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 If you wish to address the board regarding an item listed on the agenda, please complete a registration form at the rear of the room and place it in the speaker request box located on the dius prior to consideration of that item. We ask the speakers limit their comments to seven minutes and that large groups name a spokesperson whenever possible. Thank you for your interest and participation in city government. The meeting is called to order. Would you call the roll? I'll send Member Verone. Here. Member Cogland. Here. send member Verone. Here. Member Cogland. Here. Member Creece. Present. Member Dabby. Absent. Member Peory. Here. Member Cappell. Here. Member Mayor. Here. Chair Cross. Here. Could we all please stand and institute for the fledgling regions? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God in indivisible, liberty and justice for all. are there changes to the agenda? Good morning Chair. Yes, the first item on today's agenda has been continued indefinitely. And so that item, since we did send a notice, we wanted to include it on the agenda, but that will be re-noticed when it's ready for hearing. And then I don't know if city attorney wants to speak on the second item, seven B. Thank you. Matthew McConnell for the record, seven B is being withdrawn. Thank you. Those are our changes to today's agenda. And when appropriate chair also would like to make an introduction, but that's after we set the agenda. It says here that 7C is also continued. That was continued from our June meeting, yes sir. So would you like to make the introduction now? Before we do, I'll be to approve the minutes. Yes. Well, we have a public comment. Is there any public comment? Yes. Chair Cross, if we could, I think we need to make a motion to approve the agenda with the changes and then we can go to approve a public comment Okay, may we approve the agenda with the changes noted is there a motion? All those in favor of approving the agenda with the changes as noted say please say aye Hi motion passes So please say aye. Aye. Motion passes. So, public comment. Does anyone have a public comment? Hearing none, I will ask for approval of the minutes. Does anyone have a comment on the minutes? Just a slight alteration at the top of page 378 where it refers to previous chair's name as opposed to your name. Just administrative. Okay, so noted. I have one comment generally on the minutes. You know, I think the minutes are a responsible summary of events and they should not be intended as a substitute for this recorded record of the meeting and I think that we should say that somewhere in the minutes probably in the introduction. I am motivated to say this by watching a city council meeting in which a planning department discussion of the traffic plan was discussed. And I thought a lot was sort of lost in translation. So I don't know if we need to vote on that suggestion or just sort of make it for the record. Sorry, we don't prepare the minutes so I can press that on to the clerk's office that prepares the minutes. Yeah, only and I'll just repeat it that we add a phrase at the introduction to the minutes that says that the minutes are a responsible summary of events and not intended as a substitute for the record, for the recorded record of the meeting. Okay. So is there a motion to approve the minutes? As noted. As noted. I'll second. Will you call the vote. I'm sorry. Vice chair Fury. Yes. I'm sorry. I apologize. I have it. My sheet's very strange. Member Fury. Yes. Vice chair Kaplan. Just not right. Councillor Cappellan. Just not right. Member Cappellan. Yes. Member Coglin. I'm staying. I wasn't here for the meeting. I don't think you're allowed to abstain. I'll, yes, then. Member Dabney. Out of here? Absent. All three of Member Barone. Yes. Out of here? Absolutely. All three member Broom. Yes. Member Creese. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Chair Cross. Yes. The minutes are approved. So now we will move to the public hearing board. Chair, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce one of our newest staff members. I don't believe that he's been introduced to this board yet. We'll call Nate Jones is our new senior planner. And we are so happy to have him on staff. You will be seeing him on an upcoming meetings. We've been assigning projects. And we'll just give Nate an opportunity to introduce himself a little bit. Yeah, my name is Nate. I'm very, I'm very excited to be here, working for the city. I come here after almost 20 years of experience as a practicing planner in New England as well as my native southeastern Pennsylvania. The staff has been incredibly gracious over my last month getting up to speed and learning how we do things here in the city and the department. I look forward to continuing doing that. And as far as the body of work that the city is conducting right now, it's all incredibly interesting. Very excited to take part in it and serve you all as well as I possibly can. Welcome. So the first item on our agenda would be item 7c or the presenter's present. Yes. Will all those intending to speak please be sworn in? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Chair, cross, before we get started, do you want to go through disclosures? Yes, thank you. You're welcome. With the starting from my left, can we hear disclosures? Familiar with the property and the previous hearing of the case. No other interested to clear Same familiar from last time know their disclosures No, we're through property of not no disclosures Familiar with the property nothing to disclose Familiar with the property visited the site nothing to disclose Familiar with the property has mentioned the site, nothing can disclose. Familiar with the property, as mentioned last time, lived within a thousand feet and reached out to the ethics committee and on the conflicts. Nothing to disclose. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Please state your credentials for the record. Good morning Mr. Chairman, P.A.B. members. My name is Clave Roker. I'm with the law firm of Chepi Pasadomo, 821 Fifth Avenue South. My apologies for rushing in here. I didn't notice the first item was going to be withdrawn so I rushed down from the office. No problem. Our firm represents WSR, Naples Square commercial in this application to revise a site plan for the track known as PADC, one of the last two tracks of budding Goodlitt Frank Road in a Naples Square PD. As you recall, this site plan amendment application represents a downsizing in terms of the square footage of the one story building footprint as compared to the site plan at the City Council approved in 2021. Here is the resolution that approved a 5300 square foot commercial building on pad C at this location shown here. Again, this is the Southwest corner of the intersection of Gillette Frank Road and Third Avenue South. Before you today, again, is a proposed amendment to the site plan, which reduces the building footprint footprint to 3500 square feet with 500 square feet about door dining area. This amended site plan was initially presented time the PAB elected to postpone consideration of the application to allow completion of the city's own area-wide traffic study. 18 months passed as we patiently waited for that traffic study to be completed, but it was not completed. So we appear before you again today, two months, so we appear before you again, two months ago in June, 2024, and explain that the proposed building has 25% less square footage than the site plan approved by City Council. Yet the PAB again postponed consideration of our application still waiting on a city's traffic study. It's been two years since city staff issued the sufficiency letter for the site plan, amendment indicating that it complies with all applicable code provisions, yet we have been in a state of purgatory, at a facto moratorium, imposed upon this property since then. The PAB has elected not to consider the city's traffic is still not complete. We therefore respectfully request that you vote today on the merits of the application and allow us to proceed to city council. Here are the criteria for site plan approval. Again, criteria with the city's traffic study is still not complete. We therefore respectfully request that you vote today on the application and allow us to proceed to City Council. Here are the criteria for site plan approval. Again, criteria with which city staff has found compliance. We are at your direction. Our architect, Mark McClain, is here to re-review the site plan with you if you so desire. At the June hearing, some questions were asked about drainage and a storm water management plan. Our civil engineer Carl Barakos here to confirm that the storm water system complies with current city requirements and he can answer any other questions you may have in that regard. Finally at the June hearing we heard preferences for more landscaping. Our landscape architect, Christian Andrea, can show you what we propose. With that, I'll conclude and turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman, for your direction on how we proceed. Thank you. And you have the right to proceed through your entire presentation should you choose to do so. I do want to raise the issue of continuance. The City Council met to address the traffic study because the PAB raised a number of issues when the traffic study was present, when a progress report was given to the PAB on the traffic study. We'll recall that meeting, I hope. So, staff felt there was appropriate to bring these issues to council and see what council wanted to do. Council, show considered the issues that the traffic study was going to address consequential, chose to continue the traffic study. I think they did so well aware of the fact that it was delaying approval of your development and perhaps delaying approval of additional applications. because City Council found the reasons for the traffic study to outweigh I would argue the interests of the private sector at this point, I think that it would be appropriate for us to continue this application. I think we initiated the traffic study in large the traffic study in the belief that the issues that we raised were a significant consequence. Those issues haven't gone away. The issues have been validated by Council's meeting. The traffic study may be problematic. It may be taking too long, but the underlying issues remain of consequence and the Council has decided to continue the traffic study. So because Council Councillors decided to continue the traffic study, I would ask PAB to move to continue this application. Can we have discussion on that point? My view is I still have issues that are yet to be addressed by the petition, especially the flooding that's already occurring. I do also empathise and sympathise with any petitioner that has to come before anybody repeatedly, and I feel that once we gathered more information that decision should be made today, the previous meeting, there was two petitions relating to a similar parcel of land adjacent. We was able to give a vote on that and that went forward to council. I see this has been no different impediment that I believe that I'm prepared to go forward and make a decision today based on what we currently have. No comments? I had a question for staff. So in the staff report they talk about the Council of the Angers of the 17th but we don't have any conclusions from it. The council heard the... I think council's interior. Waiting. I'll be back. But Council heard, my understanding is that Council heard an update on the traffic study at the June 17th meeting. And the direction that we were provided by the city engineer is that Council directed staff that the study may continue using the data collected and that the work is ongoing. The city engineer did not anticipate that they would have any deliverables available for today for the month of September. I know they're working through the schedule on that traffic study, but that was all the information that we had. And what is the schedule and what is the target date for the deliverables? That is still, my understanding is that is still a bit of a discussion between the city engineer and the consultant. I don't know what this high mine and the schedule is. And there was, my understanding is there was some disagreement on the schedule between the consultant and the engineer. City engineer here because she wasn't able to attend the last meeting too which was a big, she's on her way. Okay. She's not here. If I may on that one thing that came to light in that council meeting and it's I actually asked the link to that meeting be included in the presentation material so that you could all watch the council meeting. I don't know how many of you watched it. Is that one council person pointed out that there was a, I think it was biannual or triannual review of traffic volumes called for in our city code. code and that that that by annual or tri annual review never never took place. He was supposed to take place and it did not. So I don't know how that impacts our decision, but essentially we kind of haven't been in terms of traffic or one could argue that we haven't been following our own rules. Two comments relating to both to bring it back to this petition as well. Yes, I reviewed in great detail the traffic study presentation with the council got some major concerns. We had a Christmas date in that the study was polyscoped. We had this petrenoth drawing attention. We have the wrong material to proceed. So there's a lot of negatives. But we had the information that we have today to listen to the petitioner's case and I think we can do that with the information we have. If there to the petitioner's case, and I think we can do that with the information we have. If there's an absence of material that enables to give us a positive or a negative response, then I think we need to move forward. The petition has been waiting long enough, and I think the council is more in control of the process than what we can be. We can any advise. I have a question. Yeah. I have a question of staff and that is this applicant is involved reducing the density of a piece of property. If he came forward with a compliant application would he have to come before us? So the reason this petition is in front of the board today is that it's an amendment to a site plan. So there was a site plan approved for this portion of Naples Square back in 2021, I believe. And this particular corner that's the subject of the amendment today was left blank with a note says future development and I had to inform the petitioner's agent at the time that any building footprint in this area would require amendment to the site plan and amendments to site plans go back through the same process of the site plan is approved so that's the AB and city council. And that's because this is a plan development. So site plans only site plans in a planned development come before the planning advisory board and city council. So that's even though it was found sufficient. So compliant by staff, it's in a planned development. So it's good. Thank you. That's helpful. My other comment is I hate to be a bureaucratic stumbling block, but I'm not sure we're ever going to learn anything out of this traffic study. That's kind of, we change the weather we're going to approve or disapprove of this particular project. Sir, Cross, may I? Yeah, just a few. Please give us a few. Thank you. So, first and foremost, you are correct, right? There's a level of service analysis that's required to be done every year and presented to the Planning and Advisory Board and then ultimately approved by the City Council. We are working on restarting that process. It's stopped in 2016. I can't uncover why, but you can expect those things to occur moving forward. Now for these specific projects, putting the annual level of service review aside, every project on its face is reviewed for concurrency through all departments, including traffic. So I do want to make that distinction. And then I want to advise the board of Florida Statute 166.033, which is essentially a shock clock statute that says from the moment an application is complete, a local governing body has 180 days to approve it, deny it, or approve it with conditions. Period. This application was complete according to Mr. Brooker in 2022. We are clearly past that 180 day requirement pursuant to statute. I understand the applicant's attorney has been lenient but the statute is the statute. We have six months to approve and that's not even just you. That's getting it to city council as well and we're well without well passed that time frame so I want to make you all aware of that. So I have a question for staff. Should we move this forward, either as a denial or an approval? That's a decision for you to make. Yeah, I know, but should it move forward to the two council? What options does council then have? To either approve or deny the petition. So they do not have the ability to say, gee, we're still working on figuring out our traffic study. They cannot do what we can do, which is too. Council can continue, I mean, that council can continue an item. I think what the city attorney is telling you is that that 180 days applies to the entire life of the petition. So from the beginning of the request to the end. Yeah, I, there is no doubt that the petition has been hanging fire for some time. And that there probably is a statute that doesn't allow that in the Florida building code. So council could continue but my question was could it can council continue if they choose to do so? Yes council has the same ability that the PAV does. You're recommending to Council to approve or deny. Council can then make their decision on whether they approve or deny or ask for additional information. All right, thank you. I'm sorry I have a question. If we were to pass it to Council, when would it arrive on their docket? It would be on the October 16th City Council agenda. So is there a motion to continue? I guess clarification. Go ahead. The motion to continue and forgive me because I'm new with this process. But the motion to continue is to allow them to move forward. No. No. A motion to continue would sent is continuing the purgatory that they presently occupy. PAB can make a motion to approve or a recommendation to approve approve with conditions or deny any one of those three motions takes the petition for the City Council. I would like to suggest that we move forward with the intention of reaching a decision of a way forward for the petition. It looks I think that's what we're, no one has moved to continue so it would seem that that's what we're going to do. Go ahead, proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I would ask for housekeeping. I would like to incorporate the record from December 2022. Not sure, I wasn't here. Not sure how many of you were here. Also the record from two months ago in June of 2024, incorporated into the record of this proceedings. With that, I would like to call up Mr. McLean as the architect to re-review the site plan and then followed by Mr. Baraka. Good morning for the record. Mark McLean, MHK Architecture, 2059, Timmy and Michele East. Give me one moment here while I see if David can bring up my presentation. So I'll keep it brief. I'll be available for questions. I think we've all seen this a few times from an architectural perspective. It's pretty straightforward, but I'd like to take a minute here to kind of pause on this colored sight plane because it represents a lot of things going on. The yellow is the Naples Square 1, 2, 3, and 4 residential area. The orange is the Naples Square South and Naples Square North and which pad see exists. The green and the blue to the north side was an expansion of the Naples Square PUD so that the city could put one of the reasons was a city parking garage being added there, but those projects were approved while we were in our quote unquote purgatory. So that's one of the things that seems to sometimes get lost on the board that we were put on holdover traffic, but the city approved their own parking garage that generates traffic. So we just want to say that from that standpoint, that kind of sensically doesn't work well for us. The PADC space, as Leslie mentioned, because it's in a PUD, would come back no matter what, and it was a vacant space. But the vacant space on that previous approval was 4,000, 5,000 square foot restaurant when contemplated with parking and traffic. So as we reduced it down, that's again, one of the stumbling blocks for us is we came back with a lesser density, paying attention to our neighbors, added more green space, reduced the size of the building, but yet we were still paused for this length of time. With that being said, we move into the space itself is that the red square on the screen is the only portion we are here for today. The traffic flow, including the new spaces with the golf show playhouse, when the parking garage, the future on-corp project that we have moved forward when we were here in June and the existing Naples Square 1, 2, 3, 4 in the AC Marriott, as you can see, all of the traffic flow in and out, Norm Treble Clock, our traffic engineer is here to speak to any of the traffic concerns that you may have. Again, we've worked with staff on this. We understand requirements for Naples Square C that the current parking spaces around this pattern being utilized in the overall parking matrix of the entirety of Naples Square. So we do understand we have to build the on-core building before we can build this building to satisfy all of the parking. But we certainly want to get this caught back up with the encore building and pair them up and kind of build them at the same time. But we understand we can't have a CO for this building until we have a CO for Naples Square Five. So this building is still some time out even as we move forward. Again, the footprint for a 3500 square foot restaurant, we did have some space planning in there at one time, but we've lost that tenant, so we're just moving forward with the commercial cell of the restaurant to start pursuing a tenant once we can get this through and approved. Some of the elevations of the building are here, but we'll pop into the renderings. A quick building section to show we're compliant with all of the building heights and just some aerials of the space. So as you can see the impact of this building in the grander scheme of things from the Bayfront Hotel to Bayfront itself to AC Marriott and the surrounding Naples Square building, it is a small single story, one story building located centrally here in the middle of the page. The restaurant itself is a small single occupancy restaurant with a small 500 square foot outdoor dining space that is on the goodlet side. We moved it away from the Naples Square residences and away from the hotel so that any noise generated by 500 square feet of outdoor dining wouldn't affect anyone living in the community. Again, so you can see from this rendering the corner where it would be behind the water fountain and the small outdoor dining area would be here, but it's a 35 hundred square foot restaurant. The current plan or the last plan that we had contemplated for it, there was a 1200 square foot kitchen in it with 300 square foot of bathroom spaces in it, so we're literally talking about 2,000 square feet of dining space, which is a relatively small restaurant. Again, just some rendering showing all the different views from the project. I'm available for any questions you would have on the architecture itself but without turning it over to the norm trouble cock for the traffic impact portion of this. Good morning. Now for the record, my name is Norm Trebelcock. I wasn't sworn in though. Sorry. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Good morning. So for this project, the analysis, as was mentioned originally because the reduction in intensity that there wasn't a particular traffic study required for this parcel because it was less intense than what was originally assumed. When we did the Encore project to the north most most recently, and we met with you all, there were some items that you would ask us to do is to look at additional background traffic. When we look at the background traffic, we do use the city counts which are done every year, and we use the peak season counts. So we do use that peak season data. And then to also add on, we looked at the undeveloped projects that were requested of us as well. So I wanted to kind of move to that. So that was probably a key point that was brought up. And so what we did is we have the encore project we had done, but we also looked at the Naples Square South which would include the PADC, the restaurant that Mark had just mentioned, a fast casual restaurant. And then we included the residential, and as well as golf shore playhouse and even the wind site. So what we're doing is accommodating those surrounding uses. In addition, we did look at the Bayfront Plan Unit development additional trips that would be coming out of that as well. And so that became part of the overall background traffic. So the point being is this project, part of the overall background traffic. So the point being is this project PADC is part of the background traffic that we analyze for Naples Encore now. And that has been provided to staff in an updated traffic study that they have as well. So and based on that, using that additional analysis, there are sufficient and adequate levels of service available when we include the additional developments, and that's what's illustrated in this table that I have here as well, that there's sufficient capacity to accommodate it, and then even in the intersection analysis that we conducted with staff as well, there's sufficient capacity to accommodate. So the conclusions that we had for encore incorporate the traffic for this pad C. And so based on that, there is sufficient capacity. The mitigation for the project is pain impact fees as they come to you for the project. So with that I'm available answer questions and I believe the city engineers here as well to answer any traffic questions you may have as well. Okay. With that, storm water next. Thank you. Good morning, board. I'm actually standing in for Carl Baraco today. My name is Jeff Wasco. I'm a standing in for Carl Baraco today. My name is Jeff Wasco. I'm a licensed professional PE in the state of Florida. I've worked with Carl Baraco on this project for nearly a decade. I've had a lot of involvement with it. I have not been sworn in this morning, and I don't believe I've been accepted in this forum yet as an expert, but if you guys would like me to give any qualifications or qualify myself, just let me know. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Let's see. about the truth. I do. Thank you. So, Mr. Baracko has, I think, given the board a presentation on the storm water management system, however, we can briefly review it. Pad C falls within the overall Naples Square master storm water management system. All of the storm water is directed to that overall system which has been approved by the South Florida Water Management District. In addition to that, we have done calculations to show that it also complies with the City of Naples stormwater ordinance, which was adopted after the system was put in place. So other than that, it's a very straightforward system. All runoff and rainwater that's captured on PADC will be directed to the overall Naples Square water management system. And if you have any questions about drainage, I'd be happy to answer them. Yeah, I have a number of questions. First of all, from the technical point of view that we need your credentials on files that they can be considered, for you to speak. If that can't be done today, at least you can speak, if you like, as a member of the, you speak, that can't be done today. At least you can speak. If you like as a member of the public point of view, I'm happy to have the interaction where I want to ensure that we're following correct protocol. Yes. So I'm not aware of the city actually deeming someone an expert, I think, if he submits his resume into the record and state what you want to clarify your position as an expert I think if he submits his resume and into the record and state what you want to clarify your position as an expert I think that's sufficient to move forward. I just ask in the future if we're going to have any changes in our our professionals that if you just forward us your your resume even the morning of we can distribute to the board and the clerk for the record. Well, I'd be happy to answer any questions about my credentials now. If I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida, license number 09698. Is it possible that that can be either emailed directly to planning early, you know, today, so we can include it into the thing? And that I'll be happy to proceed with that in understanding. Okay. I'll assume that that's going to happen, and I'll continue in my question if that's okay. Absolutely. Okay. The previous meeting from the petitioner, I drew up a concern, and one of those concerns was replied by saying that, and it's relating to the flooding that's regularly recurring on Goodluck Frank at the traffic lights into intersection, the result being that the pedestrian access is denied because of the flooding. My concern was A, one is to ensure there is pedestrian access from either side of Goodluck Frank, and two is that the flooding is considered with this application and other applications which could contribute to that. The response I got from Mr Beracco was that this is a Coley Accountee responsibility, and I fully understand that, and I would ask the petitioner then to petition Colleague County To address that because that does have an effect on how I can make a decision in favor of this development Sure, well, I have discussed this issue with mr. Burakko and one thing I'd like to point out is that the napele square water management system I believe operates independent of the drainage or any inundation that could be occurring on Goodlett. This system, in and of itself, contains all the rainwater runoff up into the 25-year storm event. And so it essentially operates independently. So I'm trying to draw the conclusion how PADC is affecting the pedestrian crossing at Goodlitt Frank. On that point, I can understand all of the Naples square structures that have already been built and approved are feeding into that, but this padsee and the neighbouring uncle, because of word of position, they do have runoff that does go into good look front because it isn't all captured, I believe, in the drainage that you refer to. On the inside, I agree, but on the outside, the surface to on the inside a grea but on the outside the surface water and the drip is contributing and gathering on the goodluck front road. Okay. Can I ask to clarify which runoff you would be considering that would not be part of the stormwater management system? Anything from paveways, hard standing, which isn't caught in the drains and that leads to either the waterway, the surface waters, etc. And also covering the pedestrian access to make it available to and from those properties. Sure. So I think what we're talking about, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but this would be areas that are outside of the overall perimeter berm of the water management system. So again, what would fall outside of that? In my opinion, it wouldn't be directly related to where the majority of the runoff from PADC itself that is within the contained water management system. I agree with the statement, but there is a contribution to that runoff. I understand it's outside of the site parameter, but it's coming from either downfall or in the water from that site. So that's what gives my concern. And then the next thing is relating to pedestrian access to the from either side of Goodluck Frank, which is it currently being interfered with due to water. Due to water. Okay, so to have the, we'll call it a backslope for like a better term That is standard practice for pretty much every water management system designed unless you have a straight wall So I think what we're talking about is very minimal runoff on the back side of a berm that's not contained within the Naplesquare Water Management System, is that what you're referring to? What I'm referring to, we currently have a Drain System at that area which covers the denies access on the pedestrian crossing to get across there. That's prior to this development going ahead. I'm not saying that this development is the main contributor, but I do believe it is a contributor, which will only worsen that situation. I am certainly not saying that your client is anyway responsible for that situation, but I do think that there is an issue to contribute further to a negative situation and that's where my thing can is. Okay. Well, let me see if I can back up for, and we'll just do a quick overview of the Naples Square area is routed through via closed conveyance pipes to a rock chamber system. With the exception of the, you know, I would call it the minimus area on the back slope of Berm. The rock chamber itself is a retention system, which means it's retaining all that water runoff up until which point it's required to from the South Florida Water Management District. And as we have checked, and I believe Karl Barocka has testified before, is in compliance with the City of Naples stormwater ordinance as well. So I guess while I understand the concerns with flooding or some inundation within pedestrian ways along good that I believe and it's my opinion that it's independent of the Naplesquare system as itself in a particular pad C. Thank you for that input. Yes, sir. Is there a plan in place for the maintenance of your storm water system? Yes. In this particular project, the maintenance is controlled by the POA, the Property Owners Association. These are, they have to keep the Properties and Reassociation has the responsibility to maintain the storm water management system so that it operates. I'm not asking whose responsibility it is to maintain the storm water system. I'm asking is there a written plan in place? There may we see the written plan. I'm sure somebody can provide a copy of that POA. Okay, yeah. So within the ERP permit itself, the POA documents which state who is in maintenance entity and what those responsibilities include. And it's a broad spectrum because they have the obligation to- We have had a historic problem with maintenance of stormwater retention systems. It's caused the city of Naples billions of dollars. Okay. We're the planning board. We want to see the maintenance plan for pet that includes pad C as a condition of approval. We want to see the plant, I want to see the maintenance plan. I mean, you're showing us traffic studies. And you're saying, oh, everything's OK with stormwater. It may well be. But we need to see the plan. Sure. And we can provide those documents. OK. Can you provide them now? because you're before us now? Yeah, I do not have a copy, and I don't believe we can provide a copy right now. But they are on, they are for good existence. Yes. And how are the pipes cleaned? How often are they cleaned? They have the obligation to maintain them to a state where the water management system can operate as designed. I'm not talking about obligations. I'm talking about the practical procedures that will be followed that will ensure that the system remains functional. Sure. And it's one thing to say, it's your responsibility. Right. So that gives us someone to go after if it isn't maintained. Right. You know, I don't care about that. Sure. I want to see the actual maintenance plan. Okay. You know, next Tuesday, this guy is going to come and do this. Right. And I don't believe that the plans are written that way. So if the plan only ascribe responsibility, and the responsibility is to maintain it so that I would argue that a plan that only ascribes responsibility is an insufficient plan. Every plan, every, everywhere we've had a problem, someone's been responsible. Sure, you know, every time we have a problem, we can find someone who's responsible, that doesn't solve the problem. Right, and so I think that would come at the state level with the self-floor. It would come at the Naples City level because Naples City suffers the consequence. Okay. I understand the points that you're coming with. You've answered my question, honestly. Sure. Mr. Chairman, the undisputed evidence on the record today is that this project exceeds the city's stormwater ordinance requirements. So if you or this board is going to impose an additional obligation that exceeds the stormwater ordinance, especially when it refers to a state permit for maintenance requirements, then we would respectfully object. There is a letter of evidence that states Mr. Eddie Bliss, the city's stormwater staff person, has determined that we exceed the city stormwater requirements. No one's debating that the system is a more than adequate system. This is a separate issue. The issue is how is the system going to be maintained? And all I am asking is, show me how you're going to maintain the system, because we have had a history of systems not being maintained. And the answer I got was, basically, you do not have a procedures in place to maintain the system. You have an entity that is responsible for maintaining the system. You have the criteria to which that entity is obliged to maintain the system. That entity is a property owners association. They have no familiarity with maintaining a storm water system. They, you know, who have they hired to maintain it? What is the plan to maintain it? That's all I'm asking and you guys don't have a plan to maintain the system. This applicant does not have a plan to maintain the system. Is that your question? Yes. This applicant does not. I suggest you ask Mr. Eddie Bliss this question because you're going beyond what the city requires for this site plan. The ordinances have been complied with, indisputable. Indisputable. And so if you're now going to impose an obligation upon this applicant when a state permit assigns the maintenance obligations to another entity, not this applicant. I suggest you're going beyond the criteria of the city's code, but we must adhere to, and I suggest this board must adhere. Mr. Chair. Yes. I'm just consulting with the previous minutes, and I think if we look at those, we can encapsulate everything from the petitioner relating to this. In the previous minutes, it is stated on record by Mr Baracko, that the Master's Surface Water Management System was completed and functioning in excess of all southwest Florida water management district criteria and the city's stormwater management code. Then we go on to the discussion. The final part of that is that the system, during the final design, is that the rock-transportion at the stormwater system did not need regular maintenance and that the Naples Square did not contribute to the flooding on the on the street. But everything that the applicant has been requested to do, in my opinion, from meeting code and conformity, they've stated that they exceed those expectations, whether we have a personal or a planning request for more than that, I think we needed to be explicit at the prior meeting and it should have come to this meeting. Thank you. Any further questions? I have a question for the attorney actually. Yes sir. So I take your point that it is not PADC's responsibility to demonstrate that there's a maintenance plan in place for the overall system. I'd none the less I would like to see one. May I suggest that that be a condition? That you condition whatever, if this were to move with an approval, condition of that this applicant, even though maintenance responsibility has not been delegated to us, work with the association to devise a plan for maintenance and submit it to the city before the city council hearing. I think that it's an excellent idea. I'm happy to do so. I have an additional question. How will the restaurant access conform with item three of the residential impact criteria? I'll be right back. provide me a minute to look at the application. Yeah, take your time. So I'd like to read into the record the residential impact criteria number three and perhaps rely upon this term to claim because it relates to parking. Parking must meet the minimum requirements and be adequate to avoid any overflow into the residential area. Parking areas shall be situated and buffered to avoid impacting the residential areas. Primary vehicular ingress in Egress shall where possible be located to avoid conflict with traffic in the residential area, pedestrian connections with public sidewalks and residential areas are encouraged. And the response in the application is that the police see the attached plans for the parking calculations, the ingress and the egress as well as pedestrian calculations. And I'll ask Mr. McLean to go through those issues with you. So So I jumped forward here to, there we go. So I jumped forward to Christian's plan and he'll be up briefly to go through the landscaping, but I think this is the best plan to illustrate or show some of these concerns. And I can certainly zoom out on this, but you can see there's an existing sidewalk that comes from the linear park. So the linear park runs along good. It turns the corner, comes along third, wraps all the way around and comes in. These areas are currently within the space. They're all the sidewalks are in and this parking lot is in and it connects all the way through to the AC Marriott, I've personally parked in these spaces and all the interconnecting walking spaces are through the parking lot as prescribed per city code. The restaurant itself has an ingress and an egress path to its own parking. The parking spaces that Christian has in this red box are the ones that are solely dedicated to the building, C, for the actual parking counts. But the PUD is a totality of the PUD and we talked about that earlier about the buildings needing to be complete and the PUD need to be complete. But common sense, if you're going there to eat, you're going to park as close to the restaurant as you can. There's a parking lot between the Marriott Hotel and Pad C and that's where the in and out flow of that space occurs. So you can see here if someone pulled in off of third around the roundabout and in off of third there's an in or an out with these are both in and out that go into this overflow parking lot and the parking adjacent to the building. So I think we've isolated the building, we've isolated the parking to it that it doesn't conflict. Now, as far as Naples Square residential buildings, building four is the building adjacent. Their parking garage entrance is over here on their alley on the inside between Naples Square 1 and Naples Square 4. So they don't actually, they do have a drive out here, but most of their traffic goes internally to Naples Square not interacting with the restaurant itself. That answered a question. Well, yes, there's an answer. My concern was the increased traffic on the service street that is adjacent to, if you could, to building for. Are you talking about the service street back here in the rear, or is that going on? Well, that's your continuation of 12th. Yeah, that you're increasing the volume of traffic going. That's all been, basically, a big residential building that's essentially has very little buffering. Well, the traffic has been anticipated going back to the original approvals back in the early 2000s that there was going to be a 5,000 square foot restaurant here and the hotel. No, it was never a restaurant. It was commercial use. At one point, at first it was unknown. Then it was commercial use. We did not know one knew that it would be a high intensity commercial use. And I think that's kind of, it comes down to the issue of intensity relative to the location of residential property. And it comes down to increased traffic on 41 and the intersection with Goodlick Frank, which is our most dangerous intersection. Well, yeah, if we're going to go back to traffic, I would turn that back over to Norm, because again, when the original traffic study was done, the original traffic study, Norm, I'm pretty sure it was and regrettably traffic studies do not address quality of life. But traffic studies do address quality of life. No, traffic studies, we had the traffic engineer here, and traffic studies address the capacity of the road to handle the traffic. And that's about where traffic studies stop. With the underlying pretenses that when a street fails that it affects the quality of life. So if the street's not failing, then how are we affecting the quality of life? If it was intended to have X number of vehicles on it. One of the ways we're failing the quality of life is by being the most dangerous traffic, by being the most dangerous state in the country for traffic. The more people die from traffic accidents per capita in Florida than any other state in the country. But I don't think you can blame that on that seat. That's one of the ways. It's true. We don't believe you can blame that on Pat and see. No, you can't blame it on Pat and see. But you can look too. But I will say that the process and the criteria and the manner and the manner in which traffic studies are performed have created. And this is probably aside, this has nothing to do with PADC right really it has nothing to do with PADC it has more to do with the with the purgatory that you are in than it does with your actual application but but I but I would attest that I think PADC has come under more scrutiny than any other project in the city of Naples to date and I think we passed and hit all the check marks to pay. I couldn't, you know, you guys, I'm actually in sympathy with you guys. Okay. I say because I can't think of another building this small that's been on a two year more toward. Given what is taking place, I am actually, you guys have my sympathy. Thank you, sir. But that doesn't, sympathy for PADC does not relieve the city of the underlying problems application sort of brought to light or caused us to seek a traffic study. And by the way, the planning board did not seek the traffic study that the city proposed. The planning board wanted a much more modest and more focused study, but I think City Council saw that there was a greater, there was a bigger issue. There was a bigger and more consequential traffic issue with, with Naples Square and, and the development of the, of the neighborhood to the north of Naples Square. And so embarked on a larger traffic study and has doubled down on that traffic study. Which I think would bring a general discussion into the petition. We can focus on the petition. All right, yeah, we don't disagree with the city's position on that, we just disagree with the effect it's had on this property because it hasn't had effect on our neighbors who came after us. So your response to my question is based on the traffic study, the volume of traffic on that road, servicing the restaurant, will not have an impact on the residential property because impacts on residential property only occur when, according to the traffic study, the road fails to qualify. It becomes too overburdened when the road fails. And as long as the road isn't failing, there's no impact, no rest of it. Which, the interior road that we're referring to between PADC and Naples Square 4 isn't even in the condition of Goodlett or Third Avenue. It's not a B or C road, it's an A-qualified road and the parking for Naples Square 4 is on the adjacent road, not on this road. So I think it has little or no impact on the quality of life of the residents of Naples Square 4. Thank you, sir. If we have questions on the traffic stuff, should we get them now before we start with Christian? Are there additional questions on the traffic stuff? And I apologize for taking up so much of everyone's time. Yeah, I had a couple. How many, what is the, was it, is another building across, was it B or something, had B or something like that right next to the hotel? The encore? No, no, no, the other way. Right by the parking lot where there's, you go to the building. You use that? Where's it? That's it. At one point, there was an A, B, and C, A, and B. Where the car was on? I'm sorry, that's exactly what you're saying. Yeah. It shows here as B somewhere, so I can go back here. So, Encore used to be A and B. Yeah, no, I'm not. And then C is our commercial. I'm with right to the left of the right side of the Marriott. There's something that says commercial B or something. That's a vacant commercial space within the AC Marriott. Exist today. OK, so what is that? What is that supposed to be? Is this supposed to be just commercial stuff? I have no idea right now. It's vacant and there is no less there. I don't have the answer to that today. So it could be a restaurant. It could be a restaurant. Okay. But how big is that square footage? I think it's, I think it's 20 yet and one of the other type tables you have. Plus or minus 5,000 square feet. I don't have the AC. That's funny, but it was contemplated and parked as a restaurant when MHK did the AC Marriott, but to date, I'm not aware of anything that's taking place in that space. And then you said there's 2,500 square feet of space for this pad itself for the restaurant stuff. Exactly. Roughly right. And how many seats are in that one? You said 500 square feet outside 2000 inside. Would be about 2,500 outside. Right. So how many seats is that? So how many? Depends on the user and how they lay out their space. But if I went based on the Florida building code based on square footage, it would be 130 patrons. 130. So if I divided that by four to six tables, it would be 30 tables. So it would be 30 tables. So they would need 30 seats. They would need 30 parking spots. So they would need to have. No, so that's not the way parking is calculated. So parking is calculated in this zoning district, regardless of use at three parking spaces per thousand square feet. So it's a 3,500 square foot building, regardless of the use of it. We took the outdoor dining and added it to that, which is the 500 which put us at 4,000 square feet, which means it's required to have 12 parking spaces. Excuse no. It's 4,000 square feet that's required for how much? 12 parking spaces. 12 parking spaces. Yes sir. That's the entire zoning district of D downtown for the entire zoning district in Naples. That's your zoning code. Okay, here what I'm trying to put common sense. So if I'm sitting here and I'm looking at the thing, I just want to say you had something where you show where Christian had this thing where all the... Sure. So if we come back to this space here, if we say pad C requires 12 parking spaces in the adjacent and next two spaces here, we've got 15 spaces just along the edge of the building and then we've got additional spaces, we've got an additional seven spaces back here, we've got 12 spaces here, we've got 12 spaces here, so as the parking spaces are distributed through the entirety of the PUD for naval square, we did pay attention to the fact that there could be a restaurant in the Marriott and we anticipated this being a restaurant. So we put a parking lot between those two potential parking spaces to make sure we focus that parking where it would potentially be needed. I'm with you. I'm with you. Try not to make sure we all understand what the issue is. So there is an issue or the not an issue. So what you're basically saying is that building C has seats of about 130 people, roughly about 30 cars would be there. So you see there's 32 there which basically covers the, you know, sort of interior place place and then there's 16 on the far side which would be the remaining piece of that commercial thing that's undefined. Yes sir. So since that's even bigger, if that come out to be a restaurant that probably would be a problem because then you'd have something with twice the sun, wouldn't twice the size of the restaurant. But again, it's right now it's just regular. But if it's a restaurant within a hotel, how many of the already parked hotel patrons are patronizing this restaurant? That's true. Plus they're adjacent to the hotel. There's another parking field over there. So again, we meet the parking criteria, but we did take all this into account when we plan the space out. I'm just trying to make sure it's a good point. I'm just asking questions. Absolutely. So don't be defensive. I'm just a little loud. I'm not defensive. Okay. You can be like a defensive. And then that's the Marine. That's the voice, the Marine coming out. So it's nothing intentional. So then as far as the traffic stuff, the assumption then is that what, that how many traffic, what's the traffic going through this, the building and stuff here. So I got, you know, I got 30 cars is basically what it's, what's the traffic. So I'm trying to understand if they're by your kind of real life sort of, see what it's like. From a real life perspective, that varies a little bit based on what type of dining it is. If it's fine dining that's a two hour turnover. If it's lunchtime fast food that's a 45 minute turnover. So it depends on what ultimately goes in there and as of this day we don't have exactly what type of restaurant tour would go in there. Okay so if it was so if it's an hour whatever it is, let's just say it's an hour, I mean to be 30 cars coming in and out in an hour. So that's what I read. That I would have to turn over how that calculation is going on. Just to make sure understand what it is. Okay, just to understand. Okay. to my assumption, probably assumption B is it's 1 hour turnover which is fairly high that would basically be 30 an hour which means there's one new car every 2 minutes. Potentially and again Norm can address that exactly if you'd like him to. Otherwise, we can proceed with the Christian and the landscape and we can come back and... What's the one? Do you want to address that? What's that? He's saying it's like a car every two minutes. I have just tried one. Any other questions for the traffic engineer? No, I think one of the key point is that, you know, the traffic engineer and position was stated at this time, they do not, if I'm correct, they do not know what this restaurant is. I just want to make clear that at this time they are saying they don't know what this restaurant is. I just want to make clear that at this time, they are saying they don't know what usage is being confirmed for this restaurant. So for the planning side of it, we did look at it as a retail space as the way we looked at the restaurant as a restaurant, and then the other space is a retail space. So if there was a change to a restaurant, then that would have to be evaluated there at and on an additional restaurant. And in terms of like this, it's not exactly like a 30, you know, the way in terms of like in the retail, the 4,000 square foot would be in the peak hour period, let's say in the PMPGAR, this would be 41 to 8 PGAR trips, is the way that would work out for the 4000 square feet space there. For that. So it's close to kind of the number you were saying, but it's not quite exactly on there. That's for the retail place. That's for the retail place. That's for the retail space. And for the, yep. And I have to look at the restaurant. In terms of its turnover area, I'd have to let me... I'd have to make a bet. that. Sorry. This looked for my turning movement stuff there. We're showing coming out of that area. Let me get back to you. Let me. Christian. It's okay. I'll do. Lensky. That's fine back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. Let me get back to you. of the back of the buffer. So there's some little little keys here, A, B, C, and D around the perimeter. That just shows the existing vegetation that wraps around the site here in the back of the wall and the water features that as you come in the main entrance drive there. Behind the one column over here there is a fountain equipment pad that's underground here so that's where the little gap in the head right there. But this represents the existing conditions. We have large oak trees here that we previously did not represent So that adds to our buffering needs to help screen the the dumpster facility so I'll come to that momentarily This is a proposed planting plan The green represents a new vegetation We've kind of clearly identified all the existing vegetation around the perimeter that is to retain and remain If for whatever reason we were to have to take something out to do a conflict of some sort. We'll put it back so it'll still respect what is out there. Around the building as indicated before, we've got a series of nicely planted or designed shrubs of different heights and layers. I don't know if we have to get into the nuances of all that. The gist of what our focus had been was kind of increasing the buffer around the dumpster area. That's when we increased the size of those hedges. This is that existing oak tree here. That in turn will definitely create a nice canopy looking back down from any units to the west of us. And then in addition in the parking lot we've added some more califillum trees along that line. I've often nicknamed that hedge on a stick where we put a bunch of trees close together and then they grow together as a canopy that's higher up than ground level. So that ground level you can still peak underneath and you've got a hedge underneath, but at the upper levels of that, let's say, six to 20 feet tall, we create a nice effective screen. So I think that'll be very effective. There are some existing legustrums in here. If one were never to trim them, they'd get about 20 feet tall. I think of them more as a 14, 15 foot tall plant. So I think we're quite well buffered here and whatnot. This oak tree, as you can see, that's probably a 30 foot canopy. Someday that'll get 40 or 50 feet. So that ultimately just gets better and better with age. And these are just sample pictures of plant materials that are around the site. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Are there questions for the landscape? Okay. Just want to compliment on the landscape, especially the improving and the, for the vision of the dumpster area. I'm surprised that more residents didn't have Naplesquad, didn't hide in that point, but I appreciate the, you've taken that into account, and you've done a great job there. Thank you. Could we have the traffic engineer back for a second? Mr. Trebelkack, see you around. Okay. You want to get. I'm sorry. You know, my question is going to be about 12th Street South. It's 12th Street South is a city road, isn't it? No, it is not. No, it is not. What is 12th Street South is a city road, isn't it? No, it is not. No, it is not. What is 12th Street South? It's an access easement. City has an access easement over it, but it is private property. That roadway has not been dedicated to the city as a right away. So who, what control does the city of Naples have over that road? As opposed to the city? We do not have the right to cross it. Yes, that's it. That's it. That's it. So in other words, state criteria would apply when you discuss traffic volumes on that road. This is not a road. So no, that would not apply. This is essentially a driveway so no that would not be. This is essentially a driveway. It's an access way. They have granted a public access easement over, but they maintain its private property. OK. The lane through 12th, where does it cease to be private property? I believe at 1st Avenue South. From 1st Avenue South to the AC Marriott that is private property with an access, public access easement granted. Sir, it would be fair to say that the city has no control over the traffic volume on that road. I don't I can't speak to that. I can say that the projects that are using 12th to access You know that we have requested traffic impacts statements for the intensity of the projects But I don't I can't speak to whether we have control over something of that nature. I think, Mr. Chairman, that all this city can do is control the access to that road and lands not once on it. I think staffs made it clear it's an easement. So we have an interest in it, but we don't have title to it. All right, thank you. I don't think I need the traffic in here. Can we proceed? Yeah. Do you have any more presentation materials? No, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'll just reiterate that the issues that we've been discussing today have already all been evaluated by city staff and have approved as compliant with the code criteria. And you would be in agreement with a condition that you would provide a maintenance plan for the storm, for the larger storm water system prior to your presentation before City Council. We would work with the association and to be consistent with the state permit to try to help them devise a management plan, a maintenance plan. Maintenance plan. All right, thank you. And Mr. Brooker, thank you. Mr. Brooker, just to clarify, you're confirming to do that prior to October 16th. Because that's what the chair will chair across just asked for. We will work with the association. I can only go so far in good faith attempts to work with the association. If the association is not cooperative with us, these are the state permits requirements, it's more powerless to force the association to do one thing or another. On a practical point. You aren't going to begin construction of this building until you have on-core approved correct. This was your statement. Sorry, that's the first statement. Yeah, that's the first statement. So, and it's reasonable for the city to expect an actionable maintenance plan for the storm water system that is in place. Would it be more appropriate to say that that would be a condition of the building permit? Perhaps. Again, the southwest Florida Water Management District lays that out that requirement in the ERP, which we've met. That ERP requirement for maintenance is turned over to owners when the building is sold. So Naples Square Ownership HOA is required to maintain that building. So the places will work with the HOAs if they don't want to meet us. Tell me something. In Florida, do some of the homeowners' associations and large buildings have problems with their buildings and maintaining them? They do, but I mean I would test that it's the municipality's responsibility to enforce that, not to develop the terms of building them. Why wouldn't we be making efforts to avoid that same situation? What can't this work? Why wouldn't the developer make an effort to, why wouldn't we all make an effort to do that? And like they said, we would be more than happy to work with the HOA to write the maintenance agreement. But if the HOA disagrees with it, our hands are tied and you're going to make that a condition of our approval. I think the HOA disagrees with that. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Okay. And maybe partial solution. It seems to me to my recollection that it's been a while, that this is mostly gravity fed system. So what we're really talking about in maintenance is primarily garbage getting in there that blocks up the things. At least in my home owners association we have a contract with somebody to blow out those pipes every two years I think it is and knock on wood so far it's working. I think you could have a maintenance plan for your section. Absolutely. To blow out those pipes into the main systems and that City can deal with the association. The portion that our developer can do, the portion that our developer can utilize. That's right. We have no problem right now in maintenance group. We will work with Naples Square HOA to write their maintenance agreement with them and we fully encourage them to get on a maintenance program. It does nothing but make our developments look better when they're not flooding. So it works better for us when that happens. So I think Clay had tested to, we will work with them, but we can't force them to do anything at this point, but we will certainly write one for Pad C for our portion of the development. I think Mr. Chairman, that's all we can expect from this applicant. I agree. Is there two diligence on that? I agree. Thank you. I have a hearing no more questions. We'll go to the staff report. Good morning for the record. Leslie Dolmar with the City of Naples Planning Department. My resume and qualifications are on this file and I've been included with this file and on file and I've been previously certified as an expert in planning and zoning matters before PAB and City Council. My remarks today are very brief. Similar to Mr. Brooker, I would like to enter the staff report in the comments from both the 2022 hearing as well as the June 24 hearing into the record. My comments are going to be limited to just a review of what happened, what has happened since we last heard this petition. So the Planning Advisory Board considered this amendment number one to site plan petition 20 SP 14 at the June 12th meeting and noted that again as we've already discussed the project was a catalyst for a downtown traffic study. The board wanted to delay the recommendation on the project until further direction on that traffic study from City Council was provided. So this petition was continued to this meeting the September 11th, 2024 meeting. Following that, in according to the city engineer, staff provide an update to city council on the downtown traffic study at the June 17th council meeting. Council directed that the study may continue using the data collected and work is ongoing. But there were no plans to deliver any presentations this month. Staff has not received any revised materials related to this particular request. We did send out a notice and all correspondence received regarding this matter has been included with the record. It would also like to include any correspondence again with the initial hearing and then the June hearing for a complete record of this particular item. We are available for questions and we have, we do have the Deputy City Engineer here as well. Are there questions for staff? Could the Deputy Engineer provide an update on the traffic study and the consultant. Good morning, Alison Bickett, Deputy City Engineer for the Record. In response to your inquiry regarding the traffic study as it was relayed, you had last heard this in April. It was presented to the Planning Board and City Council at that time. We received a full schedule at that point. We did discuss because of the concerns that were brought forth and discussed particularly coming from the Planning Board, your planning board as well as the Council, and address that in We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot of questions for you. We have a lot for some time for about a month time period in order to make sure that this was ironed out. Relayed following that we were ready to proceed, continuing with the information that was provided in direction from City Council at the June meeting. We've more recently, I have requested a agenda, or I mean, I'm sorry, a schedule, and since that June meeting, I finally received the proposed schedule in the past few weeks, and unfortunately that brought some concerns to myself in the rest of the department, showing a proposed schedule, completion date of April of 2025, which was unacceptable in our eyes and is actually not consistent with the contract. So we at this point are working behind the scenes to discuss this and determine the path moving forward. Are there any questions for our deputy? Yeah, but a couple relating to the meeting and relating to the traffic study. There's been a continual reference about the confidence factor of the existing data reaching 94%. I greatly question that, and I'd like to, if the staff could look to get, how was that qualified? How is that calculated that they can use the existing data to generate a 90% confidence factor? So that will be a straight question to the provider of the data. I would just like to see that specifically because I do question that from a statistical point of view. Okay. So I have a couple questions. Of course. Surprise, surprise. I think that the crux of the issue is that there's a way in which traffic studies are performed that is at odds with some of the fundamental tenants of our comp plan. We value a safe environment. We value calm residential streets. We value beach access. We value all sorts of quality of life issues, all sorts of quality of life criteria that are not considered in a traffic study. Safety, safety. How can we implement, how can we study traffic in a way that serves our interest? Because the manner in which Mr. Trebelkock and our consultant studies traffic simply isn't responsive to our concerns, quite frankly. And would be damaging to the city of Naples and its character and its real estate values and the people who live here. So what kind of control do we have over our city streets? Can we diverge from the state's manner of assessing traffic volumes and devise a way of studying traffic that is more responsive to our comprehensive plan? If I may, Chair Cross, if we're going to have a general discussion on the traffic then maybe we should do it right after this item is concluded. That would be fine with me. Would you want to show me conclude the item and then you come back? I think it's a good idea. Okay. I'm sorry. It may be a schedule for the next meeting on agenda to discuss these issues. I think that's a good idea, actually, because behind, like Ms. Bickett said, there may be some significant modifications and updates in the next two weeks or so to the agreement. I don't want to get into too many details right now, but we're working behind the scenes, and I don't know how much further this study's going to go. So I think a 30-day update will probably result in a more conclusive discussion. You know, we could, but in viewing, and what, you know what, let's continue this discussion after we conclude item seven. Thank you. discussion after we conclude item 7. Are there any questions or other questions to stay? It's nice to ask staff in relation to the residential impact criteria. On the report, I feel and I'm all ask staff to correct me relating to that feeling, is that we are neglecting the pedestrian access, which I've referred to earlier. Doesn't seem to be covered within that report. Do you think it belongs in there, or should there be another body? And what I refer to is there is not on regular occasions, clear access to get to Naples Square from the other side of Goodluck Road. Good luck, Frank. Yes. If I recall correctly, there were some discussion about this under a separate petition, under the encore petition, with respect to crosswalks and fair share contributions to that. And I believe that's getting addressed under a separate petition. I understand that, but it's still released to this petition. In my view, it's to clear access. I don't understand the on- and if the answer was, another applicant has done that, and that's in favour, then we can incorporate, but I don't think it has been done. That's why I want to raise it now. My understanding was that was addressed under a separate application where that was going to be addressed. We can certainly ask the petitioner. I believe the agent is the same. I don't know if we can cross pollinate in these hearings or not. But that was my understanding. If we want to put a condition that they will continue to work or it will be consistent with other approvals related to pedestrian access across Goodlitt perhaps we could consider that in any kind of recommendation to City Council and we can certainly discuss that Thank you Chair I'm sorry if I I may I was remiss in in mentioning that we do reference in in the proposed resolution Three conditions through Staff is recommending three conditions and then I believe we heard a fourth condition as part of the discussions today. So when and if we're ready for our motion, I'm happy to go through those conditions unless you'd rather me do that right now. Go ahead. OK. So the first condition that we're recommending is that all signage will be required to comply with the requirements provided in the Naples Square Plan development, or the petitioner must apply for approval of a uniform sign plan through the review of a site plan petition. So, there's just a reminder to the petitioner that there are two options for signage and if they opt for the uniform sign plan that will again be another site plan petition that will go through this particular process. Number two, the parking calculations provided on sheet C4.0, prepared by Baracko and associates, incorporated with a plot date of 6324, describes the integrated nature of the parking for both the downtown residential districts of the Naples Square Plan development. The minimum required parking must be available at each stage of development and future certificates of occupancy, maybe delayed, dependent upon the availability of parking. If we recall our discussion in June and then also to some degree today, this, the parking for this entire plan development is integrated. And the operation of a restaurant on this subject property will require that the full complement of parking that is proposed for the on-corp project be constructed and operational before this project can be operational. So this condition is just a reminder and also tying these two projects together that it cannot be operational until that full complement of required parking is available. Number three, final design approval for the subject property is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. And then the condition that I heard today, and I heard maybe two different versions, so we can clarify this, is related to a stormwater maintenance. I think where we fell is the petitioner will work to devise a stormwater maintenance plan for track C1, which is this corner of the overall development. So the petitioner will work to devise a stormwater maintenance plan for track C1 to be provided with the documents forwarded to City Council for their review. And then if we want to add a fifth condition related to the access we can we can entertain that. The pedestrian access across Goodland. I'm in agreement with point five in terms of timeliness and it should be in that point five should be added as a condition that the applicant can meet before they come before City Council. I am concerned that there is not a maintenance agreement for the overall system and the idea of assigning responsibility to it for its maintenance to a homeowner's association, strikes me as something that we should be concerned about. So chair, Chair, I don't want to tie it to, yeah, go ahead. I just want to clarify, there is a maintenance plan. It's just a different jurisdiction that approves it via the state permit. So I don't want you to think that there's not some kind of maintenance requirement and conditions and requirements. That was asked and answered. There's an obligation to maintain. It is not a maintenance plan. A maintenance plan is practically when you are going to clean this, you know, culvert, when you're going to blow out this pipe, when you're going to blow out this pipe, how you're going to blow out the pipe, how frequently you're going to blow out the pipe. I think we've probably to cope with this point. Yeah, I agree. I'm just to council suggesting that one exists. And I think we had testimony to the fact that one does not. But I think we're adding it as a condition, correct? Well, we want to add it as a condition in fairness to the applicant that overall condition of a maintenance plan can't be directly tied to the approval of building C But I mean I take counsel's point petitioners point he he offered to try And purely a recommendation on the how from this bill can we discuss how you will try and and and Put that in as a condition. And I'd like the petitioners participation in the grafting of this. The owner of this tract is the developer of essentially Naples PD. We have an ongoing open communication, at least we think, with the residential district. So you ask how we would attempt to ensure that the state permit requirements, which do layout what maintenance is required. How that's going to be achieved. Yes. We will approach them, show them the permit, and try to ask them to comply with some sort of written plan. I'm not sure how that would evolve or materialize in from the City Council. I have some language. The petitioner will work with the Property Owners Association in compliance with the state permitting requirements to devise a master of strong water maintenance plan. Consistent with the state permit. Yeah. That sounds pretty good to me. Go ahead and put it in as a condition. You want to read the last two conditions back? Okay. So condition number four would be the petition will work to devise a storm water maintenance plan for track C-1 to be provided with the documents for the city council for their review with this item. Number five, the petition will work with the Property Owners Association and compliance and consistent with the state permitting requirements to devise a master's strong water maintenance plan for the Naval Square Plan development. An actionable. Can we add the word actionable? An actionable master storm water maintenance plan. Got it. Are there any other comments? Is there a motion to approve or disprove? I'll make a motion to approve or disprove? I'll make a motion to approve. Oh, second. And that's subject to the five conditions we discussed. Yes. Thank you. Would you call the roll? Member Dabney is absent. Member Mayor. No. Vice Chair Fury. No. Member Kaplan. Yes. Member Kaplan. Yes. Kaplan or your same? Or Kaplan, okay. Kaplan. Alternate Member Barone. Yes. Member Creese. No. Chair Cross. Yes. Member Creece. No. Chair Cross. Yes. Passed through. 313. Chair, before we move on to the next item, do you want to take a quick break? We take a break at 10.30, don't we? I think that next item might be also lengthy. All right, let's, everyone is looking like a break. Let's take a break. We'll continue the discussion with the traffic engineer after the break. 