of a permit request. This is for a permit for, this is an after the fact permit for the installation of a piling. It's also, I don't know the drawings, I don't know if there are any more. It's not just piling, but there's a stringer, a little section of decking that attaches that new piling to a previous piling. The history on this was touched on by Mr. Lombardo, but I included in your staff report the long history going back to 2012. This essentially has been decided before this exact same circumstance. The one piece of permit history that was not touched on by Mr. Lamardo is there was a permit issued in 2012. A building permit was issued for the removal of this piling and relocation of the boat lift. So if we are relying on the most recent permit history, the most recent permit history is to remove that piling and relocate that boat lift. So to say that we're relying on a, you know, recent permit history, that's the most recent permit history. It's not the permit originally allowed to extend that, which was revoked, that permit allowing that piling and boat lift was revoked. A subsequent permit was issued to remove that piling and relocate that boat lift. The piling was removed, boat lift was relocated and this was in 2012. Then at some point this year, the piling and this small section of dock was reinstalled without a building permit. The city was notified. Code enforcement was notified. Code enforcement did go out there, cited them for the violation. They then applied for the building permit, and I rejected the building permit based on the fact that this exact issue, exact circumstances, have already been decided. This has been determined by a previous planning director, previous city attorney, and the previous harbor master, which was included in the letter from Robin Singer. So given that it was already determined that this piling was in violation of our code and was to be removed. And that none of those circumstances have changed, it's the same piling in the same location. I did not approve that building permit. And that's the planning advisor. We did notify all property owners within a thousand feet. You did receive a number of letters. I believe we received one late yesterday that was not included in your packet. That was from the neighboring property owners at 286. It included an affidavit. It was sent to City Council. We will include that in the record. And the Planning Advisory Board did vote five to two to recommend denial of this administrative appeal. Thank you, Ms. Martin. Council, we're at another one of those points. We've got one public comment. And then we have an opportunity to question staff and the appellate. Would you like to hear the public comment before we start our questions? Yes, I have. Thank you. Yep. Okay. For public comment, have Clay Brooker Good afternoon Mr. vice mayor Yeah, the mic my time didn't start up good afternoon mayor vice mayor and city council My name is Clay Brooker with the law firm of Chaffee Pasadomo. 821 Fifth Avenue South. We are assisting Anthony and Jean Freeman owners of the neighboring property at 286 Ball line drive, the use of whose dock is being once again inhibited by Mr. Wicca's dock extension. The Freemans are seasonal residents and have not yet returned to Naples, therefore they sent each of you this affidavit a couple of days ago and I hope you had the opportunity to review it because it contains sworn testimony from the Freemans. I have extra copies here and I request that the affidavit be made part of the record. Before 2005, a different doc existed behind the Freemans' house. This was before the Fre's purchase their property. The dock at that time in 2005 was parallel to the seawall and required vessels to come behind Mr. Wicca's house to use the dock at my client's house. However, by 2006, Mr. Wicca had installed the peer in question today which prevented vessels from accessing the parallel dock next door. Respecting Mr. Wicko's rights, the predecessor owner of the Freeman's house ripped out his existing parallel to the C wall dock, and then redesigned, permitted, and installed an entirely new dock, which rather than parallel to the C wall, angled out from the seawall, thereby providing reasonable access to his dock. It is this angled dock which continues to exist today some 15 years later. When the Freemans purchased their property in 2010, they noted the respective type positioning of the two dock, but they were convinced that the angle of their dock provided reasonable access to theirs. However, about one year later, Mr. Wicca extended his dock five feet further into the water by doing so access to and use of the Freeman's dock was inhibited. The city's planning director, the city's attorney, and the city's harbor manager all agreed. And Mr. Wicca was forced to remove that five foot extension thereby restoring reasonable access to the Freeman's dock. All of us occurred in 2012 and all was fine for more than a decade. However, during the summer of 2023, Mr. Wickel once again extended the pier and extra five feet into the water, installing a piling and stringer in the exact same location of the dock extension that he was forced to remove in 2012. And he did so without pulling a permit first. As a result, the use of the Freeman's doc has once again been inhibited for the past year. Nevertheless, the city gave Mr. Wick a the opportunity to apply for an after-defect permit. However, to its credit, the city's planning department maintained consistency with the city's decision back in 2012 and denied the permit application. Mr. Wicca is now before you appealing that denial and asking you to overturn Miss Martin's decision. The Freemans respectfully request that you not do so, that you deny Mr. Wicca's appeal. Otherwise you are rejecting, not, man, I got 15 seconds. Otherwise you are rejecting not only Miss Martin's decision, but also the decision of the city's planning director, the city attorney, and the city hardware manager 12 years ago. Keep in mind that if you deny Mr. Wicca's appeal, it will not impair the use of his dock one bit. All it will do is require the removal of the extra five feet of extension into the water, and Mr. Wicca has been freely and fully using that dock without the extra five feet with no issues for more than a decade now. However, if you grant Mr. Wickus appeal, you will be inhibiting the use of the Freeman stock. For all of these reasons, the Freemans urge you to deny Mr. Wickus appeal as recommended by the Planning Advisory Board. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Brooker, Mr. Lombardo, I think it's appropriate now for your rebuttal. Thank you. And before I do, may I have a copy of this affidavit that I was not provided? Yes. So I'd like to address a couple things that were said. Starting with staff's comment, the demolition permit that was not addressed in my presentation Is it on now? Should I back up or? Okay. Where I'd like to start with this is the comment from staff that I left out a permit that I did not address the demolition permit to remove the piling. The reason I left it out is because it doesn't address the usability of the neighboring dock. The singer memo specifically states that what was revoked was the revision. The revision does not include the piling, it only includes the boat lift. It appears that there was some confusion and the piloting was removed, the demo permit was applied for. And so we're not offering any of this to suggest we don't need a permit. We need a permit. We're here to get a permit. What I'm saying is it doesn't impact the usability of the neighboring dock. And I think that the other pieces of information about whether or not we're in code enforcement, they're true. It needs to be addressed, but this is not the forum in which to do so. There is a code enforcement case, and the planning board did focus very heavily on whether or not there was a permit pulled, and that's not the standard here. The standard is does this one piling inhibit the use of the neighboring dock facility. And now having the record here, having this affidavit that I'm skimming through after having just received it. I do not see any competing analysis as to why this piling inhibits the use of the Freeman doc. And that is what needs to be shown here. There was analysis when the boat lift moved back. It was concluded that went five feet further into the channel and that created an issue. There's no evidence in the record today that the mooring piling has that same defect. And so I also want to recharacterize the way Mr. Brooker described what the action today is. We're not asking you to overturn the singer, singer memo. We're asking you to uphold it. The singer memo asked for the lift to be moved back, not the mooring piling. So we're stipulated to a condition that says the lift will not ever move in this configuration. We just want the mooring piling. And so, and finally, there was some commentary about the neighboring dock. So this is the permit file from the neighboring dock facility here. This is true that the dock was reshaped. This is a difficult part of the city, and I think this happens a lot of times in areas where you have just constrained shorelines. Mr. Wicca has a straight shoreline, but this one's curved. It creates complications. But you'll notice in the permit file that there's clearly space between the end of the peers and what the city shows is the property line. However, that's not what shows up on the aerial. And so, had this space been maintained by the Freemans and their dock build out, they would not be contributing to the choke point here. But regardless, our expert looked at this based off existing, all structures in the water existing, including the fact that the Freemans dock goes all the way out to the property line as opposed to having that space here. Now I wish the city permit file had dimensions here. There's no dimensions on this document. All I can say is that there's clearly space between the property line and the mooring pilings that does not exist in the dock itself. And so I think a lot of part of this is this neighbor dispute that is unfortunate, but all we're asking for is a review of the code as it stands. The only standard here, the only standard flag I say staff is that this moring piling and stringer inhibit the use of the neighboring facility. So why my client would like to have this, the fact that he didn't have it for a long time and seemed to be functioning fine, the fact that we're in code enforcement, these are not the decision points. The decision point is, is there evidence to show that there is a use inhibition for the neighboring property and after reviewing the record listening today, reviewing the affidavit, I don't see that. So we would ask you to overturn the decision with the condition that we agreed to. Thank you, Mr. Embarrow. And for the record, Mr. Lombardo began his rebuttal comments about 101 and it's now 104. Mr. McConnell, before council begins the deliberation in questions. Do you have any guidance or any guardrails as we begin that deliberation? Do you have any advice for council as an appellant? In this capacity, no. I think it's based on the evidence presented. Okay. Can I? Do I? Very good. Can I add something really quick? I'm sorry, go ahead. I've just had two things. One, I would just caution council about using an aerial in any sort of dimensional capacity. The aerials are, there are no property lines depicted on the aerial and there's no, the aerials even from the property appraiser in our own. Those are pretty pictures. Those aren't accurate. This is not a survey. This does not show you from a surveyer where the property lines are. So I would disregard an aerial and with respect to the relation of the dock to the property line that doesn't give you an accurate depiction, only a survey of that dock and its actual existing conditions would give you that. So I just would caution you against that. And then secondly, while Mr. Ombardo did reference an excerpt from the 2012 memo, there is another letter that's in your packet and it's the letter from Robyn Singer to Mr. Wicca. And in that letter, she does say that I have, as the planning director, I have reviewed the available permit information, the city attorney's opinion and the opinion of the city's code and harbor manager. And I have determined that while the boat lift and peer are consistent with the dimensional limitations of Section 5693C3, the new piling and relocated lift inhibit the use and function of the neighboring peer and lift. So in this letter, she did reference specifically the piling as inhibiting the lift. So there's a little difference between that language and what he has highlighted in his presentation from the other memo. So I'm relying also on this letter in which Miss Singer did say that based on the opinions from the Harbor Master, the attorney and her own review, she did determine that the piling also inhibited the use and so that's why. Thank you so, Ms. Martin, we heard not to rely on these areas. And we heard your affirmation of the advice from the previous planning director singer. You referenced a city attorney and you referenced a harbor master. Back to Mr. McConnell. Mr. McConnell, we've had the appellant and Mr. Brooker both talk about the issue that we need to decide today. And one of the slides, they're going to the question on appeal. So these are not your, this is not preparation in the packet. Please remind council what we're deciding. I think the question on this screen is precisely what Robin Singer and the prior city attorney's decision was based on. So I actually think this question is pretty accurate. Okay, if we can- It doesn't inhibit, I mean, because all of that evidence was based on them inhibiting their access and use of their boat dock. Okay, I'd like to go to questions now. Councilman Kramer. Thanks. If we had a survey, would that impact this, would that give a rationale to move either direct for us to make an decision? A survey of the 26th Ball line? Yeah, a survey of the property lines because if- I mean you have the property line depicted with respect to the 300 ball line in the permit drawings. We just don't have the survey, we don't have a survey of the 286. So what's in question today is the 286 hasn't moved. The location of those docs have it moved. So that's remained the same since the 2012 determination. So the only thing that has changed is what's happened on the 300-ball line. Is this, Ms. Martin, is the slide on the screen? That's not a survey. Right. So do you have a slide that's saying or depicting what you just described? I don't have a survey of the neighboring property. I don't have that. Okay. We have what we have here is the permit drawings that were submitted for 300, okay. Mr. Kramer, back to you, please. No, that was the, were you met up? Is that what you're saying? That's the drawing from the permit set. That's not a survey, that's just a drawing. Okay, well, sorry. Well, so that's my, I think that's kind of the, if their property line extends like this shows it, that could be a deal breaker or a deal maker. Am I wrong in that? I'm not disputing that their property line extends like that. I think what I was saying is when Mr. Lombardo showed an aerial and had superimposed a property line, that was not determined by a surveyor. And we've got- So there's no way with the naked eye for someone to look at an aerial and determine the property. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if we go back one slide. So I don't dispute that this is accurate with respect to the location of the 300-balline dock. I'm just saying that based on that aerial, I wouldn't rely on the location of either of those docks with respect to the property line. Because that's just a picture. I understand. But it is to me pertinent because of the funky shape. And if you go there and you look at it, you know, I'm just going to be to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is, Botless, everything that says that no doc shall inhibit the use of a neighboring doc. And that's what's super seating. You have to comply with all of those things. So you may comply with your own dimensional standards, meaning you're set back, but you also have to comply with that provision that you will not inhibit the use of a neighbor's property. And so where it gets fuzzy for me as a bow donor is, I don't have no problem making that turn, Harkin, but what if I said, what if I didn't, what if I was not good at driving? And then so what then, where does the standard live? Anybody could say, I can't get it out of there. Well, I'm saying, well, you need to practice more. Well, in 2012, based on all of the testimony of, you know, the Harbor Master and I think you had, we have a documentation here from the building official, the Harbor Master, the Planning Director and the City Attorney, they determined that with all the information available to them, that doc inhibited the use of 286 badly. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Kramer, Councilman Christen. Miss Martin, going to Section 5693 of our code, which is the relevant section. And I guess we're talking about the subsection that refers to the conditions of inhibiting use of a neighboring dock that would be subsection D. So it's 5693 B8. B8, okay. So if your role would be constructed which inhibits the use or function of an neighboring bureau. The interpretation of that section that was made back in 2012 by a Planning Director Singer, Harbor Master, or City Attorney, Mr. Pritt, and which you are staff today is concurring with is is that based is that is that? Is that decision essentially best judgment based on visual observation or past experience and these sorts of matters And that sort of thing or are there any specific standards within that section of the code that also were relied upon? It's judgment, but then in this case it was actual testimony of the neighbor that said this extension has inhibited my use of my dock. So it was based on the contention of the neighbor. And presumably the agreement that staff and our city attorney had, this did constitute an impediment. Yes. But it was not based on anything in terms of specific standards or criteria within that section of the code that you went back to to make that determination. No, it's just that state. OK, thank you. Thank you, Councilman Christman. Councilman Barton, please. Just a timeline here. So initially the piling was approved originally to put it out there by itself. This is before the request to move the boat lift. So was there originally an approval to have that piling out there before the boat lift permit was applied for to move the boat lift? Yes, so there was a permit that was issued in July of 2011 to extend the existing shore parallel dock up to the existing lifts and to extend the existing shore normal, so normal being perpendicular, peer located between the lifts five feet into the waterway. Okay. Then a revision was applied for to add new electrical service and a new boat lift to replace the existing boat lift. The revision was processed out. Unfortunately, the revision was never provided to the Planning Department. There was not a zoning review. It was not done on the revision to extend the boat lift. So we didn't, there was not a zoning verification against this section of the code when that boat lift extended. That was a never shown. So the piling was originally approved and that didn't have anything initially to do with moving the boat lift correct That came up But but there were two separate requests is that correct or no? It was yeah an original request and then a revision to the same permit. Okay, so and that the Movement of that boat lift was initially approved and then it was revoked. Correct. Okay. Now, when that boat lift movement was revoked, are you of the opinion that the piling that was initially approved was also revoked along with the movement of that boat lift or was it only the movement of the boat lift that was revoked and not the piling? Based upon the letter from Robin Singer where she says in this letter that she has determined that, and I'm paraphrased, the new piling and relocated lift inhibit the use and function of the neighboring piling lift because that language, the new piling, itated lift, inhibit the use and function of the neighboring parent lift because that language, the new piling, it's my, the determination was it wasn't just moving the lift, it was the extension and the moving of the lift. And then the fact that the subsequent permit that was submitted to address this was to remove the piling and relocate the land. Okay, so in 2012, after review by the Harbor Master City Attorney and Planning Director, that's when they reviewed this and said, wait, that was a mistake, we need to, we're going to revoke that. that and that revocation was based on the fact that that movement of the lift and that piling were inhibiting the neighbors. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilming. First step. Looking at what's on our screen currently. On the left side we show a property line. I don't know the legal term I'm going to use right-parian rights. Are you showing the property line because that is the end of the length to which anyone on the water has riparian rights. In other words, if I have a house on this body of water, do my riparian rights extend out a certain length? So this is the drawing that was submitted for a building permit. So the reason that they are showing the property lines against, this is not a survey. This is just a graphical depiction by their marine contractor. But the reason they're showing those property lines and then the dimensions, the 12 feet and then 10 feet on the other side is because what your code requires for all for docs is that the shore parallel dimension of a pier shall not exceed the width of the rear yard, less the side yard setback dimensions for the subject zoning. So as those property lines extend into the water, they have to maintain the same side setback for a pier that they would for the house. Okay. So a 10 foot side setback, that's why they're showing those Property lines extending into the water. Okay, so where we show the dock And again, this is all we've got to work with so let's try to work with it We show the dock as being gray in color and then an extension of being sort of yellow in color correct so you're telling me that that extension then did exceed there what I'm going to call again riparian rights. It did not so interestingly okay like I said the the doc and and as Miss Singer noted in her letter that while the boat lift and pure are consistent with the dimensional limitations meaning they meet that 10 foot side sitback that is required. They however do not meet that additional criteria whereby they cannot inhibit the use of a neighboring property. You have to meet both. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Peneman. So I'll have just a few questions here. The agenda item, I want to be clear about this. This is relating to an appeal, an administrative decision, to reverse an administrative determination denying the building permit for the installation of one guide piling for this property owned by Mr. Wicca and the Revocouple Trust at 300 Bowline Drive. So the question, and if we could go to that slide, David, that has the question before us that the city attorney spoke to, does it inhibit the use or function of a neighboring peer or boat lift? And- Vice-American, I seek one point of clarification from staff. Is it just a piling or is it the five feet extension of the dock as well? The stringer as well. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that point for you all. The totality of the unpermitted work applies to the piling and the stringer attachment back to the piling. If Mr. Lombardo could go to the picture, I think you could see the different shade, the color of the wood. Yes. Okay, I just want to make clear what the niles. There's no walking service. That's a stringer connecting some pilings. It does hurt. And it has a width to it. It did. You could look on it. Okay, so we're talking about before us. I'm sorry, before us is the piling and the stringer. Okay. My question is this. Let me make sure I get it right. The, I believe the appellant stated that they would, they would agree, if I'm wrong, please let me know, Mr. Lombardo, but I believe the statement was the boat lift itself. So we've got this matter about the piling in the stringer inhibit the use or function of the neighboring peer or boat lift. Let's say we agree to that. Does it matter if we make a statement or take a position, if it's the will of this council, that the existing, the currently located boat lift must not move seaword? Is that even an issue? No. Because it can't. It's a preferred condition if you overturn the appeal and approve the permit Because right now if you applied to move the boat if it would he would get denied Based on the same Okay, thank you Council I just want to go back are there any follow-up questions? Okay, can I just add one clarifying response? Yes. Okay. There's been, so in discussing the evidence and discussing what is looked at, I think it's also important to note that we did have an navigational expert look at everything in the water as it was keeping in mind that those are jet ski lifts to determine that there was not an navigational issue. That's no use issue for that dock because we're looking at that's all the evidence that's just a piece I think that needs to be considered. Thank you and Mr. O'Martow it's true that those are jet ski lifts now, but if a subsequent owner were to take over, is there anything that you believe stipulates they have to remain jet ski lifts? Well, what I would say to that is