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 Thank you. So we are back in order and I would like to have a minute of silence because today is 9-11 and without further ado, silence. you you So we will now have a discussion about traffic with the traffic engineer. Hi. I want to begin by saying I want to have this discussion now because I know that PADC will be coming before the Naples City Council and I think they're effectively the canary in the coal mine. So I want to ensure that we're able to communicate what we feel about traffic and the traffic study effectively to council. And I hope that after this discussion we can draft a brief summary, a brief written summary which we can all approve and which we can send to City Council. Because I think given that we've approved, that we have heard item C, we, that this would be an appropriate companion commentary. Questions for the traffic engineer? Reform a question I'd like to put my understanding of a situation relating to the traffic study, and for that, if you like, my interpretation, for it to be corrected. My understanding is we commissioned the traffic study, and in so doing we engage professionals, those professionals quite rightly use the accepted protocol for Cullia County and various Government bodies. What wasn't clear is what is expected from the outcome, in other words, we have not determined at this point what would be an ideal outcome, not a case of what solutions will be provided, what do we expect to make decisions, how do we expect to use this information? And that, I think, has been underestimated in the sense of my understanding is, for us to use any information from the study, the report, if that information is to be used to any way influence or engage collier or the state, then the study needs to follow the protocol that's accepted by professionals who advise those states. When we looked at the—and that includes the timing of observations—when we look at the timing of observations that have been done, we do was, I think, clear dissatisfaction with not showing the time in selected didn't truly replicate what's going on in Naples. So I think a number of this board and council members have indicated different timings and different observations. That then would put a, in a predicament, that we could do this, but then the information gained from that study could not be used effectively outside of the city itself because it would conflict with the protocols of the state and the collier. So I think we generated our own little jailhouse relating to this study. So that's mind-to-appetation. I'd like that, it'd be like, say, no, you've totally got it wrong, or that is a true reflection. Because I think this is causing our own discussion with a mirror in front of us. We're entraping ourselves. That then brings me round to the point and various statements that they have been made of the recent council meeting. We have the wrong material to proceed, but yet we are thinking of proceeding. The study was poorly sculpted, which I agree with. The reason I think it was poorly sculpt is that we didn't use, or have an interaction back and forth with the professionals who would then provide that data. We should have sculpted it with the professionals who could have said, well, if you do this, you can't do that. So it comes back to, I still do, I'm not clear what the expected outcomes are of the study. Within the scope that's been placed, it doesn't portray that. I would like to comment on Mr. Creason's opinion. Well, I just wanted to provide a few, I don't know how, if you watch the meeting from June and the feedback in all that we had received, we had discussions with the traffic consultant in advance of that meeting. And, forget me, because it's been alluded to the confidence level of the data collection. I think what you're referring to is the time frames from the data collection and the differential of what we would accept and consider as appropriate based on our actual conditions. We did have them compare some of the data, the raw data that we have collected in some of our stations around the city that was able to give them a little bit of comparison and in evaluation of that they were able to compare and give us a pretty confident comparison that it would be approximately I want to say 96% of what the data that they did retrieve. And that was the information that we did present in June to City Council for consideration whether or not we should move forward in whether or not the scope and details at this point were consistent with what we wanted to move forward with. They did a request for us to go ahead and continue moving forward with working with the consultant at that time with the data that was collected and utilizing that. And so that's what we did relate to the traffic consultant following that meeting. And so that's really where we're at at this point. Hopefully that helps to resolve some of those questions. I don't know if that's exactly what you want to hear, but that's the direction in discussion that from my perspective that we've received. Yeah, one of the things relating to the confidence of the data, that's anything that I did ask. I'd like to see specifically what that model is, because I found it difficult to understand statistically how that confidence level is being reached on the current data that's been gained. So I mean there'll be a straightforward calculation and model which will depict that. I would like to see that for my own interest. I've got more of a statement, I guess, or statements than a question. To start with, I think this should be a separate agenda item for another time. We can all get our thoughts together on this, maybe you have a working group, but to Mr. Mayer's comments, one of my frustrations has been the AM-PM studies that we do, which bears little relationship to, for instance, take 5th out every Saturday night. It's outside of the PM because PM is Monday to Friday, what, 4, 2, 6. So we're not really reflecting the correct actuality with the theoretical. Also, we're very seasonal. Traffic today is beautiful. Generally for a very much, it's horrible. We all know that, you know. So, you know, we need, I think we need to reflect that. And also, the other frustration I have is the, each traffic story for each thing that comes up to the PAB looks at how the current project is going to impact current conditions, what it doesn't take into account, or all the properties in the pipeline that the council have approved and if yet to be completed. And so if you take something, for instance, like NCH, which I think was going to add something like half a million vehicles a year. Anything we look at now isn't looking at that until such time as NCH's heart institute is built and is operational. So we've sort of got this, a lot of development in the pipeline which isn't being accounted for essentially. I will comment that I have relayed, I've provided every application through the planning that we've received that we know that is on the horizon and I have related. We have a traffic individual traffic study for that development in hand that I have provided to them and ones that we are aware of at this point, so I would like to comment on that. The only other thing that I think was topic of discussion, I've brought it up before I believe with the planning board in the past, but I know we've had some change in over the years, but there is an adjustment factor that can be added for seasonal peak that is, that can be applied, and I understand that depending on the season, that's something that sometimes we will utilize. It's a standard for professionals. What I usually do prefer is it is collected during season because I feel like there's more confidence if we collect the data during season. But there is the opportunity that we can apply that factor as well to calculate in for the seasonal factor. So I just want to clarify and provide that information as well. Sorry, so how about the Monday Friday, AMPM situation? Because obviously a lot of things that come up here, our restaurants, we just had, we're going to be discussing valley parking for the playhouse next. They don't get busy until after 6pm. Yes. And I think they understand that we did have the discussion with them and relate that we in again, we tried to provide as provide additional information as we have available to compare where we have collected the data and we do have to look at some of those individual areas that may have higher peaks such as the Avenue for instance that would really hire volumes in specific time periods that are unique for that particular area, especially with the commercial areas that we have within the city. Can those be built into the individual traffic studies that are put towards us? Because I know in the past about Mr. DeValle and whether these things are cumulative in the not and we've had this discussion, you and I have regarding the Monday the Friday PM. You know, you do a study and say no, there's going to be no impact. And yet we know there's impact. You know, Fifth Avenue is a wonderful parking area on a Saturday night, January, February, March and into April. Traffic doesn't move. Yeah, and I- You don't seem to take that into account. Well, and I think that that was related to them. The other point, and I think that that was related to the other point. And I think that that's something that we may want to reconsider capture as we have further discussions as we get into the policy. And I know I keep kind of driving into the policy point, but Fifth Avenue, according to our code, is identified as a constrained roadway. So it's outside of like that level of sea service. It kind of follows a little bit different standards when they're evaluating, but perhaps that's something that we consider as we move forward and how we want to evaluate specifically Fifth Avenue, for instance. And I think you could probably add Third Avenue south to that because once the playhouse is operational and the encores operational and plot C is operational. Naples Square 4 just came on on stream at the beginning of last season. There's already a lot of traffic up and down there as we know and a lot more traffic will be coming and I think that's going to be another fifth avenue south. I hope I'm wrong. Yeah and I have taken in, I've worked with, you know, there's some ideas for Third Avenue. I don't know if I want to get into all the details, but I know we've talked about in the past as far as that's been a big, and I only bring this up because I know this has been a major concern particularly for some of these new applications coming in, but for the, you know, an evaluation of these roundabouts in there that really don't need current standards that do encourage higher traffic speeds. It is more of a cut through at the time when we were looking at those roundabout options and looking at potentially making some improvements, of course, Naples Square. Some of the residents where they reached out with concerns about what we were going to be doing. So we did meet with them and at that time, discussed options. One of the options and that I've kind of thought in my back pocket if potentially we look at is, you know, there are, we are trying to promote safety improvements for the bike and pedestrian standpoint as well and make it walkable. And perhaps incorporating in some type of not really a speed table, but an elevated cross walks through there for the Naples Square area that may also in turn kind of for some of that track that cut through traffic and may discourage some of that as well. So that's something that we could also consider as we look at that and and and I think that that was of interest by the Naples Square residents when that was discussed at that time. So I just wanted to point that out as well. Thanks for mentioning that, sir. Yes, Alison, how you doing? I didn't have a chance to see the presentation to the City Council in June. I did look at the PowerPoint, which is exactly what it was before. So I don't know whether there was new information being shown or whether it was just more discussion on what you should do next and stuff. So I think that what we saw before is the same comments. They provided nothing in the way of what the results were. I mean, there's no, you know, they talked about, we had to press hard even find out when the data was that they were collecting and stuff. And I think it should be okay. I mean, there was an early April, I think it was. And if there's issues where somebody wants to look at late Saturdays and stuff like that, I got to believe you could do point data point collections and then based upon what the ratio is of increased volume, you can use it to address some of the issues you have. If we think that the data we have is 15% too low, I gotta believe you could do ways of scaling all those things up. So I think there's gotta be ways in the modeling to be able to handle those things. So I'm not as concerned about that. But what I am concerned is that they showed nothing about where the choke points are today. There was nothing that showed where those things were, nothing to describe what it really meant in reality so that we could understand how long is somebody going to be sitting there going through X number of red lights and stuff. I think there's 26 specific projects or so. Maybe you added a couple two, which I think is good. But there's no way of describing how you're going to come up with what the volume is for each one of these projects. I mean, when you look at somebody that comes up with something that is, I think we need to look at some of those to make sure that they seem realistic. And I think that what we found today with the PADC was, I mean, if there's going to be 130 people sitting in there, there's going to be X number of cars and they're going to be, you know, someone will be coming from walking in, someone will be driving in. We can look and say, okay, there are 60 cars in and out, that makes sense in a month in an hour. And, you know, I think we should be able to go through if somebody does this and say that seems reasonable. And in some cases where you have to go through and look at like a grocery store, something like that, where there's a bunch of volume, there's other ones around here where people actually do specific studies to look at what a whole food will actually do in specific areas. So there's ways of coming up with that. But I guess the question is, I don't know what, you know, those are things I would want to see in an interim project, interim checkpoints so we can understand this makes sense that what we're going to get at the end is the right thing. So I'm glad that it's being deferred, so I think that's good. But I don't know anything about what you're currently contemplating. I can only comply with some of the things that you said, Matthew, that were negotiating something or something, I guess. And if it's helpful for me, I will go back and look at the hour or so that they discuss the city council, too, where maybe you can summarize some of those things. Well, generally, the update was primarily from the staff's perspective and in relaying the information and kind of collecting and the feedback that we've received from you as a whole and determining whether or not we're in a pause standpoint at that time and looking whether or not, should we be changing directions at this point? So it was more or less a conversation to be held had that we really underwent at that time to discuss whether or not we were on track at that point. So that's generally, it was not really an update as far as the actual progress. Thank you. So my turn turn I guess. So yes, there are issues with the data, but I think underlining that there's the reality that the criteria that the traffic engineers use is not responsive to the concerns that the city of Naples has. You know, we care what we care about quality of life. The states criteria, traffic study criteria, cares about the capacity of the road to support the vehicular traffic. We care about kids being able to walk unescorted to the beach. Guess what? The state's traffic criteria don't care. Does not care about kids being able to walk unescorted to the beach. So if we are going to do traffic studies, we cannot use the methodology that the state uses. We cannot use the methodology that the county uses. We have to use methodology of our own. Now, and my question is really on what roads, we have, I assume we have no methodology of follow any engineer is going to follow the accepted practices. Now I think where you're getting into. Hold on, right, the accepted practices vary from state to state, don't they? Well, there's actually traffic standards like the ITE that we follow is particularly for traffic engineering. So that's, it can be specified beyond that, that we can, and there's policies that could be incorporated in from the city's standpoint. But before you get too far into that, I mean, we're looking at, I think, what you're concerned in, and where we're looking at different standards as far as the quality of life. Yes, they're gonna be the volumes and the intensity. It's, we prefer for that to stay on those arterial roads. We don't want those on our local roads. And when we do evaluate this, we do consider, we have a little bit different consideration and evaluations of the applications. We're not going to typically want to widen our roads for, and for leaning our roads to make these improvements. Like we would on an arterial road. We have different criteria that we are, that is applied typically for residential standpoints. So as we apply those, they are different, we do have different level of service standards. So that's kind of where there is a differential between, we have different level of service standards. So that's kind of where there is a differential between, we have our level of service standards and we do evaluate, we can get it into those deep tails and define that a little bit more, which I'd like to do as far as the policy when we get to that point. But we can look at those local roads a little bit closer and, and look at those a little bit different, but following in the standards. Like we do need to follow general engineering practices. But, but those those those vehicular standards do not are not necessarily applied to our local roads. Correct, like we can our volumes and criteria for our level of service and those peak, the criteria can be evaluated and we can set those in our policy to be different, which I think is kind of what we're aiming to do. Do we have criteria for our local roads? We do. I mean, we have some of our, some of the criteria that's on our comp plan, it's not, and we've had some historical as far as the service volumes that we evaluate that is applied. But then I also like as a individual basis, now I don't, I can't as far as like if we're looking at rejecting based on like density, that's not something that I'm going to be getting into. But I do apply as far as that criteria. What is going to be applied such as if we're evaluating to widen the road and apply those turn lanes and the improvements? I'm going to apply those more for a local residential road and consider the bike and pad improvements as well. In certain conditions, we're going to look at applications where we can kind of look at what we can do to apply some of those improvements to more of a, I don't want to say complete street, but to apply it is so that it's it's it basically is applicable to that area in specific to what I think are our interest are if that makes sense to. sort of, but it would be advisable to council to review the criteria we have for our local roads. I think that's part of what we want to do with the level of service information and all as we get into the policy. I think that's going to be very important. It would be a good idea to do that or wouldn't it? Yes, I believe so. In our criteria for generally for our traffic studies, because that's quite dated at this point. And I think that we could apply a little bit more detail level detail into that as well. You know, I mean, I've sat on the PAV for a while. And the PAV has expressed frustration, time and time again with the traffic studies that developers have presented. To the point where it's really clear that whatever criteria the consultant is using to arrive at their conclusions is a criteria that does not share the concerns that the comp plan has, that the residents have for quality of life and safety enables. It's just, you know, it's just, it's apples and oranges. And we need to change that. And ordering the traffic study, the traffic study we ordered will be unresponsive to our needs. And I think everyone understands that the traffic study we have ordered will be unresponsive to our needs. And if we ordered a second traffic study, they might be great for a road with a bunch of fast food places on it, but they're not great for a beach community. And I want to communicate that sort of fundamental fact to counsel in a timely fashion because they are wrestling with this traffic study and they've chosen to continue it where they really need to find an alternate way of addressing traffic. We need to have, you know, maybe it is our own criteria. Maybe we develop our own criteria for our local roads. Maybe we develop, maybe we look at our commercial zoning and start considering intensity of use when we approve or not approve some piece of commercial zoning, but we aren't going to get anywhere by commissioning traffic studies. And I wonder, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everybody on the PAB thinks that traffic engineers are great and we just need to rely on traffic engineers. But I would like to come to some consensus, some rudimentary consensus and send that forward in a written fashion and a timely fashion to council because I don't think that we're communicating very effectively with them. And we should be able to communicate with them. I think it's the vehicle that we're selecting to use. As I said earlier, we're asking professionals to give us a study. The protocol they are using, I believe, doesn't fit the intention that you are talking with. It comes back to what are we going to do with the study? If the study is to raise concerns with Collier or the State, then we need to use the protocol that would enable them to even listen to us. Because if we take the traffic study based on, let's say, my opinion or somebody else's individual opinion, it will not be in the format that would be accepted to even have a discussion with a county or a state. So we need to be careful. But we do have a very clear vehicle. The PAB is charged to uphold the comprehensive plan. In this case, we are talking, I think it is chapter 48, the concurrence plan. You want to know how to communicate. We look at what it is we want to communicate, and that needs to be within the comprehensive plan framework, and that way we can clearly communicate to the city and the various bodies. If we just have discussion about an opinion that each or all of us hold, it's outside of a framework and we're in, we have to live inside of framework. So the comprehensive plan is the go-to document that we are charged to uphold as the PAB. That is our purpose. And I think that is the vehicle of which to frame any discussion or conclusions or concerns that we raise. And we are definitely in their right positions to raise those concerns. That's our job and our duty. And I think that's the vehicle to use as opposed to general discussion. So Miss Bigger, as the comp plans up for renewal, do you think it's possible for you to write us a memo with regards to what, because you can clearly understand the goals which would be here to bring to make the traffic data that's used in these formulas more restrictive so that the outcomes are more in line with the quality of life we're trying to build in Naples. First, you know, consistent with the vision plan. Do you think you could let us know? Because I think the traffic study could have had a conclusion if that was the directive given to the consultant, but we weren't part of that process. But is that something you could do? Well, I know the code and the comp plan are lacking in criteria, especially level service. It's very big. And I would like to other than just indicating, I think what we really need to do is address and I think we would, I personally would like to evaluate opportunities and options that are available for, that we could apply into our policies. And I don't want to provide comment on specific, I think that there's other communities that have been in our position or that may have better defined their criteria that perhaps we can use as a model and rely on these outside consultants to help us define and work with us on. Perhaps specifically we're working at looking at incorporating the policy, whether or not that's going to be the traffic consultant. We have not, I haven't received a scope in fee for the policy portion of the work from them yet, so whether it's them or another one of the consultants that we can work with to help us in guidance as we move forward and help provide that guidance. I think we have clarity of best practices and from that we would be able to generate some benchmarks that we are looking to attain or achieve at the moment. I don't think we have any clear map because we don't even know where we're going. Let alone how to get there. We have a set of best practices. We could do that. That's why I'm asking our engineer for her advice. We can't just hire, I mean, you have to have an idea. We can't just hire people to help you have an idea. You have to have an idea. So I'm asking you, how can you help us? And I think that that would be part as we either or not. And I don't know as far as this policy, but I think that that's something that I'm probably going to need to put together. If we do a letter of interest, we'll have to create that scope. And we'll have to determine as far as the fees and all that's going to be incorporated. I'm asking you what changes do you think we should make to our code and our comp plan to help us achieve some of these goals generally? And that's where I don't want to, you know, have any idea. I have some as far as the service volumes could probably be, you know, we might want to re-look at those. So what I'm asking is to take time to do this and to communicate with us not today, but is it something you could put together in a memo? Because if you don't know how to put that together, then how are we guiding the consultants? Well, I think that's where I want them to come in and tell us. We have to tell them what our goals are. Well, I can tell you what the goals are. I can probably, as far as how to achieve that. Do you have a general idea of how to achieve those goals? There's different ways to tell us those different ways. I could probably spend a lot of time and effort in doing something like that, but that would be a pretty hefty task. I feel like to, you know, with my school. And so you've got a direction from the city manager. So I mean, it's just something that I can't, probably because I would, like I said, I would like to look at other communities. I think that that's something that we, it would be valuable. I briefly have, but I'll be perfectly honest. My hands are full right now. I don't have to be available at any time to sit down and really dive into that level of detail that I think we need at this point to figure out what would be best. Again, I have some, I clearly have ideas that have been here for plenty of time. I know what the interests are, but I think in getting there, I think that that's where I would need, I believe outside assistance. Okay, so can you send us those ideas then? I'm not asking you to do the work yourself. I'm asking you, like if you hired someone, where would you guide them to go? You mentioned other, you've looked at other municipalities, local, traffic criteria. Have you looked at Palm beaches, for example? I believe I have. I've looked at theirs. I look at Cahair counties. They have a concurrency program. Cahair County. I mean, they have, they're more arterial. They have different focus generally. So I understand what your concern is. But there are as far as collecting and evaluating those But stick with Palm Beach. How does Palm Beach's Local local criteria vary from ours? I it's been a while since I like I said it's I've looked at it at some point Especially as we were looking at doing this, putting this together, but I don't have that. You don't know. I'll hand now. It's not fair. Sure, cross me out for a minute. Because this was just added on the agenda. I think if we had time to prepare, I'm assuming we could address some of these, but I think picking up the level of service that hasn't been done in eight years is probably the best starting place for what we're trying to do. And not only encompasses traffic and encompasses utilities and stormwater, and that's all gonna be driven internally by staff. Right, and that's gonna be presented to you as an overall report. And I think that's a perfect starting place since it hasn't been done in eight years to kind of start this conversation internally with us the city developing these levels of service and going through this criteria and providing a report. So Again, maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think that's a that's a perfect starting place to determine. Okay. Where are we internally based on what the city employees and experts are saying? So when when is that- Can I just add, procedurally, so the way the code reads is that the planning advisory board with council approval may appoint such employees and staff as it may be necessary for its work. So the proper procedure here is if the PAV would like Allison to prepare a report, isn't that directive needs to come from city council through the city manager. So if the PAB would like to recommend to City Council that you would like this study to be done in Alison to prepare a report that has to go to City Council and then if City Council agrees that that's how they would like to direct their staff, that's how that would go. Mr. Chair. Just on that very point, I mean, the NGD before is a set that the isn't the difficulty currently of creating the goals. And as the vice-charge requested, what are those goals? I think it would be started with that, which I think you said that that's not the difficulty. The idea is of how to achieve those goals is a separate discussion. But I think it would be start from point one where we identify what the goals are and then I think from the PAB should be recommending to council that time is allocated within staff or additional staff required