that the permit itself shows the size of those lifts. So in order for them to permit a full size boat there, they would be up against the same provision of this use piece. So I agree with that. Okay, very good. All right, council. Yeah, Mr. Councilman Chris. The question Mr. Lombardo for you as the agent for the petitioner. It seems to be factually correct to say that at least from the time that in 2011, 2012, when the original piling was put in, and then subsequently had to be removed, that Mr. Wicca has been able to use his dock without incident and without the need for the additional piling and extension and that's not just for sure while that's for 12 years. comment on that? Yes. The Markable. Sorry, I didn't realize that one off. Facilities can always be made more optimal. So the fact that he's able to use it doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon. But more importantly, the standard isn't that a property owner needs to show a statement of need for why they need to design their boat dock a particular way. Instead, the standard is they just need to do it in a way that doesn't impact their neighbors. So for example, if Mr. Wicca wanted to put a bunch of pilings all over he was inside the protrusion limit inside the dimensional limits and wasn't impacting his neighbors. So whether or not he could use this facility for 12 years, which obviously he did use it for 12 years. Doesn't mean it couldn't be improved from a state perspective for him and for the boat. If this was put here, as long as it's done in the way it doesn't impact the neighbor. And my other question is that you know it strikes me that you know what we're really talking about is a private property dispute between two neighbors. And that ended up coming to us, and it's our job, I'm not. But at least I can, in my own mind, step back and say, couldn't this have been resolved by the two parties either directly or through mediation, and was there ever any consideration of that to your knowledge? We have talked, we've not been able to arrive at a agreement. I mean, this standard is a city code requirement, and so we couldn't privately agree one way or the other because you all have to approve the permit. And so there have been discussions, they have not been fruitful discussions, and I'm not putting that on the neighbor. I'm just saying that the parties were not able to agree. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Chrisman, Councilman Kramer. I just to pick you back on that. When I talk to both attorneys, I think it's a shame that we're here. I told them both that, at which we could work this thing out. I also think it's, I mean, if you've written Jetski's man, I think it's pretty goofy to say that you can't navigate that. I really do. It's goofy. In my final analysis, I'm not going to push back against all of the staff that's pushing this direction. And I'll just assume whoever's grabbing those jet skis is clueless. But that's just how it is. I can't push back against staff. Thank you, Councilman Kramer. For the City Council, now we're gonna be to the point where we're gonna take a vote on this. And I take you to the resolution as you think about a motion on this matter in section two. It says the administrative appeal petition for this item is hereby. It's either going to be sustained, modified or overruled. The petition, the appeal petition, sustained, modified or overruled relating to an appeal pursuant to the section of the code and the description of the property. If the appeal is upheld, I believe Mr. McCong, is it the appeal or the administrative decision that has been made is upheld? It's not clear. It really is. And if I could just suggest that we just say approve or denied. Okay. Okay, so if it's approved or denied, the language says that council finds and determines. Let's say that it's denied. We have to determine the reason for denying. Is that correct, Mr. McConnell? Okay. And if approved, they determine the application and she'll contain any following conditions. So that tells us where we need to go. Council? I'm a little confused now. So if we, if we approve this, are we approving the upholding the denial? No. Okay. If you approve the administrative appeal, then you are turning it over and staff should move forward with the permit and the cut enforcement will be. If you deny the administrative appeal, which remind is an application from the appellant, then their request is denied and staffs ruling from 2012 is upheld. It's approving the appeal or denying the appeal. Perfectly said. Yes. And vice mayor, and we would deny it based upon staffs and legal's opinion that we have evidence. Just to clarify, it's not my opinion. Okay. Right. It's prior, because again, I'm not a navigational expert. This was all based on a complaint from the neighbor. If it was a denial of the appeal, would it be appropriate to deny based on the evidence presented? Yes. Thank you. I see. Before motion is proffered by someone, opportunity for some final discussion, please. By any of us. Yes, sir. So I'll just say, and I think my questions sort of got it this. This is, to me, a frustrating matter to have me brought before the Councilman Kramer said it well, but it's our job and it's here. You know, there's a lot of history here. There's a lot of head scratching that I do with respect to why pilings were put in without a permit, but that's also not necessarily relevant to the decision that we're being asked to make here. I'm not a boater. I don't own a boater or know how to drive a boat except occasionally and you wouldn't want me to be on your boat driving it, trust me. So I can't render any independent judgment as to whether the neighbor's dock is impeded by what is being proposed here. All I really have to rely. And you saw my questions regarding our code and how specific it is in terms of creating a basis for staff to make a judgment on this and it's not very specific. It's a judgment call. And so I sit here really having to rely on, you know, largely on the testimony and position of our staff both past and present. And obviously there are counter opinions that the appellance attorney has, has profored in including the marine expert that he hired. But to me, it really comes down for better awards to what we're hearing from our staff, including staff experts like our former Harbor Master. And both 12 years ago and today. Thank you, Councilman Chrisman, City Council. I'll make one final statement. So, I agree. We're all trying to say this, you know, we really would have enjoyed seeing this settled outside of these chambers. I'll tell you that I've driven a boat and it did not turn out well. I then thought I should own a boat and it sank. And so now I do rely heavily on subject matter experts. And in this matter, the subject matter experts that I've heard from or from the past, the city attorney, the harbor master and our planning director similar to what Councilman just said. So Councilman looking for a motion. I'll make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to deny the appeal based on our former staff's opinions and reference to inhibiting the neighbor's dock. Second. We have a motion made by Councilman Barton, seconded by Councilwoman Petrinov, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Councilmember Petronoff. An affirmative. A yes would be supporting the motion to deny the appeal. Okay. I will yes. Deny the appeal. Vice Mayor Hutchison. Yes. Councilmember Christen. Yes. Yes Councilmember Christian. Yes, yes Member Barton. Yes Member Kramer with regret. Yes Councilmember Peniman. Yes Absent. Yeah, let the record reflect that mayor heighten is absent Thank you Okay Thank you. Okay. That was item 11D. We move to item 11E. Yes. Mayor. Mr. City Attorney. A resolution determining outdoor dining petition 24-0D8 to establish outdoor dining on private property, including a total of nine tables and 36 seats for the restaurant known as Atomo on 5th, Cucina and Bar on property owned by Niko 401 Fifth Avenue South LLC and located at 409 Fifth Avenue South, more fully described herein and providing an effective date. For all those who continue to offer testimony, please raise your 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. Okay. Council, disclosures. Councilwoman Pettiment. Familiar with the site, no contact. Familiar with the site, brief communication with staff. Familiar with the site and no contact with the petitioner, but I did have some email communication with representatives of the bid in the last couple days. Thank you, Councilman Cramer. familiar with the site and brief conversation with staff. From here with the site, no contact. I'm familiar with the site and by the site, I had the comments from the community and no contact with the petitioner and I've kept an open mind on this subject. Vice Mayor Peike, I just briefly amend my disclosure. I also had, in addition to the bid, I also had communications by email with staff. Thank you, Councilman Chrisman. Okay, for the petitioner, if you would, your name please. Good afternoon. My name is David Corbin, principal architect with David Corbin Architects. It's 5012, 10 May, I'm Israel North. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council. We represent the owners of Audemont on Fifth in this application for outdoor dining. We were also the architects for the original restaurant that was here, Tai Udon, turned it from a bank into a restaurant. And then also we represented the owner in the subsequent outdoor dining petition in front of Design Review Board. And since that time, that restaurant changed hands and it had to go for another outdoor dining permit. So we're representing Audemont Fifth. There's very little change in the outdoor dining configuration that's been there historically. I think it's a little bit more restrictive with the new kind of regulations that required as far as the life safety plan goes from the fire marshal. So we have completed the application that is the checklist and the guidelines for outdoor dining that includes life safety plans. It includes any sort of a pertinent such as outdoor heaters that's been applied for and reviewed by the fire marshal. I think you see that in the staff report that there were no comments there. I would like to say that we did have a, I guess a slight misrepresentation, or I would say a typo where I think we said that the out the lighting level would be more than a half foot candle at the property line. That's incorrect. It should have read that we would not be more than a half foot candle at the property line as per the code. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that the other lighting from the street is going to overpower at that lighting at the at the at the property line. So also another thing that we saw on the staff report is it is saying that we're applying for 36 seats. We're actually applying for 34. I think the mistake there is that it's eight four tops and a single two top. So so that makes for 34. So the as before, I'm sure my presentation is here. David, I'm not sure where the presentation is. I guess I just should have clicked on the. He's bringing it up. Let's give him a minute. I just put it in the presentation folder. My apologies. Okay. Cancel that's that's our oversight. So our apologies that we didn't have that ready and preloaded Okay So yes before nine fifth Avenue South I think What's everyone is familiar with the location? This is just the site plan So I think staff did have in their review is two requests. One of them being providing a lighting plan, I would assume that's like a photometry plan to show the lighting levels prior to approval. We're fine with that to happen. So I just see the site plan up here. I don't see the, in the agenda. There we go. I'll just open up the. Sorry about this. there's a petitioner's presentation if that's what I'm looking for. Note down. Okay. So this I think you know this will go before a design review board. And I just want to kind of go through here is the life safety plan that was provided and reviewed by the Fire Marshal. Owners also proposed to have a decorative railing. That would be about 30 inches tall. That again is going to make sure that things occur within the property, not kind of spill out into the right of way. And another thing that's going to happen here is that we had designed the existing awning for Ty Udon that had a fire resistant canopy cover when the property changed hands that owner took that out and put up one that I'm not sure if it got approved but I'm pretty sure that's what's there now that's leaking and needs to be replaced. Anyway, part of our proposal is that that be replaced with one that is fire resistant again. So I would entertain any questions that the child might have. So. Thank you, Mr. Corbin. Our council, again, we can go to staff and then circle back with questions. If that's okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Corbin. We may have some questions here then circle back with questions. If that's okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Corbin. We may have some questions here in just a few minutes. Okay, thank you. I'd like to go to city staff. Yes, good afternoon. Members of council, my name is Nate Jones, senior planner. I'll hear the department. The pleasure to be in front of you for the first time. Roman Italian Bistro and Pete Seria at 655th Avenue South is rebranding. They're moving to 409th Avenue and will be rebranding as Atimo on 5th, Cucina and Barr. On September the 12th, 700 letters were sent out to a butters with no correspondence calls received to date. On the 1st is proposing outdoor dining on a 409 square foot area with 34 seats I might add. The site was previously home to two other restaurants that had outdoor dining approved by the city as noted by the petitioner KC KJ sushi 33 seats, Tai Udon at 32 seats. So the amount is congruent with each other. Fire, police and code enforcement all reviewed the application. No substantial comments requiring revision or requests for more information. And then our planning review has some facts as follows. The applicants note that the hours of operation will be 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. There's no protrusion onto the eight foot sidewalk or the public right of way. A decorative aluminum fence is proposed entirely on private property to separate the diners from pedestrians on Fifth Avenue. New pavers, fans and structureed heating lamps have all been proposed. Those will go before DRB for review as well. The petitioner intends to submit an application for a license to serve alcohol on site, as well as an application for assigned menu board when the time comes. Since the property is located on the Fifth Avenue overlaylay criteria, H-I-J regarding square footage of structures and parking exterior to the site don't apply to this outdoor dining application. The properties located downtown within 300 feet of residences and the residential impact criteria do apply. Following the review though, it does not appear that the proposed outdoor diet and use has any more intense use or issues than the prior dining establishments that would have been at the same exact spot. And then we would just note that should the board be inclined to take any approval action as we noted, we did recommend a lighting plan to be submitted prior to the certificate of occupancy of the new business based off of what we did see in the application as well as just ensuring no negative impact to neighbors. And that the petitioner will ensure that the newly installed aluminum railing is only on private property per city ordinance. If the board finds this favorable, they will be going to DRB for review for the remainder of their outdoor dining. I'm happy to take any questions you may have. Councillor McRisper. Just a couple of questions, slash comments. Nate, this is all, and by the way, welcome to all the fun and games here at the City Council. This is the dining, outdoor, there is an entirely on private property, correct? That's correct. And essentially we'll be structured more or less the same as the outward dining that both KJs and Tau Don hat. That's our understanding. Yes. Okay. And the, when I saw this on the agenda and reviewed it, I reached out to both staff and to the bid because Roma is now located, I guess, in the 700 block of Fifth Avenue. And in a block where there have been some problematic issues with code violations over time. And what I learned was that this is principally an issue with another restaurant there, not Roma. And that Roma is considered by the bid anyway. I see Ms. Stepanee and sitting in the rear of the room and I wanna speak for her, but she indicated to me that the bid considers Roma and it's for prior to be a great asset to Fifth Avenue. Having said that, the code enforcement manager, Mr. Quincy, in response to an email, I sent to him and others said that there have been three code violations by Roma in the last 12 months. Most reason one on March 30th of this year, I think in each case they were based on what I'm seeing here is they were minor At least one of them occurred when there was a major of that on Fifth Avenue cars on Fifth and and Quickly responded to but I just wanted to note that I think that given the reputation that this Provider has and I think and then Desire ability of filling this space. It's really been kind of a hole on Fifth Avenue for some time Tauyuton used to be one of my favorite restaurants before closed. It was a casualty of COVID I think and So having a good restaurant there, I think we'll be a big plus for the street, but just want to say to the petitioner that there have been violations and as you move down to a new location, if we approve it, one would hope that there wouldn't be any more. I mean, things can happen, but three and 12 months is a fair number. So I don't know if you'd like to respond to that. Yes, and please state your name. My name is Lady Ameta. I'm the owner of the Rome Italian Bissian Pizzeria. We're planning to expand and move from that location to where KJ Sushi used to be. I understand there were a couple of violations and this happened during the Easter weekend and the cars on the fifth. We did extend couple tables in the space next door, which was approved by we couldn't use it. And it was because of the flux and the restaurant couldn't. For the city regular customers they came in in but this will not happen again because we're already having enough space and seat and outdoor inside dining But thank you for everything. Yeah. Well, thank you for thank you for the explanation. Thank you Thank you very much Thank you and then the final thing and perhaps you want to respond to this too, is that I noted that in the staff report that the outdoor dining hours would be 11 to 11. And you know, Mr. Almer, maybe you're better to help remind us, but I believe that's a good reminder but I believe that's sort of the maximum that either by regulation or by past practice we typically provide two restaurants on Fifth Avenue. Yeah I think the key there is that the outdoor dining hours are not do not extend past the indoor dining hours. Okay. And our understanding is that the outdoor dining hours will be consistent with the indoor dining hours of this establishment. What I'm really getting at is that and we kind of have this conversation every time we have an outdoor dining position and then I never can remember at least myself what we've done in the past exactly. But often what petitioners ask for is shall we say the maximum range and then as they figure out their operations, those hours are different depending on the day of the week or perhaps we make them different. But I guess to the petitioner is 11 to 11, seven days a week, which you're proposing to have. Yeah. Those are your hours, seven days a week. Correct, but when it's low, we usually close earlier too, especially off season two. Yeah. So anytime we close the restaurant, we make sure most of the nights I'm at the restaurant, make sure the outdoor dining get closed first, turn off the lights, and start cleaning up the chairs, tables and get everything ready. So there may be variation seasonally or day of the week? Based on the season, yes. But the permit would allow you to do 11 to 11, if desired. Is that correct? And also go whatever the cost requirement on the hours and the business hours too. So we're not set stone. And what we have here, Ms. Delmer, is consistent with what we've done in other situations on fifth? So yes, and I think what you may be considering, cause these kind of go hand in hand from time to time, we have more specific hours of operation or not to exceed hours of operation for live entertainment. And we're in a red car. We don't have that for outdoor dining. How's your dining? So again, I think the key is that the outdoor dining hours do not exceed the outdoor dining space. Yeah. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Councilman. And Councilman, may I. Councilman? Councilman and the ladies. Okay. Do we have any public comment on this matter? Madam Clerk. Okay, Council. I'll make a motion to approve this outdoor dining petition. A motion made by Councilman Krissmann, seconded by Councilwoman Petra-Mare. I think we will want to just make sure that the resolution reflects the 34 seats rather than the 36. Yes, and then I heard the gentleman speak about what I thought were conditions. One was a lighting plan to be submitted and then aluminum railing remains on private property. Is that right? Did I? Correct. There's just a provision of the ordinance that says that there may be no railing or any other type of intrusion into the public right of what. There's a proposing railing so we just want to make sure it's on the record that it is entirely on private property outside of the sidewalk. Right. And Miss Belmer, did you complete your statement? Okay. Okay. Councilman Chrisman, your motion includes? My motion would include those conditions, yes sir. And my second would include those. And the second remains. All right, Madam Clerk. Just to be clear, there was actually three conditions offered in the resolution. And the second remains. All right, Madam Clerk. Just all over. Sorry to do this just to be clear, there was actually three conditions of proper in the resolution. So my understanding of what you both said is you're adopting the resolution as presented. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. OK, Madam Clerk. That's what I said. That was very clear to me Yes, Council member peniman. Yes Council member Christmas. Yes Yes, Council member Kramer. Yes, Vice Mayor Hutchison. Yes, and Mayor height man is Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Vice Mayor, if I may take a moment, my apologies. I forget how many new meetings, I mean, we have DRB MPAB. So we didn't really get a chance to really introduce you tonight. So we're going to give him an opportunity, put him on spot, give him an opportunity to tell you all a little bit about himself now that you've had his first item at council. So take it away. Turn on your mic. Well again it's a it's a privilege to be here and I've been excited to actually come to a council meeting and present to you all and look forward to working with you in the future. I did move down here from Pennsylvania where I'm originally from however I did spend a good number of years up in New England as well for school and working there as well. My family and I are incredibly excited to be in the area. And just the number of times that we've visited the city to see the great planning work that has occurred here, has always been something that's been very exciting to us to have the opportunity to live in the area and then have the opportunity to work with the city and work with Lesley and Erica. It's very much a real privilege. So I hope to serve you all well. I've been doing this for a long time. I am earning my stripes and trying to get up to speed. I'm looking forward to being able to do that soon and I'm always around if you have any questions. Just give a call. I am one of those types of guys who likes to fly under the radar though. I don't like to be in the spotlight all too much. So I'm sure that's why Leslie. Tlight. Yeah. Well, yeah, welcome aboard and real quickly. Again, could you tell us your name? And your responsibility is a senior planner? Is that correct? Yeah, so my name is Nathan Jones. I'm a senior planner with this. And then we really like to hear about your family. Can you quickly tell us about your family? Seriously. Well, I am very lucky to have three wonderful children. I have a daughter who's 13, who is just athletically and academically just amazing to us and then two little ones who keep me very busy while my wife is finishing her contract up north. I have been keeping them entertained while I'm not here. Awesome. How old are the little ones? Seven and five. Nice. So it's time for another one. So it's good. What part of Pennsylvania you from? I'm from the Lehigh Valley area. The wrong side of the state. Yeah, but I did attend the University of Pittsburgh. You went to University of Pittsburgh? I did. Oh, well. That's more than compensating. And Nathan, we gave you a pass on this earlier, but typically, anytime you present a matter, we need to understand like the name automo for this restaurant. What does that mean? It is the excellent. Not? You said that. No. Right there. See, I thought I was gonna tripping up right away. You came to this rescue. Thank you, Nathan. Appreciate it. Thank you all very much. All right, council that was 11e. We go to 12 old business there is none. 13 and Madam Clerk. I will go over this. Jessica Hernandez, deputy city clerk. This might be a tongue twister but the city clerk has asked city council to consider appointing one trustee to the board of trustees of the police officers retirement trust fund and to recommend an appointment for one member to the Collier County Contractors licensing board. On Monday, city council had interviewed trustee Jerome Fonds for the police officer's retirement trust fund. So the only thing we need today is emotion. Just a note for the record, this would be a two year term. Okay, Council. And that would be expiring November 1st, 2026. And the individual, this is Jerome and for the record the correct spelling. J-E-R-O-M-E, Fonds, F-O-N-S. Fonds. Got it. Okay, Council. I'll make a motion that we appoint Mr. Fonds to a two-year term on the police officers' retirement. Trust, fun commencing November 2nd, 2024 and expiring November 1st, 2026. Thank you, Councilman Christman. There's a motion to approve Mr. Fonds. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Petronoff, all in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Madam Clerk. The second one is to recommend an appointment to the Collier County County Contact Management Board. Madame Clerk. Sorry. The second one is to recommend an appointment to the Collier County Contractors Licensing Board. On Monday, October 14th, City Council interviewed new applicant, Jennifer Cassidy. Okay, Council. I'll make a motion that Council recommend to the Collier County Commission appointment of Jennifer Cassidy for a three year term as one of the city representatives on the Call your county contractors license board There's that motion by councilman christman Second by councilwoman petrinoff all in favor Any opposed? I have a motion carries. Madam sir. I'm not expiring June 30th of 2027. Thank you. Okay. That item of business complete. We go to ordinances 14. Any first readings. There's none. Second readings on item 15. There's none. Do we have any public comments? None. None. It's item 17. Correspondence and Communications Councilwoman Penement. Yeah, thank you. I learned serendipitously over the weekend that the Natural Resources Department is working as fast as they can to get us up to speed, not that we haven't been there, but they're really working hard to come forward with a plan for moving forward as much as anything. So it happened very serendipitously, but I learned very quickly that they're working very hard. So we should start to see them engaging with us if I understand it correctly and please correct me if I'm wrong. Shortly after the first of the year moving into a planning process for resiliency. So if we can all just sit tight I think I think they're doing their job and I applaud them for all the work that they're doing. They're working very hard at this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wombon. Madam, Councillor Bart. None for me. Thank you, Councillor Krishnam. Just a word of congratulations to I guess to city staff particularly for the event we had yesterday celebrating the groundbreaking of the Beach House Falls project. And it was a really nice event. I mean, just good vibes all the way around and given what's happened in recent weeks, particularly a nice hour to feel good about things. And that's remember, this is arguably one of the biggest, if not biggest resiliency related investments this city has ever made. And so it's underway now officially. And Bob Millerton promised yesterday would be completed in two years. So if you have any questions on that, go talk to him. But just, we heard from Mr. Buddha Shor did his usual great job introducing and moderating it. We had comments from the mayor and Senator Pasadomo appropriately and just a very nice event. So congratulations and thanks Mr. Boudre-Swar. Thank you very good words, Councilman Christman, Councilman Kramer. Yes, and good work today everyone. And I don't want to sound negative in these comments. Unfortunately it may come off that way for some people. We had a public speaker today regarding fluoride and whichever way you come down on it, I took umbrids with a couple of the things that she said. One was that some information we've been given or that the information we've been given is not peer reviewed. That's not the case. There's a bunch of it that is peer reviewed. Some isn't. It's not a conspiracy theory. And at one point in our comments, and I said this, I think it was the last meeting or two meetings ago. Part of the motivation for folks that are pushing fluoride use is that they don't want the crazies to win. There's a credential class which tells us here's what we should do and that we should not question that. That's relatively new in our country and our world. The scientific method forever invited skepticism. And especially since COVID, we've been discouraged, covertly, and overtly. She mentioned that there's a group of conservatives that don't want their kids to get vaccinated for measles. That may exist, but that has nothing to do with the fluoride issue. And to conflate the two bothers for me. It's a broad brush. She talked about masking, which we all know now that those cloth masks were useless. So that's, you lost me as soon as you said that, man, you have no credibility anymore. The fact is, is Burm brought up, the real question is, is this something that is necessary? Do we need to do this or not and why are we doing it? And we were doing it because people couldn't get floored. Now everybody can get fluoride. It's in everybody's toothpaste and that's really what it's about in my view. And so, again, I don't want to be negative, but I did want to address that you can disagree on this and be really smart and have really good information. And I don't want to paint with a broad stroke. Anybody on either side of this issue? That's all. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Kramer. Councilwoman Petra. No comment. Thank you. No comment. So really today is one of those days where you really just enjoy working with your peers. We got a lot of good work done. I also wanted to call out this beach outfall project, this kind of a ribbon cutting if you would. What's the official term we had for it? The ground breaking. And it was a big event, folks. I got to tell you, that was a big deal for the community because there was a lot of heavy lifting over the years. A lot of heavy lifting, a lot of time in our community that was spent here in public comment, engineers, it's in a lot of money at stake. I do want to thank Senator Kathleen Pasadomo for coming. And not just for coming, but stepping up to the plate with the amount of money that we needed to make this happen. We couldn't have done it without her. There's others we couldn't have done it without, but this, this is her home turf, and she stood up for it. So thank you, Senator Pasadomo, city staff, folks, when we did the groundbreaking, now a lot of work has gone on all the way up to here. A lot of work. And now with our construction company, Kiwit, I believe, we're going to start seeing some dirt fly and some things happening. And our city staff is going to be involved in that. So we've got to be aware that this is going to take a few years and it's going to be taxing. It's just a lot of work on our staff. And for Mr. Bhutishwar, you make it look easy. You really do. And I think we all know and acknowledge that it's really not that easy. And you're appreciated. Thank you. And Mr. Bhutishwar any comments? Only comments is, actually I'll just pick up where you left off and just say thanks to you. And thanks to the residents that came out, I think it was set a couple of times yesterday because of resident participation as well as my good friend here, Matthew McConnell, before he was city attorney, assisting some of our residents. I think we shaped a better project. So that's always a good thing to feel about when you can work collaboratively with your community to shape better projects. It's always a win, win situation. So we're excited to get this started. A lot of work ahead of us like you said, and like I said yesterday, I'll repeat it again. You know, this is the model for our future. I mean, we have a lot of things that we need to do differently to become more resilient, and we have the template template and we'll keep repeating it. So with that, that's all I have to say other than you all can take the next two and a half weeks off. Thank you and we're back on November 4th for a CRA meeting. November 4th, yes. Thank you. And Mr. McConnell, our city attorney. Yes, thank you, Vice-Meghan. I just have one question I'd like some direction on. So we're having the joint workshop with the NAA. I've been told that they're