to generate the ideas that you'll enable us to achieve the goals. But at the moment I cannot see what those goals are. I can't see it in the compensated plan and I think if we have them, at least we can see what the finish line looks like. And then we can even decide where are we, in distance, and how to get there. At the moment, I'd start with the goals and the petition for the Council to put resources in place to identify the ideas of how we could achieve those goals. So I appreciate your comment and agree with, and pretty much agree with them. But I'd like to return to what is apparently in the works. Could you explain more fully what staff is preparing in terms of its review of current state of traffic in the city. Sure. So let me just clarify. I don't think staff is currently reviewing it. But as you know, I've been here for three months. I've reviewed the code. I've determined that there was a drop off on chapter 48, which has been a big topic of this board on concurrency The annual reviews that were supposed to be done They have not been done. So I've been communicating with city manager. We are going to pick that back up Timing I can't answer. I don't direct staff to do things, but we are going to continue to do it moving forward. And what will that report when it is completed in tail? Level of service for stormwater, utilities, traffic, all sorts of things. There's a plethora of criteria in chapter 48 for each specific level of service report that's done. I think Parks and Rec does one as well, so it's going to be pretty comprehensive. And is there a way that PAB can expedite that report? By requesting that personnel be assigned to it. And is there a way that we can ask that goals be established. You have to get that to city council. You could communicate through staff for the city attorney to city council. You're intent. This is my recommendation for the PAV to put that together to identify the goals which I believe are not difficult to achieve. And then they can allocate the times to how we could generate ideas to achieve them goals. Yeah, I agree. I think, you know, a level of service doesn't mean anything unless you objective or a goal. So, Erica, how can we proceed to facilitate this? Yeah, we just give you a vacation from the PV to the Council. Send me, you can go through me, send me something that I can pass along to City Council. Okay. But I think that, yeah, if the idea is identifying goals, you goals to do that. Well, it's both. It's identifying goals and expediting the level of service review relative to those goals. So if it's a level of service, what's the objective of the? So I think that we're talking about two different things here. What is in chapter 46 is a report on the existing level of service. It does not sound to me like that's what you're asking for. You don't want to report on where we are today. We do. You would like to identify goals for where we go in the future. Yeah, we were looking for general suggestions by our own traffic engineer and how we could meet those goals. And if they have to be dove into deeper, that's when the consultant comes in. Is that that difficult? I'm not saying that it's difficult. That's something that City Council has to direct. You wouldn't do it, I'm asking. It seems like it would not be that difficult. But I'm saying that level of, I agree with my advice. Mr. Chairman. But the level of service is one parameter as Mr. Ticket has said to bring these traffic goals to fruition. But knowing what they are today, Shireen knows them. We need suggestions on how to make them better. Happy prepared to work with the planning to bring to the next PAB meeting a clear request for the PA be to either consider as a motion or as a gender item, which then we can look for making the request for the information that we want, which I believe, as the Vice-Chair has clarified, first of all start with goals and then the ideas that can be generated from staff to achieve them goals, because at the moment we don't have any measure. And then we can request that the council puts the resources in to actually make that clear, make it smart. All right. Do we want to wait till next meeting to do this? Erica said, Erica said the way to do this is to communicate our desires to council. Are we prepared to communicate our desires to council? I am. I am. So what do we desire? I don't think this time in this meeting to go for that general discussion. I'm prepared to work with the planning to go that. You want to wait and not say what we desire until you have worked it out with. Because we need to know what the constraints are. Otherwise, we're just going to get back in the same discussion and debate and go back around and around. I'm in total agreement with Mr. Mell. We need to know more clearly what we're asking for. We're asking for. Otherwise, we're going to go off-hoffcoked. We also need to reference the vision of the Naples or Naples vision document, because I think that's the guiding light as well. So I'm totally with Andrew. Is there general consensus on that point? Yes. So can we ask Andrew to facilitate that? And that would be within our purview and it wouldn't. If I may. You can facilitate. I just think a proper thing would probably be to facilitate something, have it on the agenda, get a board consensus right on the goals. Is that where we're? That's exactly what I'm feeling that I will work with the planning cover the concerns that I see. Have that as a gender item with report and information submitted as articles for an agenda item at the next board. I think it's stronger as a board decision. I'm fine with that. So do we need to appoint Andrew to that task? I think he's willing to do it. It's going to be in the sunshine because whatever he prepares he won't share with you until it's part of the agenda and we can handle it at the next meeting. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Where are we in the status of the project for the study? Are they doing anything or are they stopped to try to re-schedule things or are they doing at least a little bit of work or I mean I guess it may be dying a slow death. Well she said they didn't like the delivery date. So I'm not sure are you changing the delivery date or? I have asked for an updated schedule at this time, but I have not received a one-to-date. That's acceptable. That fits within the contract terms because the contract essentially expires December 31st of this year. They have work hours is what they're doing, which is supposed to have been spent in a certain time frame but if you slow down the burn it could go layer. So I mean it's not by date it's by work hours because that's how the consultants work. I'm looking into it. The council also agreed additional funding to adopt within the report about the policies et cetera. So that was done as a separate chunk to the side of it. Right. I understand the policy is different, but I mean as far as they've done any more work, I guess, if they've done any work since we talked to them in whatever last time may. That's unclear. What council decided to do was to sort of give it back to staff and Let it be their problem And council did not preempt it council recognized that there were underlying issues That needed to be addressed I think council thought that the traffic study could theoretically address them Which I am doubtful of but I think Council thought that the traffic study could theoretically address them, which I am doubtful of. But it is, the ball is in staff's court. I think staff understands the problems inherent in the traffic study. Okay. If there are no further comments, we will move on to agenda item 7D. Please go ahead. Good morning. Have you been sworn in? It's still morning. I have not been sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. My name is Kristen Corey. I'm the CEO and founder of Gullshore Playhouse 100 Goodlitt Frank Road South. This morning we come before you because we are here to talk about our long-term parking garage and valley plan. As you will know, the city built garage was not started on time, so it's not going to be done on time for us to open in a timely manner. So in order to assure that our opening maintains the planned opening October 27th or previews in November 1st for opening night. We have had a resolution by City Council and a temporary parking plan is approved. So that is not what we're here to talk about today at all. We are simply here to talk about the end of the road to make sure that our parking agreement, the garage agreement may need to be altered. There's some discussion about valet and we simply need to make an amendment to the fact that when we first did our site plan application, the garage agreement with the city was not yet concretized, although we all knew that we were talking about putting a garage there. The application was submitted with a parking lot for the direction of staff because that was what we were at with us where we were at the moment. We knew the garage was coming but it hasn't been a fishy had been a fish all eyes by that point. It is now official obviously it's almost finished thank goodness. And so that's what we are here to do today and I'm just here to say hello because I will pass this over to no Davies our council. Before we move on to can we do disclosures? Chair cross. Yes, yes, yes, well, that means you disclosures. familiar with the project? No interest other than obviously as a resident. Thank you very much. familiar with the project nothing to disclose I'm familiar with the project committed some money earlier on with the project nothing to disclose I Some money earlier on with the Playhouse Nothing to disclose familiar with the project nothing to disclose familiar with the project I live within a thousand feet reached out to the ethics Chairman to make sure they're on no conflicts which they're on not I've made donations to the playhouse but I have no conflicts. So chair cross rule. So those of you that have made donations you have no individual interest in whether or not this gets approved or denied today. No. And you can be unbiased in your decision. Absolutely. So you believe so or yes? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, planning advisory board members. No old Avis with the law firm of Davis Duke. On behalf of Gulf Shore Playhouse, as Ms. Corey mentioned, our application today proposes two changes to our previously approved site plan, one technical and one more substantive. The technical change, as was mentioned, is to recognize something we all know is happening, the city building, its parking garage, and the playhouse having been allocated garage parking spaces in that garage in exchange for its land donation. When the playhouse submitted its original site plan the city the playhouse and the wind family had not yet completed the transfer of the parking garage parcel to the city. Therefore that original site plan filing reflected the playhouse building its own surface parking lot. The technical amendment before you today simply memorialize what has transpired since, which is the city parking garage replacing that surface lot. The substance of change relates to valley parking. The parking garage agreement was previously approved by Council unanimously and provided for the use of the garage for valley parking. The valley parking is not just for theater patrons, but for all members of the public and reflects a consensus between my client and the city that providing valley services in the garage is an essential and necessary service to the community at this location. Upon seeking a valley vendor, no company would provide valley services using the top floor of the garage as originally stated in the parking garage agreement due to a number of traffic flow, timing, safety issues, every single company that we contacted stated that they would only provide valley services if the valley spaces were located on the lower levels, specifically the first and second floors of the garage. So this site plate amendment reflects that proposed change and the practicality of providing valet in the city garage. All of the specifics of the operational aspects of the valet services are included in our detailed valet operational plan, which we worked very closely with your city staff on some of the key points include only one vehicle per parking space and other words there will be no stacking within the garage there will be a safe free-flowing Traveling within the garage which will be maintained at all times. There will be a total of 123 valet spaces on those first and second floors instead of the top floor, all of which were previously allocated by council in the parking garage agreement. This diagram depicts the specific interconnection plan for valet between the playhouse and the garage. When a guest arrives at the valet stand at the front of the playhouse, one of the valet employees will then turn their vehicle right to the north onto 12th Street South, travel west on 1st Avenue South, and then enter the garage from First Avenue South. This is what's outlined in green on this diagram. When a guest is picked up after a show, which is outlined in red, the Valley employee will exit the garage at 12th Street South, then head north to meet the customer at the Valley stand at the front of the playhouse. The Valais employees will start offering this service approximately three hours before showtime. They will use temporary signs at the entrances to start reserving the specific spaces for Valais. And in the event, someone is in one of those spaces before that three hour mark, the Valais would work around that, and under no circumstances would that vehicle be removed. This will allow patrons of the playhouse or any other member of the public to, for example, Valle, their car, go to dinner in the D-Down Town District, walk to the theater, then pick up their car from the Valle following the show. After much deliberation, the valet operator selected by the playhouse is valet pros. They were chosen because of the sterling reputation they have earned in the city. Rodo Nicolau, the owner of valet pros, is here today. His company has been here for many years and does the majority of the Valley services on and near Fifth Avenue South and Mr. Nicolaw is happy to answer any of your questions about his process and his team. It is the playhouse and Valley pros sincere hope and belief after working side by side with your city staff on this plan that this will result in a safe and efficient valley operation that will benefit members of the public and playhouse patrons alike in a manner that is consistent with the city's governing criteria for valley operations. And with that we're all here to answer your questions. Thank you very much. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Do we have questions for the petitioners' attorney? I have no questions for the petitioner only for stop lights up. Anyone else? Yeah, when somebody picks up their car, where do they go? So they go to the Valarice State, get into my car. I sort of take a little bit of a left, and then I'm going north, and I'm going south. You go north on 12. So I'm going to be forced to go north. Correct. Okay. And then when I get to the, whatever that street is there, what streets that? That's first Avenue South, I think. First Avenue South and so I can go left or right. But if I go right, there's no light there, right? To goodlet. Correct. That's it? Right. Right turn on. Okay. to good lit Correct that's right Right turn on okay, okay just okay So I go so I get up to first Avenue south I go right I can only go right on good lit If I want to go north I got to go left and then back out to 41 or down 11th street, okay just to understand yes, sir So I have a quick where are the you're setting up a number of staunches in the middle of the road to so is to only allow a one-way turn. Where is that? As far as the on this on this side plan where where will those stonchants be placed so I think the idea or what you're referring to is to ensure that the car's travel north Mr. Chairman on 12th Street South and go right. Yeah, I can't read the, it's a little small. So I think the, an answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, it will be at the exit point. Let me see if I can use this. David, I don't think I can. Just click the mouse to open a bit. Here we go. So here's the valley stand. Yep. And these would be here and in this area to ensure that it's a right turn only going north on 12th Street South. I would defer with respect to any more specifics of that condition Mr. Chairman to Mr. Pickett and your staff. This was something that we talked in detail about them. Excuse me, about as the best mechanism to make sure the cars travel north. I just didn't, I wasn't sure where they were. And how that would impact people taking their cars when they were departing. But it would, it would obligate cars that were leaving to, to go in the same direction. So both, yeah, both the valley, I drop off. And then when your cars returned, the idea is that the flow continues north to first. Thank you. clarification. On the first floor I guess those are a handicap thing so those are not being those are still going to be open so it's not going to be used by the valets I guess I'm looking at the. Correct. Okay and then are there I think they're elevators on this that correct? Sort of on the top right of those elevators there. As far as the city garage, I'm not sure I defer to city on their garage. I think there's elevators. I mean, it kind of looks like there is but I just you know. Miss Corey is telling me there are elevators in the city garage. Okay. Okay. So people can go up and down to the third, fourth and fifth floor. There it is. Okay. Any other questions? Nothing from me. So I have my question I ask everyone. Does the playhouse intend to intend on maintaining its portion of the storm water system? They're happy to comply with the conditions of the permit and do what it can to participate in what's required of them by the governing regulations. So in reading the staff report it was unclear whether you had actually, whether you had a plan in place to maintain your portion of the storm water system. Do you have a plan in place to maintain your portion of the storm water system. Do you have a plan in place to maintain your portion of the storm water system? It subjects you the permit from the South Florida Water Management District and the approvals previously obtained by the city. And yes, we intend to comply with the letter of the requirements and conditions of those permits. So I would ask that we make as a condition that the playhouse will maintain their portion of the storm water system, cleaning it out on a regular basis and do whatever else it's necessary to ensure that it is effective. Is that something you would object to? We are agreeable to complying with the terms of the permits. The terms of the permit don't require a maintenance agreement. Or would you agree to maintenance? There are maintenance conditions within the permits. There are maintenance conditions, but they're difficult to enforce. And again, I sound like a broken record, but we have a history of poorly maintained storm water systems. And we would like to rectify that and ensure that owners take responsibility for maintaining their systems, not rely on a series of laws that have proven problematic for the city. Under Stan Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to commit my client to a standard that's not published and that's not part of the permit. Could we ask the... All right, thank you. I understand that. Can I make a comment again? I think just in the last, such as happened in the last thing, what we're really talking about is this is a gravity system that for the drains that are under your property that you'll come up, talk to an engineer, how often should they be power-claimed and just commit yourselves to doing that section. It has nothing to do with the arrest of the development, which I think you're getting concerned about. Yeah, yes, my colleague is correct. That's all we're asking you to do. So that precision helps, right? And I think what I'm hearing is that the request is limiting, is limited to the cleaning of stormwater pipes. So my understanding of the drains for this property is that the stormwater runs towards the city garage parcel and then from there ties in to the master system for Naples Square PD. To remember, Kaufflin, I mean, I think what I heard you say is, do we object? Are we agreeable to a commitment to talk to an engineer about cleaning of the pipes? We're looking at you to talk to an engineer who will come up with a maintenance plan, which I'm guessing is going to say every five years you're going to look at your pipes and see if they're clean because obviously if they're not clean, you're going to flood at your pipes and see if they're clean because obviously if they're not clean you're going to flood out your project anyway so we're just asking you to do what you just like it just be a response and we're not getting from other developers. Yeah right it's and we aren't asking you to just ask an engineer what to do we're asking you to commit to doing what the engineer recommends you to do. So that we know that you're committed to keeping your, the only your section. We understand that it's a vast network. But there are pipes that you have placed below your property. We're just saying maintain your property, really. Under Mr. Chairman, in first of all, we are, have been, and will continue to be responsible citizens in bringing this world class feeder to the city of Naples. To the extent that that request, and I was just trying to get precision there, is limited to the stormwater pipes on the Gulf Shore playhouse parcel and that parcel only, which is the only parcel that my client can control, maintaining those pipes is agreeable. Good, that's what we're at. Thank you very much. I have a second question for the playhouse. Would it benefit you to have more parking spaces allocated to the playhouse in the garage. Surprise. I don't think that's what we're here to talk about today. I realize that. It's just a question. I don't want to answer the question in any way that might make the lovely ladies and planning angry. So I will I'm not going to answer that question I think make who angry the planning department I would like to take the fifth with the planning is this this does the does the question anger the planning department there's a agreement in place that has been approved through the CRA. Public that's up to the private parking agreement. We have been given the correct allocation for the capacity of our flight hours. I don't have- What is required so we're happily- I'm just asked would it- So you have no comment. I have no comment. Okay, Thank you. Are there any further questions for the petitioner? Just one additional point, which I think is fairly straightforward, similar to the maintenance, just in the word specifying what that maintenance plan is for your property, which we've just been covered, the condition. On the staff report, the related to the point six, an hours of operation that security measures shall be taken, et cetera. And the response from the petitioner states that all necessary security measures will be taken to ensure property is monitored and safety of the subject property of the hours that were not provided. So all I ask is when you do go towards council is a condition that you just state what that is. I'm not saying what it should be. All I'm saying is that you just clarify basically what that is. Happy to do that. I believe there's a plan in place and that's the specifics of that to council. Thank you, sir. I've got one last question. What happens? Because I think you're doing it right. If somebody already has parked on the first or second floor, you're not going to pull that car out. That's right. What happens if half those spots are filled? We'll work around that the best we can. By what? Using some of the third. I'm just I'm just asking the question. I mean, I'm okay. I'm saying you'll go get to 100 and whatever you're looking for. So 123 spaces. The request is limited to the first and second floors. I don't I don't know that the final count has been established in the garage for each floor. I think it's approximately 366 spaces last night checked for the aggregate of the total of the garage. So the idea would be to work around those spaces best we can. I mean, 123 spaces is not the full capacity of the first and second floors. So the idea would we would move it around. So if there are 30 spaces being used on the first floor, we would try to find 30 other spaces to replace that on the second floor. And if not, there's one less valley space that's there because we want to make sure that we're in compliance with the agreement and affirm the ability of the public to use this facility in the valley services not just the playhouse. Okay, so you're limiting yourself just the first and second for whatever is available at that day whether there's cars there or not. Okay. Okay. Yeah, let me explain myself with my question. Under our code, if we build a parking garage, and there's a space that is unspoken for, that space may be leveraged by a developer to increase density on their property. That's for the parking garages in part of the Fifth Aboverlay. That does not extend to the parking garage on 10th. Sorry, not on 10th on 1st, 70th. Are you sure? Because we approve, didn't we approve the wind property based on their use of the parking garage? The wind property is also party to this public parking garage agreement. They are part of that whole partnership. So you're saying that even though there are 180 or so unassigned spaces, Though no one, there isn't a developer that can come in and say, because you have parking availability in the parking garage, I should be entitled to not, I can count that as my parking requirement. My apologies. I'm a spoke yes, they can request. They can, they can, they can use, so a developer may use unspoken for parking spaces to increase the density or size of their development. And we have an issue with Naples Square and the surrounding area in that there's a concern that it will generate too much traffic that it is perhaps two dents given what our comprehensive plan says. And we have the opportunity here to this and this has, you know, we're going to assign more of those spaces to the playhouse, which I believe would benefit the playhouse. And it would, and it would also allow for, and it would, and it would have the effect of restricting development within the immediate vicinity of the garage. Just to some degree. And I wonder if we want to entertain that as a possibility. I think we can only entertain what petitioners are applying for. They've applied, and it's towards to decide whether that application is approved or not approved rather than putting any additions, that's for the petitioner to find those additions themselves. I don't think we're here to advise petitioners. To clarify, the payment in lieu of parking alternative that was available in the D downtown, which is the surrounding zoning district, was available prior to the development of the parking garage, prior to the concept of