going to have their airport authority attorney present. I just wanted to consensus from the Council on whether or not we should have Mr. Andrew Barr present virtually as well for any specific questions. So I just wanted to get direction because by the next time we meet it will be the week of the meeting. Got it. All right council some feedback on that. We're looking for an answer to that specific question. This is the city attorney. Do you see that there's merit in having him available councilwoman amendmentment yes sir councilman there's a monitoring which is why which is why I'm asking I don't have any spending authority obviously and I know budgets come up quite a bit. It would be virtually to avoid travel expenses, but. I mean, I guess what I think would be a smart thing to do might be to, as the agenda gets put together, if there is a particular section of the meeting where his participation might be more, we're going to be talking about a lobbying strategy, if we're going to be talking about maybe some of the noise issues I don't know, but if he could be with us, if we're going to have, I think this is likely to be an eight hour meeting, you know, just based on the agenda and all day meeting. And so maybe he could join us for a few segments and we could manage our costs. Mr. Vice-Mayer, I may I suggest picking up on that. If it is your desire to have him at least partially available, what we can do, well I think we should do. I'll work with Matthew to maybe cluster those items together with the first one being a time certain and then let it follow. So that way we're using his time efficiently and there's, you know, it's predictable. Where is he located? Denver. Time zones. Yeah. OK. Before I come to the side of the council. Yeah, and I'll just put a quick caveat to my yes, it's still a yes. But with that said, and the monetary implications, there's so many questions that we've got. And he brings a certain expertise to the table. And I'll defer to you to down there as to what portions his expertise is applicable to. But we don't know what rights we have as a landlord or a tenant and what authority we can lever people with and not with and what type of lobbying mechanisms we're gonna use or strategies we're gonna use. So all I see in my head are a bunch of question marks that pop up when we're dealing with this. And I don't know where his expertise applies. You guys do. So what I would say is, yeah, I want him there for whatever his expertise is. It's going to be able to help us in assistance with. Thank you, Councilman Barton, Councilman Kramer. Yeah, I think this is for Jay. If I remember right at our last Monday, well, this week's been long. Somebody from the public said they were going to be presenting at our joint meeting. Is that typical of, I don't understand that. If we're together with NA, I'm the new guy, but is that, I mean, I know it's public, but why would the public be presenting anything? You're not talking about public comment, you're talking about a presentation. Correct. Public comment, I get it. Yeah, and I don't know anything about that, but Councilor Boutishwar. Is that the case? Mr. B and I did a little bit of pre-planning with the mayor yesterday. And I understand that the mayor, Mr. Rosiansky, had a lengthy conversation about not only the agenda, but about two presentations that have been requested from groups in the community. And the mayor's desire is to allow for those presentations to happen and actually list them so people can know and see the presentation ahead of time. And the airport authority is aware of this and we promise to put together an agenda but have those presentations that are front end. And this is a workshop? And this is a workshop, yeah. There's no decision-making. And I don't know that there are rules. Is that a typical thing? Yeah, I don't know what the typical history has been. Not typical. So one was the Old Naples Association that two who said they were planning on coming and making a presentation. Yes. It was the second? I don't know the name of the group, but it's led by Eileen Lowry, I believe. And I believe she made comments on Monday as well. Yeah. Okay. And it's really, I think it's really about, they're going to get her either way because of public speaking. So I think what they wanted to do was either get it all in one versus three minutes a pop and going through there. And I think it's important because we're dancing around the issue of noise. And this is the group of our citizens that we represent that are impacted. And so they either have a voice single, or they have a more efficient voice together that gives documents in advance, and we can vet it and look at it. And it's just one more input. Yeah, and I think it's important to say this. I don't want to put words into the mayor's mouth, but she did make some comments on Monday about setting a collaborative, cooperative tone. And that's what she expressed to both Matthew and I and Mr. Ozeansky on the phone yesterday is a collaborative, cooperative tone. And anyone who is making presentations or involved, the request is to be constructive. We don't want a session that breaks down and becomes argumentative. This is meant as a workshop to see how we can work together. And I believe that's the tone she is definitely trying to set in those are the expectations of any speakers that she will make clear. Well, I appreciate that's clear. I think it makes sense instead of 10, 20 people lining up for three minutes. Yep, and also, but what I mean, but figured that was thinking about some guy waiting on the phone at 1,000 bucks an hour. Well, we got citizens, we're going to avoid that, right? Yeah, absolutely. That's all. I think we have cleared what. I don't know if I've heard from you. Well, again, the one thing that we do have a lot of questions outstanding and almost all of them have the root and legal matter. And so if he's not there, we're going to lean on you and you are not an aviation attorney. And so I don't think that's really fair. I mean, given you've been in the job for a month now, and you're not an aviation attorney, that you need the tools as well because there are going to be some differences in what Andrew Barr thinks and what they're attorney thinks. And I think there're coincidentally, these two are both, they're turning our attorney both located in Denver next door to each other. So same street. The NA has, and they have different perspectives. And I think we need to vet those because we have been getting different ideas. But I think it will be collaborative, but I think there will be collaborative, but I think there will be. And we just need to handle this professionally. We will have points of differences. And I think a lot of it boils down to who we are defining as our primary customer. You know, is it the citizenry of Naples or is it Collier County and the person that uses the airport? And there's not a perfect intersection of that. So it's going to be, I think an exciting meeting. I think it'll be a meeting with a lot of energy. Okay, so Council, we were driving towards a consensus or your opinion rather if it develops into a consensus on having Mr. Barr attend a meeting in which the agenda is carefully crafted in such a way to minimize the expense. And Councilman Kramer, were you on that? Yes. Yes. Councilwoman Kertnough? Yes, but I would take my direction from our attorney on what he needs to have a great expertise on any of the topics that are coming up. Yes. And I'm a yes, so do you have your direction? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And thank you, Councilman Cramer, anything else? Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Petronoff, I think. No. And so I was wrapping up and just talking about the beach outfall. We came to the discussion about the airport meeting. Thank you for that. I would say though that on the biggest items, the biggest issues that come to our community, Councilman Chrisman was right. This is not normal, these presentations. However, when we tackle as a community, some of the biggest projects, think about that old Naples hotel, think about the beach outfall Project itself, right? All the residents. Think about the Naples Beach Hotel itself. So we've had in our recent history some very significant projects that we really do want to err on the side of engagement. And I think it's Councilman Chrisman that brings me back to that a lot. And it's a good council probably from his experience. But that's all I had. Had a great meeting today. Thank you. We're adjourned. you you you you you you you you you you you