the parking garage. So in the D downtown, unlike Fifth Ave, it is not limited to the specific number of spaces in the parking garage. So people have been able to exercise that payment in lieu of option even before the parking garage was conceived or and it's not constructed yet. So it's not, to a specific number of parking spaces available in the garage. You confused me. So the downtown was, uh, conceived was developed in the, this zoning district was put into the code in what 1998? You know, this option for payment in lieu of parking has been part of that zoning district since its creation. It was not tied to the provision of spaces in a parking garage. It's just a payment in lieu of parking and it was to put into a fund, a payment in lieu of parking fund. I assume for the potential. It doesn't run out when we run out of spaces. It does not Because Since 1998 we haven't provided any spaces We haven't had a parking garage. So how do the pow to the parking garage? Forgive me for digressing and and I take your point this rip this kind of has nothing to do with your with your request although I You know and this would only be a recommendation to council To allocate more space to the to the to the This should not not be covered on the correspondence of communication perhaps should I'll take your point. Let's cover it under correspondence communication Are there further questions for? Okay, staff report All right good morning for the record Leslie Dolmar of the City of Naples Plain Department my resume and qualifications are on file with this petition And I've been previously certified as an expert in planning and zoning matters item before you today is a request for a with this petition and I've been previously certified as an expert in planning and zoning matters. The item before you today is a request for a recommendation with relation to amendment 1 to site plan petition 20 SP 16. I don't know how many, I don't think we had very many board members on the PAV when this site plan first came through the process. The site plan 20 SP 16 was for the Gulf Shore Playhouse and for their new facility. And that was approved by resolution 2021-14659. And at that time, as Ms. Cory mentioned, we were still in the city was still in negotiations in terms of the public private partnership that sort of facilitated this whole section along First Avenue South. There were some land transfers and agreements with relation to parking not all of that had been completely confirmed and solidified at the time that the site plan was going through the process. And so the site plan that was approved by City Council showed the playhouse and its current location as well as a similar property across 12th in a linear fashion that showed surface parking lot and that demonstrated their compliance with required parking. When that resolution was adopted, it was subject to a number of conditions. I've listed those in your staff report. But the crux of the matter was that it was an understanding that if the garage project was to move forward, which is what we had all anticipated was going to happen, that this site plan would be amended to reflect that. Because you as this board knows when you when City Council adopts a site plan it's attached to specific files it's referencing architectural plans and civil plans in that nature and so those plans were going to be inconsistent showing a surface parking lot when the reality was that the parking was going to be provided in the parking garage and so there was always this understanding that this application was going to come back through an amendment. And so that is the technical nature that Mr. Davies was referencing. That is one of the requests of this particular amendment. Additionally, the plan development, the property is subject to the Naples Square Plan Development. And this parcel is located in the public service district. The public service district allows for the approval of a valley operational plan as part of reviewed and approved as part of the site plan approval. So the valley plan had not been included in the initial site plan again because some of those details were still getting worked out, but the play-outs understanding that there was a lead time construction wanted to move forward while the other details were being finalized. And so this request concludes not only updated plans to remove the surface lot and to reflect the parking provided in the parking garage, but also requesting approval of the Valley operational plan to show how that valley service is provided from the playhouse into the city's parking garage and where those allocated spaces would be located. In the public parking garage agreement, it currently states that all that the valley spaces allic or the spaces allocated to the to the playhouse for valley could be would had to be located on the top floor. And so it's part of this of these things moving through the process. The petitioner will have to address that change in the parking garage agreement and that will be subject to all of the parties that were subject to the original. So we anticipate there's a couple more steps we get through. This initial step here subject to all of the parties that were subject to the original. So we anticipate there's a couple more steps when we get through this initial step here, but all of those are sort of laid out for the petitioner. Staff reviewed this amendment and found that it was sufficient and we scheduled it for the public hearing. There was, as Mr. Davies mentioned, there was quite a bit of discussion with respect to the operations of the Valley Plan. So what you see on your screen and included in the package materials reflects that coordination. With city staff, you'll also see there are quite a few recommended conditions of approval for the Valley Plan provided by the Deputy City Engineer. So there's quite a few there in your resolution to consider. And those are related again to the operations of this proposed Valley Plan. With that stuff is available for any questions? Questions from Sierra? questions. Thank you but I have no questions. I think they've worked hard to get this done in reached agreements and I don't think we need to metal in this and I would recommend approval of the project. With the conditions and the maintenance conditions well. I'm in the same boat. The only thing I would ask is I ring through the conditions I bleed there, we can revoke this if the operator fails to do what we are expecting them to do. Yeah, I would ask Miss Bickett to confirm that. She's the one that heads up a lot of our valley plans and it's outside of my area of experience So listen this is Not set in stone if if anything goes wrong. We can I believe that's what those traditions are referencing. Yes I actually have one question Why was it why were they restricted to the top floor originally? I Can't answer that Playing department was party to those negotiations. I'm sure there was a reason, but I don't know. At the meeting that we received that, we commented. I specifically said nobody's going to go to a valet on the top floor. And they said, well, it's a placeholder. I think that also now that you say that member Cochlan I believe the agreement I don't have the language directly in front of me but I believe the agreement allowed for perhaps closer sacking of vehicles and the top floor was the most appropriate place to do that but that is not the intention on this particular valley plan. They are going to honor the striped spaces and the drive aisles and all of that. And they're showing that on the first and second floors. And they may find other cars on the first and second floor that are not valid and then they'll move to an upper floor to. Well, my understanding is they're only requesting to amend the agreement for Valley on the first and second floors. And again, that has to be confirmed and approved in the agreement before we can approve it in the site plan. So it's two steps. Thank you. Any other questions for the staff? No question, just comment that I think the staff report on in this case is excellent. And as Mr. Cogland said, with the addition of the two points, the clear stated maintenance plan, the clear stated security plan added to the old 17 points. And I think this is good to go. So could you read the condition that we will add or the two conditions that we'll add? So I took the same language that we used in the last item. So this would be a, so your resolution shows 17 recommended conditions, those are all related to the Valley operations. So condition number 18 would be the petitional will work to devise a stormwater maintenance plan for track to see one. Interestingly, this is track to see one of the Naples Square commercial north of the previous one was commercial south. So it is still track C1 to provide so the potential will work to devise a stormwater maintenance plan for track C1 to be provided with the documents for it to City Council for their review with this item. And number 19 would be, the position will provide hours of operation and security plan with the documents for it to City Council for their review. I'd like to make a motion. Please do. Please do. Yes, please do. Motion to recommend approval of Plan Petition 207 SP16 to include all staff recommendation, the 17 points, plus the two points just mentioned by the staff, given the total of 19 points. Can I just clarify this is amendment 1 to site plan 20 SP 16. Amendment 1 to site plan 10. Thank you. Would you call the rule? I'll send it member Buron. Yes. Vice Chair Fury. Yes it member Burone. Yes. Vice Chair Fury. Yes. Member Kaublin. Yes. Member Creece. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Member Davney. Is absent. Member Kauffler. Yes. Chair Cross. Yes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Have a good day. Thank you very much. We are item 70 may I have Whatever they're called Pardon No, I was gonna ask Disclosures disclosures they have disclosures nothing to disclose Nothing to disclose nothing to disclose nothing to disclose Cross can I just ask a question other clerk. I just realized am I supposed to be reading these resolution titles? The past is in the chair, but preference I think oh, so oh you're right I should read them. 7E a resolution for the purpose of determining site plan petition 24 dash at dash sp3 pursuant to section 46 dash 33 for landscaping projects exceeding 10,000 square feet on the property located at 4251 Gulf Shore Boulevard North. Okay. Has the petitioner been sworn in? Would you swear in the petitioner? Do you swear or from Test money you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you My name is David drapes. I'm going to get that outside. That may be easier. This is better. I'll use the prop. Good morning. My name is David Drape. I'm a Florida resident landscape architect. I'm here to present this project. I'm here to present this project. I'm here to present this project. I'm here to present this project. I'm here to present this project. Okay. Next please. Can I do this? This is location map. It's the projects between the Gulf of Mexico and Venetian Bay. Next please. And here it is, on an aerial. Next please. And this is the area, our project area, lined in red. And you can see that the dark blue are water features. Next please. And this is what the project looked like 10 years ago with the waterfalls and pools and streams and lush planting next to these. And that's another image 10 years ago. And there's a big waterfall on the right. And this is last one we have of 10 years ago. Next, please. So here's the aerial of the project in 2010. Is here a pointer here? Yeah. Is this used in the houses of the pointer? Here it is. This area, this is all roof deck. The parking garage has been the fact. And in 2010, this was all taken up and replaced. It was waterproofed. And the roof required to be waterproof about every 20, 20 years. Next, please. And this is just a detail of what the waterproofing looks like. It has a waterproofing membrane and there's a top soil and a water detention layer in that next, please. And this is the construction document for how they're going to re-re-re-water proof that roof time. Next, please. So here it is today. This is a recent photograph. And when Hurricane I and came through, it blew out the pumps and mechanics and electric. And it's been a ruin since in about two years now next please. And here's another one you remember that stream next one and there's another picture of the ruin next please. And this is the survey of our work area and the areas show the water ponds and water falls here. This is roof deck up here and up here. And this is ground level and that's like a large courtyard. And these are bridges, side brick sidewalk, bridges, bridges, stairway that goes from up to the upper deck. Next please. And this is our demolition plan. We're going to demolish all those water features because to waterproof that roof, these water features have to be removed. And to get the earth moving equipment in there to do the work, it's going to destroy all that existing water features. Next please. And so these are the areas that we're representing. We're just going to be a new area. This is existing parking. There's going to be two extra spaces and adding four extra spaces here for service, service, people parking and most of the all the parking center needs for the owners. This is the roof deck, it'll be a relanscape. This is a roof deck over the garage, It'll also be a relanxcape. These are just where the water features were. Waterfall used to come down here. That'll be a relanxcape in here. And this is the courtyard they call the Plaza area. That's the main feature. Next, please. And this is our plan. If you'd like me to read all those, I will, or come back to them later if you would desire, but I'll be covering some of them as we move forward. Next please. This is the existing landscape. The brown is a non-permable and the green is permeable. So the green is where the areas that soak in the water into the ground. This is our proposed landscape and you can see that there's more permeable area and an increase of what is almost 3333333 square feet. Next please. Okay, coming back to the plan, these are the four existing parking spaces and we're adding to here and then We're adding these four here and this area is existing service parking and we're not we're not doing anything there next please and We're used to be people would have to walk in the street up to the front door. So we're putting in a sidewalk all the way up and over here too and leads us to the front door. Next please. In this plan, we have a stairway to replace the existing. We have a sign, a community identification sign, Park Short Tower. When you enter the plaza, you walk through a pergola, kind of like a gateway. And then when you walk in, the central feature is the water wall. It's 10 feet tall and 16 feet wide. And it's basically, if you look at the Boys and Girls Club, the sod has that stone on the front of it. It'll kind of look like that. And it'll go into a small water basin. Next piece. And this is the plaza. Here's the circle of, and then the guard house. And then the entry is right here, right here, rather. So you come in, you come down these steps, or you can go in, this is a meant to pull curve. So you could pull your car right here off the road and drop your passenger off and then go. And it's also a handicap accessible. So you come in and these are pavers, they're going to be 24 by 24 inch to match the pavers on their swimming pool. And this is the terrace in front of the fitness center. This is the terrace in front of the water wall. And this is a terrace that is the pavement. The tread is a crushed limestone that will be the same color as the stone on the water wall. Next, please. And this is an outdoor lighting, low-voltage turtle lighting. It's designed to meet the turtle regulation code. And there's no uplining. So you can see the fixtures. And I understand that these fixtures are similar to what's being installed along the redway out front. Excuse me. And this is our irrigation plan. It's designed for water efficiency, like we put buffers on the trees and palms to get them started. And once they become established, those zones could be turned off. And these are a well-designed irrigation system, like the high water areas like the lawn are separate from the shrub areas. Next, please. And these are the plants that we're going to put in there. Most of, you know, these are the common plants that you see around Naples, the trees and the palms and the shrubs and the ground cover. Next, please. And here's the landscape plant. The planting plant that shows how this is laid out with these are rove coco-thrinax and this is bay rum back here and this will create kind of a buffer from the neighbors. Besides the neighbors recently installed their own buffer there. We're going to re-saw this upper terrace and plant shrubs around the perimeter and with small Pugney Day palms. And the same over here with one cluster of cook-a-thrane axe palms, a triple. And then here are, I see, that's a relative native trees that provide a buffer from the building into the parking lot. And that'll be under planted with Jamaica Caper. And there'll be accent palms on the corner. There'll be Helen Johnson, Dwarfbogovelia in front of the community identification sign. These are two palms, these are, see, the blue, I'm drawing the blank here. They're beautiful blue palms, they provide a gateway, if you will, into the entry here. And then these are existing arachypoms that will remain, there will be palms along here and underplanted with shrubbery. And we're using dwarf minima jasmine for a ground cover, which is a low maintenance, low water, low water demanding plant. And we're using that inside here too around this plaza area. These will be purple, white, taboo, and this is kind of like a sitting area where the ladies can sit and play bridge or whatever. It will be a gathering area. This is largely planted because that's going to be the focal point. The water wall will be the focal point. So when you come in, you'll see the water wall and it's framed by beautiful shrubbery. Next, please. Oh, that's our presentation. May I take your questions, please? Questions for the Landscape Architect? Would you explain to us how your landscape design limits the use of fertilizer and facilitates native plant growth. Yeah. Well, we don't like my own yard. It hasn't been fertilized in 10 years. Most people are done with it, like that. My garden's beautiful, but I brought in a couple feet of horticultural waste from the city horticultural waste and it melted down and created this beautiful soil. Well, we're going to bring in top soil in the planting areas. That will essentially do the same. And then there'll be a compost that will be planted along with the plants in the root ball area. And that's quite a nice way to do things. And the client is approving of that. It's a long ways from planting the NLIME rock. Okay, thank you. I notice that youlying with the new storm water regulations? Yes. There's not a lot of changes to the storm water plan anyway. Other than we're going to move some of the vaults. There's not a lot of changes to the storm water plant other than there's two existing vaults that will be moved slightly to the east and west because they would be underneath a tile section if they weren't moved. But the plans, how the water is collected and removed from the site remain the same. And we're going to connect those two catch basins with pipe. And it's going to be perforated pipe that runs through a gravel core. And the water will leak out of that gravel core and it will soak down into the earth. The earth makes a point that the courtyard itself will be, we'll call it re-graded to a much shallow or pitch so the water will have a longer time and have more time to percolate into the ground before it ever gets to the stormwater system because the stormwater system is actually, we'll call it along the area where that water wall is and that far wall. So let me read what Stephen Beckman found in his review of your plans. Irrigation, accessory structures, lighting and building alterations will require plans and details by qualified design professionals which will need to comply with 2023 FBC 8th edition Florida building code. The plans submitted include documents at site plan level which have been reviewed for compliance with FBC 2023 8th edition ASC. These plans appear sufficient at this stage of review. An in-depth evaluation will be conducted. Wow. Huh. I think I'm reading the wrong one. Here we go. Oh, sorry, here we go. Floodplain from Steffen Beckman. Please provide floodplain information, delineation on the site plan. No information on the quantity of fill has been provided, as required by Flood Ordnance Article 4, Section 16-148. And it is unclear as to the grades and elevations as to if the grades and elevations are changing from the previous pre-storm elevations. Please provide information showing any changes in elevations amount of fill to be used and a statement from the design professional that any use of fill will meet city ordinance 16-1504E6A-B. Any major and minor structures as defined by Florida statute 16.154, shall be designed in accordance with the Florida building above the. And then if you combine those, the floodplain comments with the storm water, manage the comments from Eddie Bliss on storm water, it says, a storm water management plan is not required at this time, however, under ordinance 2021, remodeling or redevelopment is any construction activity on a site where the aggregate of actions or cost to construct, modify, alter or improve the property, where in one phase or in multiple phases are anticipated to do any of the following. One, increase the market value of the structure as defined in section 16-144, more than 50% of its current market value. Two, replace the existing building or reconstructs more than 50% of the area under roof. Three, raises more than 50% of the existing finish floor, modifies the existing site grading, sufficiently modifies the existing site grading sufficiently warrant concern that the new activities could adversely impact downstream adjacent property, modifies the existing site resulting in an increase in stormwater runoff or six increases the impervious area on the site by greater than 250 feet. Any of the activities listed above will require a stormwater management plan. So my concern is when you combine the findings under the flood plain. With the advice given by stormwater, you are not providing us with sufficient information. We will. We haven't got it done yet. There will be a grading plan. We know how much filler will be. The square footage has already been delineated. But I'm kind of doing this backwards, so. So in terms of storm water, the grade, the actual pitch of the site will be reduced. And we've had this discussion with our partners. You should be coming before us. You should have that information now. You should be coming before the planning board with a complete submission. And based on the flood plain analysis and the stormwater analysis comments, the submission is missing some stuff. And so, you know, my feeling is that when we receive a submission which is not complete, we should continue the application, which is something that I would suggest we do. It would be 30 days from now. We'd hear you again. Could you have the materials that are being requested in 30 days? Absolutely. So would you consent to a 30 day extension? Well, I would rather not because they're trying to get this project going and we understood that that that information could would be submitted at the permit stage and and we've been working on that we have it but we understood that it wasn't necessary at this point. We didn't expect any structural drawings for the other things at this point either. That's the you know the Florida building building code. We'll have them. But, you know, here. All I can say is that the Planning Advisory Board expects a more complete submission than we have received. In my view, I don't know how others on the board feel. I think- Go ahead. I think we can provide conditions for the floodplain language that they have the fill presented council. As far as the storm water ordinance goes, it only looks like item five might apply and they just have to demonstrate they're not going to have an increase in storm water runoff. Right. Because they have an increase in square footage and were the market value. And we haven't increased the square footage and we've increased the square footage of permeable space. Right, you decreased it right now. That's what I'm saying. So only it's possibly number five applies, but you could just demonstrate that it doesn't with you finish your floodplain. Any other comments? I agree with the by-share in the comments that all it would take is for the petitioner to add those items. I don't think it would change the application and I think that that could be pushed forward to council on that condition. There's the petitioner. Could the petitioner be responsive to the floodplain comments and the stormwater comments before they are heard by council. Yes. All right, so we could you would accept a condition that says you will respond in the affirmative to all of the comments within floodplain and all of the comments within storm. We will. And we'll get those answers and data to staff. Thank you. I'll be prepared to make a motion. And what is your motion, sir? motion is to recommend approval for the petitioner. We subject to the points raised by staff, the three points raised and the two additional points that the petitioners agreed to for the floodplain and the stormwater. That will let the staff report into the record. Would the staff report read the additional conditions that they would be responsive to the request for information from the from staff in Beckman and responsible for responding to the comments from Eddie Bliss? Yes, that would be an added condition. There are only two conditions proposed by staff. One's related to signage and the other is the certification from the landscape architect. Yeah. But that would be an additional condition. There are only two conditions proposed by staff. One's related to signage and the other is the certification from the landscape architect. But that would be an additional condition. So there are three total. Could you read that condition for us so that we can vote on the motion? Yeah, the petitioner shall provide plans sufficient prior to the City Council meeting to demonstrate compliance with flood plain over the other storm water. Yeah, we'll be responsive to the comments raised by flood plain and storm water. And by the way, my compliments to Stephen Beckman and Eddie Bliss. Having had a motion in a second, would you call the roll? Member Mayor. Yes. Alternate Member Broom. Yes. Member Dabney is absent. I share a few words. Yes. Member Cogland. Yes. Member Dabney is absent. Vice Chair Fjori. Yes. Member Cogland. Yes. Member Creece. Yes. Member Kaplan. Yes. Chair Cross. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. We will take a recess for lunch. Thank you very much. We will take a recess for lunch and then hear the last item. 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 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 So the planning of the plan is going session and we will hear Resolution 7F which I will read. A resolution for the purpose of determining petition 24-AA2 related to an appeal of an administrative decision per swan to section 2-84 of the land development code for property owned by William Wicca, a trustee of the William B Wicca revocable trust and located at 300 bowline drive more fully described herein and providing an effective date and we'll hear Whether Keep spacing out on the word Disclosures disclosures, please For where the property but not to disclose nothing to disclose Nothing to disclose. Nothing to disclose. Nothing to disclose. Visited to say nothing to disclose. Nothing to disclose. Nothing to disclose. Can we have the petitioner sworn in? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. So could you state your credentials for the record? Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Zach Lombardo. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Woodward Peers, Lombardo. I represent Mr. Wicca. And today we have an addition to my self-captain starns and Mr. Wicca is here present. This is a quick aerial of the subject property, 300-ball line drive. And I want to frame us a little bit on what the question is today. This is an appeal of a administrative decision, specifically of a review comment from planning staff on a building permit application. The building permit is PRMR-2307-429. This is a building permit to do one thing. It is to place a mooring piling with a stringer as part of an existing permitted dock on a residential property. The review comment, the question that we're looking at here is on the screen here. I've copied the collection of review comments. Let me see if this mouse will work. And I think it's best shown right here at the top. The permit was not issued because it was decided that the no peer or boat lift will be constructed which inhibits the use or function of a neighboring peer or boat lift. And so the question today is simply does the mooring piling in the stringer, just those two things inhibit the use of the neighboring dock. The rest of the dock, the boat itself, the boat lift, all of this was permitted in permit 363884. So again, the narrow, very narrow question here is, is that mooring piling the problem? In the staff report, it is reported that essentially this is groundhog day. We've been here in 2012. This mooring piling was attempted to be put in the water, and it was concluded that it can't go here because it inhibits the neighboring dock. Respectfully there are two major things that have changed since then. In 2012, it was not an attempt to simply add a moring piling. The major attempt was to take the boat lift and push it further out into the water. That included the moring piling, but they were moving the boat lift and push it further out into the water. That included the mooring piling, but they were moving the boat lift itself. Now we are only putting the mooring piling there. And the other thing that has changed is that navigational analysis has been performed to determine whether and fact it inhibits the use or function of the neighboring boat lock. And just to confirm some of these concepts, here's an excerpt from the Robin Singer memo. All of this is in the record that you have submitted as part of the appeal where Robin Singer confirms that what was at issue at the time was the boat lift in addition to the stringer and the piling. Here's an excerpt from the permit document at the time showing the boat lift itself, and it's, you know, these are older documents, so they're not super clean, but the boat lift itself was moving further out into the water, and that was what was determined to create the issue as opposed to the current concept, which is just placing one piling into the water. When we received this review comment correction, considering the comment correction was simply just, we think that this moring piling inhibits the use of the neighboring dock. Mr. Wicca retained the services of Captain Craig Starns who were going to offer today as an expert, his resumes in the record he'll talk a little bit at the beginning of his comments about his expertise and credentials. To determine whether or not the existing boat lift at 286 Bound line drive would be inhibited by this mooring piling And stringer. And what you're going to hear from him is that not only Would it not impact it? It would actually improve the safety of The use of that structure because that piling is immediately adjacent To the boat. So in effect if you're hitting the piling you're hitting the boat. But I'll let him go into the actual navigational analysis. What I want to point out and the reason why we filed this in the form of an appeal is that when we provided that analysis which is in the record. Staff did not come back and say here's competing analysis or here's how we've reviewed this. This is why we think you're wrong. We've looked at the size of jet skis. We've done any kind of comparative comparison. Instead, they said no. In 2012, former city attorney Robert Pritt issued an opinion that said it was going to impact the neighboring dock. Respectfully, and I mean this, I guess also to myself as an attorney, attorneys provide legal argument. They do not provide factual analysis. And so it's not clear what Robert Pritt was basing his determination on, but when we provide competent substantial evidence that there's no navigational issue, the burden shifts back to the city to figure out is there an issue here from navigation. And at no point has the city addressed the factual and expert analysis provided by Captain Stars. So what I want to do now is I want to call Captain Stars up. He's going to talk through his credentials and his analysis of this very narrow issue, which is the mooring piling itself and whether impacts the use of the jet ski docks next door. And then feel free to obviously ask him questions. One thing I wanted to confirm just procedurally is, as we have a public commenter on this issue maybe it may I be allowed to do my closing and legal argument at the conclusion of all the public comment. Is that permissible? I think that's permissible. All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to call up Captain Starns. Are there questions for council? My name is Craig Starns. I've been a captain and navigator for 30 years plus on both coasts in North America. Of yachts and small craft, we consider small craft to be vessels up to about 150 gross tons. I've operated and personally owned like 20 kayaks, several jet skis, and I've also operated power vessels, yachts and passenger vessels up to 150 feet. So I was asked to look at this dock. I'm also have consulted with marine underwriters in helping them develop underwriting standards for the construction of my marinas, axiom insurance company, and others. So I know a great deal about marinas both from using them extensively all over the country and residential docks. It's kind of off course a little bit, but my father was an expert in engineer in designing and building residential docks and marinas, including the Tampaot Club Marina and the Braden Tignot Club Marina in total. So I understand docks and I understand how they're used and I understand navigating vessels of all sizes and types. And as you can see here, I guess the mouse is the pointer. This is the area in question. The issue is whether or not extending this structure which was pre-existing for the hoist that this boat is on, by adding a piling back here and a connecting plank is going to inhibit someone coming into these piers. And I looked at this and I said this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Because if you're coming into those piers, you're not going to be anywhere over here. If anything, if you're in a kayak, you're going to be down low on the water, and you're going to be actually able to use that plant to push off to go over here if you needed to. And if you didn't have a piling here, you'd be more likely to go up underneath Mr. Wicke's boat, which would be a dangerous thing to do. If I want to advance, I just... There we go. There we go. Okay, so here you see it, a clearer situation. Now the piling in question was added here. Can you see that in the mouth? Yeah. Okay, so the boat didn't come out any further. So if you're coming in here in any kind of vessel, yes, it is very tight up in here, but that's what everybody had to work with from day one. So once you get up into this area, anything that you have over here is actually if nothing else going to serve as a means to protect you from running into his boat or going up underneath it. It's not going to inhibit anything. So this is the prospective approach into his property, which he's complaining about having a piling here is going to interfere with. This triangular zone is a danger zone that I drew on here, showing the area that you would not be able to go through because this piling is here or this plank is here, even though the plank would be almost over your head. So I don't understand what the issue is with regard to this. This is a side view showing the same danger triangle area. Now, this is the piling in question and the plank. If the piling wasn't there, the neighbor is alleging that it would be less hazardous to not have the piling there. So I don't understand how. If you're coming through here or you're trying to back out, having that piling serves as a means to, if you have to stop using propulsive force or paddling, you can fend off with your hands to keep from running up under the boat. This is an overlay I made of a jet ski, approximately to scale with people on it. Now jet skis cannot steer unless they're at speed because they're jet powered. So when you would come into this kind of a confined area wherever it may be, you would have to slow down and you would have very, very low steering. So having the piling and the piece of plank there would be beneficial to help you push off either coming in or going out to get into the tight space. And then this shows the areas that would be affected by the piling either coming in from the east or coming in from the west. You would have to follow those green arrows to avoid the piling. The red arrow indicates where you couldn't go if the piling wasn't there. I mean, could go if the piling wasn't there. I mean, could go if the piling wasn't there. And I don't understand why anybody would want to go through here. So that was my conclusion. Are there any questions about the logic of that? Is the new piling in now? That is piling there, yes. A question? Yes, sir. The there's two beams that lift the boat. It looks to me as if the rear beam is not on the new piling, but on one piling back, right? So if that piling comes out, the boat lift and the boat are still going to be there. Absolutely. Just wanted to be clear. Yes, that's why I found that the piling and the plank to be irrelevant. Because in order to hit, in order to, if the piling and the plank were there, then you would actually have to hit the boat to take advantage of any extra space. So nothing changed, surely. If anything, it was an improvement. Are we doing kind of general questions or questions directed to the petitioner. Oh, any question you'd like. Okay. The third piling is already existing, or maybe it's the fourth, but the one in question is already in an installed and in existence. Did a permit have to be pulled in order for that piling to be installed? Yes, a permit would be required. So this was unpurmented. Okay, so This is we're trying to do something after the fact here. Correct. Okay We could wear away to the right of the boat What's that other slip? This particular boat dock was permanent with two boat slips. So there's a second slip that is in front of the Wicca property, as you can see here. So in looking at this particular image, the only piece that was not permitted and that we were currently in the process of obtaining after the fact permit is in that red strip. So there's no permit for the stringer, there's no permit for this piling. This protrusion was permitted back in 2012. This slip was previously permitted, this slip was previously permitted, and we're just all coming down to you. Does this create a usability issue for these jet ski ducks? I want to ask a stupid question. Why just put the boat on the other slip? Presumably the boat could be put on the other slip. But I think perhaps here it cannot, based on a sizing issue. I mean, whether or not it could go on that slip is sort of not the question, the question is, does that mooring piling create an navigational issue? If somebody had a boat and step where those two Kayaks or would that cause a problem? So those were permitted as jet ski lifts They're kayaks shown on the aerial, but they were not permitted as a boat slip and that was taken into consideration by captain Stars because the code section that we're applying is specifically the code section that we're applying is specifically related to use of facilities. And so we get to take into account what are the facilities that we're dealing with here. If the other property owner came in and wanted to pull a permit to change that into a boat lift, they'd be up against the same code section to make sure that they weren't creating an navigational issue by converting that to a boat slope. Okay, so just why we state this. So the two kayaks, that area is not allowed to be for a vote. It can only be for a jet ski or kayaks. That's my understanding of the permit documents. Okay. What, I'll think about some more. What are the rules somewhere and I'll ask you, you know, concerning, you know, the real laws of how you're allowed to have access to what water and stuff based upon your property and stuff? I mean, I guess that's the part of the question I would want to know. I'm asking the lawyer from a perspective, is there? I think you're referring to probably Reparian rights, right? Which extend? There are laws. They're confusing. My understanding is I usually leave it up to a court of Competitive jurisdiction to make that determination just because, Especially with properties that I believe are like this on a corner. Pi shape ones are a little bit more difficult to navigate. People think it's just straight out forever from your property line, or like this on a corner, pie shape ones are a little bit more difficult to navigate. People think it's just straight out forever from your property line, but that's not necessarily how repairing rights work. In this situation, I do think the appellant is clear in the issue, which is, is there a navigational issue based on the piling being installed? That's what's before you, and that's the decision that's on appeal. Kind of a related question on that note. If this was done, if they hadn't installed the piling, but just went through the permitting process, would this have even come before the PAB? My understanding and I'll let staff confirm this is probably yes, because after the fact permits do happen pretty, I'm not sure if that's the particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular particular had this come up before it was installed it probably would have been denied based on the prior opinion of the city attorney. I agree. But they would have still had appeal rights. Yes. So it would still be here. What's that? If they had applied for a building permit before the fact that after the fact I would have still denied it based on the same reasoning and they likely would have still appealed it and would be here. Was the original permit ever revoked? The original permit to my understanding was revoked and modified and reissued. Is that correct statement? The original permit was revoked. The reissued permit was to remove the p the piling and an extension of the dock and return it back to the original conditional conditions. Just one modification and to move the boat lift. So in the permit that was filed in 2012 I think we can see it easiest here. The permit was to take this boat lift here and move it so that the outside edge of the boat lift was on this piling. And I think there were some concerns at the time about what that would do to the location of the boat itself from an navigational perspective. And this is seen in both the singer memo and the Robert Pritt memo. So that was revoked. A new permit was put into place to simply just remove this but interestingly from an overhead view. This protrusion here is part of the new permit and it was left. So the permitting process in 12 did have some stops and starts and all we're doing now is saying okay we're not going to move the boat lift we understand the city's position but we would like to put this mooring piling here because we believe it's a safety issue. But what's proposed here was never revoked. There was more involved and it was more involved. Thank you. Could you go to the picture shows the two boats there? This one? Yeah right there. Yeah. I mean, can I ask a simple question? Why does flip flops devote so that then neighbors can talk to each other. You got a small boat and you got a big giant boat. Wouldn't it make everybody happy if they just flip flop them? My understanding from the client is it's a weight limit issue on the lifts themselves. But I think at a very high level conceptual concept, could the entire doc be redesigned such that it would reorient which boat goes where? I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but the simple question here is just, does that, even if they were switched, the piling would still, we'd still wanna have this piling here. So even if the boat, the larger boat was on the inside and the smaller boat was on the outside, the piloting would still want to have this pilot here. Even if the boat, the larger boat was on the inside and the smaller boat was on the outside, we're still asking about just that piloting. I don't think that impacts the navigation issue. So 15 years or whatever, every years ago was how big is this boat? It's a 32 foot vessel. 32. And you're saying it. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32. 32.ca. Hi. Hi. The same exact bow, hull, size, and that same exact position on that lift since 2005. The neighbor's dock was installed in 2006 and their boat was in that position. So. Okay. position. So, okay. In part, just as a part of my understanding of why these were done as jet ski launches is because this was pre-existing and so they didn't, they couldn't put a boat launch here. But if we're getting into the sort of the thought process of redesigning things, this setup itself could also go more perpendicular with the shoreline to avoid issues, but then they would not be able to fit as many vessels as they otherwise could. Good, that's fine. The issue at the end, which is the pilot. Yes, please. Could we hear from the applicant? Why did you, you knew the piling was not allowed, but you didn't seek a permit for the piling? I don't know. I just let May I talk to the applicant, please? Well, I don't know the questions relevant. I don't know that we have to put that on the record. I mean, whether or not he, I don't think he knew that it wasn't allowed. He knew that structure. Does your applicant, when your applicant not like to respond to questions? I think he would like to respond to questions about the placement of the piling and the effect of it from an navigational perspective, but you're asking him basically if the engagement behavior that wasn't allowed. Yeah, I'm asking why did he put in a piling when he knew it wasn't allowed? Yeah, we're just not going to answer that question. I think it's relevant. I don't think he doesn't know it was allowed. That was my question. The old permit was revoked based on multiple aspects. Correct. That was the highly. That was the highly. Is that just the piling? Is that? This is something new. So this is never actually revolved. So I don't know that he would have known it would be rejected. Well, why didn't he apply for a permit? I don't know. I can answer for that. And he would not enlighten us as to why he didn't apply for a permit. That's fine. I'm objecting to it as relevant and relevant. And your argument is that he didn't necessarily know it would be illegal to put it there I'm not making an argument as to why he did or did not apply for a permit what I'm simply saying is As clarified earlier had he applied for a permit? We would have received this rejection We would be in this hearing right and we'd be asking ourselves about does that piling impact navigability and the reason why I don't want to go into why he did or didn't put that permanent without a permit is because I think it's excessively prejudicial to the decision. Because whether he engaged in unpermanated work has no basis on the navigation impact of that piling. And so if he sends up here and says, I was just frustrated and I did it. How does that impact the decision? I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it's really good. Let me put it differently. Why is that piling necessary? Safety. For who? Do you want to talk to that? For one thing, it helps to align the boat as you go in. And then it supports the catwalk, which is necessary to access the sides of the vessel when it's hoisted out of the water. All right, thank you. I don't understand. Can you explain that again? It's structurally necessary for the lift. It's not- It's not supporting that thing at all. It's not structurally necessary to lift what was said was it helps guide the boat into the slip. It's helping the piling does. It's helpful for hurricane tie down for when the boat is sitting here in a hurricane scenario and it has added benefits to provide buffer safety for the 286 boat dock. For the boat dock to the west. That was what Captain Stern's testifying to. Sorry to the left of the screen. So the benefit is so you can, my committee is your, you're saying it's- Microphone. Okay. So you're saying it's in order to be able to come in, you can go against the, is there a piling on the right hand side? Yes, sir. able to come in, you can go against the, is there a piling on the right hand side? Yes, there's a piling on the, piling's here and there's the new piling is here. Right. So, the original piling was there and you came in at an angle a little bit too much like this, then you could conceivably have to re-correct or maybe even go over here where you might damage this is or piling to the right of that. Keep going. Keep going. No. Yes. Yeah. Piling at the very end right here. The very end to the right. Very end of it. Not that. Right there. Is there a piling there? Yes. Okay. So you can go against that. So you familiar with what a travel lift looks like? That's it. If you're going if you're going to go straight into a slip, like a U-shaped slip, if it's not even on both sides, if one side is longer than the other, you can get caught in there before you get all the way in. And that can cost damage. So if you get lined up and get the front end, the bow, in between the two pilings, then you can jockey the engines to line it up straight and go all the way in. But if there's a piling here or a structure or a side or anything here to support the vessel, and then there's also the same thing over there, but it's shorter. You don't have like a notch to go into. So it sounds like the dock slip, whatever you want to call it, is in the wrong place. It's right on the edge of the repartion line. And it sounds more to you to say it's hard to get the boat in there. No, that's what your expert witness just said. Well, the same thing would be true if the boat was clear over here. It's a matter of the alignment of the... If you have it, imagine a shoe box that was on the top. I'm a boater, so you don't have to tell me. Okay. Thank you. I'll put you in. Just imagine a short finger pier on one side and a long finger pier on the other until you get the bow of the boat in between the short finger pier and the long finger pier, you haven't got control of the bow of the boat. You haven't got it confined. Forvailing winds here, mostly from the east, which are going to lay it over toward the neighbor. So whether this whole assembly here is here or clear over here, the same thing would occur. Still sounds like it's in the wrong place. And maybe it's too big a boat for the slip. So just if I could respond to that, the going back to the original permitting documents for this piece This line out here is what the city laid as the repairing line at the time It's set 10 feet off that line and it's not past the protrusion limit So there's no Issue from a precise in perspective of that boat in that slip at that location. And the standard is not, is, and we don't have to put this mooring piling in to operate the boat. The boat's been operating like this for years. It would be an improvement to the use of the facility, which is what was testified to, and it won't create an navigation issue for the neighbor. And as long as those two things are in place, the applicant is allowed to make discretionary calls about their design. In the same way that you might say, if we're looking at his driveway, there are different ways to design his driveway that would have slight different impacts on how you navigate your car into the driveway, but he doesn't have to do one particular way or another. As long as he fits within the code, and what we're saying is we fit within the code. I have a question for the planning department. Let's conclude with the presentation and then hear from the planning department. Well, on the question, I'm not reading things correctly. there was originally a piling there and then that piling was removed and then it was Re-put back in there. That's correct. And The permit wasn't applied for or when it was applied for let's say in hindsight Then it was rejected Correct and for the last 12 plus years That piling has not been removed as expected. Oh, no, sorry. When the piling has been put in the water twice. So in 2012, the piling was put in the water and it was permitted. The permit was rejected, the piling was removed. And there was no piling in the water for probably 11 years. At the end of last year, the piling was put back in the water after the fact permit was applied for. So it was rejected and it was made clear that for whatever reason that rejection was put forward, but despite that, a piling by the same owner I don't know is being put back in the same position and even though a previous permit had been rejected. The previous permit was rejected based on a larger structural change, moving the boat lift back. The previous, the previous piling was, application was rejected, but despite that, a piling has since been put in the, without having the permit. That's correct. Okay. Are there any other questions for the petitioners' attorney? Yes, just picture we're looking at here is this what this kind of shows that the lift has been moved outward, is that correct? This is from the permit document when they were going to move the lift outward. So I'm showing what the previous request was. And this was determined by city staff and the attorney time to be inconsistent with the navigation requirements. So this is not being pursued. All that's being pursued is the piling. Okay, but the very first time, okay, so this was, this was, I think you said this was done years ago. In 2012. Oh, 2012. This was done, and it was actually built because the permit was issued. The permit was then revoked and then it was ripped out. Okay, okay, now I understand. Okay. I need it. I just want to explain this. Got it, got it on the microphone. I'm sorry, I just want to have clarity on this. So this picture here that you're saying, this was all permitting and approved. So the first part of it was extending the dock, which you see these stripes. Everybody's allowed to go 30 feet out from the seawall. My dock was 25. I added 30 feet on it, which added the extra pilings on all ends there. Okay? Then the second part of the request was to move after those pilings were put in to move the lift out. So the lift went out to that very end piling, and that was done and that was approved. Put my boat on it and it held it out farther, right? Then, and I also agreed to put it back, right? And everybody looked at, there was discussion, there was meetings on it, but I was told to put it back. So I've moved the lift back to the original position. Okay. And that pilotiling was taken out. And so in my mind, the reason I put it back there is because in my mind that was permitted because it was first the piling were done. Then the lift was moved out and that was told to move the lift back and they took out that piling. And I know it says it that was the attorney's recommendation. But in my mind, I put it in the exact same spot. How do I go back on this? I just to show you this is clearly right. This pilot that is showing there on the end, it doesn't even go past my boat. You can see my boat hangs out five feet past that piling. That's the piling I put back in. That was the piling that was permitted with, these other ones, if you can ignore the jet ski there, you can see the other ones off to the right here, I say. I, I say I Where is the it says existing pilot since 2011 the ones those were all put in thank you This one this one this one and this one Okay, but and you could see here's where the left was moved out to here and Therefore, you know that held my boat. So, hang out farther. So, we moved that back to this original position since when the dock was built in 2005. And so, I put this back in and to answer that question, there's a post over here. When you come in, you'll bump a post. And if you don't have a post over here. When you come in, you bump a post. And if you don't have a post here, there's two inches on either side of my boat to be able to get into this slip. If you don't hit that right, the boat goes like this, and I've gone over and almost hit my tail on his dock. And so in the permit, it's a guide post. And that's what I requested the permit to be. So maybe that clears things up. This is the piling that was originally permitted. But got pulled out when we moved the left from here back to its original position. And this whole dock and this boat's been there same manufacturer, the WorldCat, it's 32, it's the same hull. Built this dock in 2005, they installed their doc in 2006. Could have done it different ways, but they were trying to get as much in there as they could. So you're looking at my boat and you had to go, well, that was always there, so you built your doc like that. So I don't think it's asking too much to ask that I put up a guide piling there because it does not affect his egress or ingress whatsoever. And this right here by the way the property line is on this side of the hedge. Property line goes right here. He has no setback. I'm set back 12 feet here. The only reason he's able to go in and out is because I've set my docs back. The property line goes right down the end of his, this actual plant right here hangs over the property line. Does that help? Sorry. You know lawyers. I have a question for you. Why is your neighbor objecting to that guy post? It's, um, and, why haven't the two of you been able to work this out? You know what? I say, hello, Tony, how you doing? He's up. He's, uh, it's a personal beef. He'd send me emails and texts and say, your son's baseball is in my yard, changes pitching that to the other side of the yard, balls are going into my yard. Is that type of neighbor? And you have three boat lifts, right? I do. Put in this in the... He has two boat lifts, three boats. Yeah. Actually, he doesn't have any boats. He's never had a boat. He's never even had a boat. He put these kayaks on there to make a point. He's never had a boat in a... moved in a year after I was there. So they built that, they built that lift with eyes wide open. So I kind of feel like, how can you build the lift point at mine and then say, you know, I'm the problem. And that was just a real take grab. They wanted to get us so much, they could have turned it and gone straight out. But he has no setback. He's on both lines. In this dock here, by the way, as illegal, 38 feet, you can't go out that far into the channel. But somehow, this whole U-shaped could be moved forward. This would clear out this little obstruction. Again, we're discussing your pilot. Should we hear that? I'm sorry that's why the lawyers don't want me to get up here. Should we hear the opinion of Mr. Booker? Tell us. So Mr. Booker is going to tell us what your answer is. Yes you will. I was going to call on you after we heard the staff report. Does that make sense to you? Thank you. Are we done questioning the petitioner's attorney? Could we hear the staff report? Good afternoon, Eric and Martin, the Planning Director. This is an appeal. It's an appeal of an administrative decision that's before you. The administrative decision was the rejection or return for correction of a building permit. It was a marine permit for the requesting the installation of a piling. I think the petitioners given you a good background of the history in 2012, which culminated in the revocation of a permit to install a piling, move a boat lift. That was deemed, well, we got a legal opinion from the city attorney at the time, Robert saying that the permit should be revoked. It was in violation of the section of the code that prohibits the installation of any sort of dock or piling that would inhibit the use of a neighboring, neighboring dock. So the permit was revoked. The work that the permit had allowed was removed, including the piling and the extension of the boat lift. And the dock was returned back to its previous condition. Then in November of 2023, the code enforcement department received a complaint regarding a piling installed sometime at that summer. Upon researching the address, it was determined by staff that a permit had neither been applied for, no issue for the piling. The code enforcement manager informed the owner that the installation of the piling would require a permit. And that due to the history of this particular piling in this particular location, it would be unlikely that that permit would be approved. And he did, the code compliance officer did request removal of the piling, the piling industry. That was not removed, however, the property owner did submit for the permit, did submit the Marine Permit, and that was the permit that they PRMR2307429. The permit was reviewed in return for corrections by planning staff on December 28, 2023, and again on February 12th. For failure to comply with Section 56-93B8, which provides that no peer or boat lift, we constructed which inhibits the use of function of a neighboring peer or boat lift. In making the determination staff relied upon the previous opinion issued by former City Attorney Robert Pritt regarding the placement of the same piling in the same location on the subject property. On March 5th, following the second rejection of the Marine Permit and with no further action on the application, the co-compliance officer issued a formal notice of violation of the city ordinance. The required action was to remove the piling within 30 days. On April 4th, the property owner's attorney resubmitted the Marine Permit and it was again returned for correction for failure to comply with Section 5693B8 of the code. The co-compliance manager that issued a notice of hearing, scheduling the matter for the next code enforcement board hearing. Subsequently, the respondents attorney requested formal appeal, and that's the appeal that was before you today. So I provided the history of the docs on these neighboring properties, just so you can see what led up to the 2012 determination. The petitioners are requesting that City Council, PABN, City Council review and consider the administrative decision on appeal and that the decision be overturned. So I've provided to you the aerial of some of the permit history is included in your backup, including the legal opinion from Mr. Prett and from Robyn Singer, the letter that was issued by Robyn Singer. We did mail this. We did a public notification to 420 surrounding property owners. We received numerous responses to that. I'll include it in your packet except for the ones that I've passed out today that were received after the publication of the agenda. And essentially the determination, the staff determination to issue the notice of correction was reliant upon that. This decision has been made, the same piling issue the notice of correction was reliant upon that this decision has been made, the same piling in the same location. And I understand that there were other elements of that original permit, but the direction at the time was not simply just to relocate the boat lift, the direction at the time was to also remove the piling. So the piling is considered part of the issue at the time. So I don't feel like it's my place to overturn a determination that's already been made by a planning director in the letter that Robyn Singer issued. She did say that she's reviewed the available permit information, the city attorney's opinion and the opinion of the city's code and harbor manager and determined that while the boat lift, and basically that the permit should be revoked, and the work should be corrected. I have one cut. At that time, the petitioner did not pursue the appeal process that they're currently pursuing. They did not. They submitted a subsequent permit to remove the piling, remove the relocate the boat lift and return to the original conditions. And that was approved. And that was approved, and that work was done. Thank you. Yeah. So as I read the memo, though, for Mr. Pritt, he doesn't discuss the piling. He discussed the dock. This is the dock, doesn't fact violate the code, but not the piling, right? The direction was to remove all the piling and extension. The lady said that Mr. Prince said that you should revoke it. That wasn't his conclusion. He said that was a management decision. I'm looking at the letter that Miss Singer had issued. No, I'm reading the memo for Mr. Prince. Miss Singer issued the opinion that the permit should be revoked based on. She did, but you said earlier that Mr. Prince based on Mr. Prince legal opinion. Okay, so the but I didn't that's why the staff was asked a question earlier because I was confused is the staff report the way I read what Mrs. Singer said is not necessary to revoke it but to come do an amicable resolution. As such it is not consistent with section 5693 B8 in the permit revision for the piling and boat lift should be revoked. Should be. But was it? It seems to me they got together and came up with a solution instead. The solution was to submit a subsequent permit to remove. Right. So the dock was approved with not being that far out and so thus the piling was removed. The piling was removed, the stringer, the boat lift everything. But the dock was still approved. Or is the dock still not approved? The other side of the dock. Okay. Only one side of the dock was ever approved. No, the whole dock was approved. And then there was a revision to that original permit. The revision included the work on this side, which was to install the new piling and extend the boat lift out. That portion was then corrected. Yeah, but all the elements of one permit that was revoked. Those were elements of our revisions for one permit. Or suggested to be revoked. Yes. Yeah, not just I admised, not one by one. The revision only included the work on the west side. The original permit included the work on the east side. Which included the length? Yes, on the east side, not on the west side. So my questions is so basically from what we heard under our 30th, is that one can come out 30 feet subject to getting the approval correct approval. Is that correct? Yes in this in this particular neighborhood dear allowed a 30 foot projection and is there a restriction on the size of the boat that can fit in there because This particular boat seems from the aerial photographs seems to be overhanging both at the bow and the other stern or off the engines Way the code reads today is that yes, the sure normal means extending at the right angle does include the boat. But I don't know. I can't verify that that's what the code read at the time. But the question here is, this, everything you're seeing here is consistent with the dimensional standards. For this district, the projection, the setback and everything, there's just that one standard in the general that applies to all docs that says that you cannot inhibit the user function of the neighboring community. So the boat should not be extending more than 30 feet out from the shore. Under today's standards, I'd have to see what, when that whole dock was originally permitted. Okay, so this boat is currently beyond the end of the red line, so it's sticking out further. And then the 30 feet applies to the neighbour. Are you aware that it's the neighbour within code number 286? So the neighbour is in an interesting situation, there are certain properties within this subdivision. There are 11 of them with shorelines less than 45 feet that are allowed, slightly different regulations. They are not required to a side-set back. Okay. So the side-set back does apply to this property, the 300-bell line, but there is no side-setback requirement for the two things. So in terms of extending out from the shore for one of a better word, are they limited to 30 feet or more? They would be, I don't have the permit for that dock. Yeah, because it does look like it's more than 30 feet. It's possible. And I'll just eyeballing it. I'll eyeballing with a pencil. And that, assuming it's a couple of feet, that would take off a little bit of obstruction for getting the boats into those two jess ski lifts. Sorry, thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? I just want to clarify my point. So today's question is if their dock is blocked, right? The neighbor's dock is blocked access. But I guess my point was why is the past relevant when the question then was about a dock that was five feet further. I don't understand how the two can be related. Because this determination has already been made and the determination was made. But it's not. It was five feet. In my opinion, it is. So they're on appeal for you to overturn my opinion. The old permit was five feet more than what exists today. I don't see how that rejection or any issue permit. Permit was for a piling in this exact same location. Yes, but with a daffod extended phi feet further. But it included this same piling in this exact location and the direction at the time was to remove that piling. To remove all elements. Right, including that piling. I just don't see the how they're related. Okay. Any more questions for Steve? Just my viewpoint, looking at this, you can understand the concerns and maybe it could be termed as minimal infringement, but there is still infringement, there is still narrow end of the access point by having that file in place. We can discuss this, but I think that we should also hear from our speaker, Mr. Brooker. Good afternoon Chairman. Why are you alone? I'm not used to being at this podium. I'm used to being over there. I have, yes sir. Yes, I did swear. Name is Clay Brooker for the record. I land use attorney with the law firm of Chephipasadomo, 821, Fifth Avenue South, and a 45 year boat operator. I represent Anthony and Gene Freeman owners of the neighboring property at 286 Bale Line Drive, the use of whose dock is being inhibited by Mr. Wicca's clandestine activity. As you have heard more than a year ago, Mr. Wicca extended his dock in the middle of the night, figuratively speaking, without first applying for obtaining a permit from the city to do so. Why? Because this dock extension is nearly identical to the dock extension that the city required Mr. Wicko to remove 12 years ago. Mr. Wick knew the city would not issue a permit to him for the same dock extension that the city attorney and the city planning director determined 12 years ago violated the city's code by inhibiting the use of the Freeman stock. So he knowingly opted to install the doc extension illegally. Presumably he figured his best chances lay in a strategy of begging for forgiveness rather than requesting permission. The Freeman seek only that reasonable access be provided for the use of their existing dock. Reasonableness is a hallmark term. All waterfront property owners share riparian rights with their neighbors to access and enjoy the water for boating, fishing, and swimming. When the shoreline is straight, there really should be no problem or issue with sharing those rights with your neighbor. However, when you have an undulating shoreline, like in this case where the shoreline is a concave shaped dead end of a bay, Florida law clearly states that the riparian rights must be equitably or reasonably apportioned amongst neighboring property owners. So in the case of a concave shoreline, riparian rights are angled to the center of the bay to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to the water. This concept is expressly adopted by the city's code, which disallows a dock that inhibits the use of the neighbor's dock even if that dock otherwise satisfies all dimensional requirements. Again, this is the code's recognition that riparian rights must be reasonably apportioned between neighbors in situations like this. I note that the agenda includes eight letters from nearby property owners who have no objection to the subject dock extension. The one obvious factual distinction between those property owners and my client, the Freemans, is that their docs are not being blocked. Those letters are irrelevant, however, to this issue, because code compliance is not a popularity contest. I also have read the report from Mr. Starns, a certified marine surveyor who Mr. Wicca offers as an expert on whether the city's code is violated by this dock extension. I first note Mr. Starn's creative attempt to justify the illegal dock extension namely by arguing that the dock extension actually enhances the safety of the Freemans use of their dock. It's hardly credible that Mr. Wicca's motive when he illegally installed the dock extension without a permit was a genuine care for the Freemans safety. Secondly, Mr. Starns argues that it's not the dock extension that blocks the Freemans dock. It's Mr. Wicca's boat itself, the engine sticking out past the permitted 30 foot line for docs. My first reaction to this argument was, well, at least he's admitting that Mr. Wicca is in fact blocking the Freemonstock. But more importantly, think about that rationale. Mr. Wicca's position is that no code violation exists because it's his boat, not the dock, that inhibits the use of the Freemans dock. We disagree with that factual premise, and I'll speak to that further in just a moment. But again, think about that argument in its rationale. If the city were to adopt it, the Freemans could hypothetically, yet legally, purchase the longest boat that they could float up to their dock. More at Bowen with the stern jutting out to completely block Mr. Wicca's dock. Certainly the city does not want to encourage such behavior amongst neighboring waterfront property owners. Again, the Freemans request only reasonableness. They have no desire to inhibit the reasonable use of Mr. Wicca's doc. They simply request that that courtesy be extended back to them by Mr. Wicca. Finally last week you should have received my letter dated September 6, 2024, containing some photographs, demonstrating the effect of Mr. Wicca's doc extensions on the use of the Freeman's doc. I hope each of you had the opportunity to read the letter and look at the pictures. I have extra copies here. If anyone needs one, I request that the letter be made part of the record of this proceeding. Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 to the letter are photographs from 2011 before any illegal doc extension. 2012, showing the doc extension that the city forced Mr. Wicca to remove 12 years ago. In present day, showing the nearly identical doc extension that Mr. Wicca illegally installed without a permit. It takes no special expertise to conclude based upon a simple layman's view of those photos that the dock extension inhibits the use of the Freeman's dock and violation of the city's code. For these reasons, the Freeman's request that you respect the consistent analysis and conclusions of the city attorney and the city planning director 12 years ago and the current city planning director just recently, all of whom determine that the doc extension violates the city code. We therefore request that you recommend to the city council a denial of Mr. Wicca's appeal. Thank you. Would you like to rebut? Just briefly. Thank you. Go ahead. We are not bringing any sort of dispute as to the riparian rights issue. We're not disagreeing that there are riparian rights. So we're not disagreeing that there are a riparian rights or not disagreeing with anything along those lines. We are simply responding to the city's code as cited by Mr. Brooker, which is it's about impeding the use to the specific dock. But more specifically today, this is a quasi-judicial hearing and the question is competent substantial evidence. And so what city staff today is saying is we are relying on 2012 city staff and city attorney analysis as to the modification that was analyzed at that time. That modification was larger and extent than simply a moring piling and involved the boat moving further out into the water that cannot be ignored. And I want to highlight that the motive issues, there's a lot of comment in the public comment that there's fly by night, night time, activity, legal behavior. We'll just stipulate to all that, fine. The question is, could a permit for this be issued? Does this actually create a navigation issue? That's a fact question. We provided factual analysis on this point from Captain Starens. That was the significance of that testimony. And there's no competing testimony of that level in the record here today. What we have is Robert Pritz letter, which is not focused so much on a piling. It's focused on a dock. And we're not clear what he looked at, that he'd do a site visit. Does he have any particular navigational expertise? Then we have Robin Singer's memo, we don't have much of what she was looking at either, but here today we shifted the burden back to the city by providing factual analysis that this is a functional concept. This is a tight space in the city. It's always going to be difficult to do this. As you heard from staff, they don't have riparian setbacks. We do have riparian setbacks. So this is always going to be a tight location to site docking facilities, which is why the code intelligently has a very clear statement that the question is just this. Can you still use that facility? The answer is yes. We ask you to grant the appeal. Thank you very much. So I just have one question for staff and then we can discuss the application. Is the code clear in defining repair? Can we say with certainty that the piling is violate city code? So our code doesn't address repairing rates. Our code has a simple general standard that says that no peer or boat lift will be constructed, which inhibits the use or function of a neighboring peer or boat lift? So what when Mr. Brooker spoke to Reparian rights and what is essentially a boundary line? That's not contemplated in your city code nor was that taken into consideration in the staff determination. This is not a riparian rights determination. Sorry, could you just read that code again? Yep, it says no peer or boat lift will be constructed which inhibits the use or function of a neighboring peer or boat lift. Thank you. So, what do we think? I'm looking at, obviously, the application and the appeal. It still boils down to the point that's the impeding use. Not a case of blocking. It's a case of impeding. Impeding is restriction. There is a restriction by having this peer in place. You can debate us to whether that was adequate advice in the past, but it was a standing that was put in the past that the plaintiff was aware of. Took the action to remove and then reinstalled without having permittent. I found it difficult to understand how somebody who has had a permit rejected would think that they would be able to go forward without getting a permit to put something in place. And I do understand that there may be some tensions between neighbours, but my guidance is looking, is there a restriction caused by the peer, and I see whether it is manner or major, that I see there is a restriction being caused? Come back to me. Okay. Yeah, you don't have to say. Yeah. This is a tough one. My dad said, you know, two wrongs don't make a right. So clearly, clearly the 280, they put their dock in and they put it that way and it does sort of impede to some expense the 300 one. When I look at the pictures now from the picture from Mr. Booker, you can sort of see, is there a way to kind of show these here? Is this, I mean, one of them does show back in 2011, I guess it was. It does show a boat in 486. Doesn't show anything. It looks like they were jet skis there. It does show a much smaller boat that's sitting on that slip. It's got a single output. It almost looks like it's the one that was the other picture that it looks like it's a mercury or something like that, a black one. When I look at the one where they put in the move the the lift forward, clearly the boat went much farther and stuff. And so that clearly does make sense. I think the decision was made correctly there that they moved the slip, they moved the lift back forward so that the boat doesn't go way back far. My look is the way it is today. I mean, in essence, you know, we're talking about almost a foot. That's about it. This next piling is not really that much That's that's impeding and I do tend to agree a little bit that It could be used on both sides to help on a safety basis So that's kind of where I am. I don't make a final decision here, but that's kind of my thought process. I'm going through I don't think it's hindered entirely. I think it's a minor inhibition, but also I think it's offset by the safety additions. Offset by what? Safety enhancements. It's a minor inhibition of use. It's not a total restraint. And it's not a substantial restraint. I just couldn't hear you. Thank you. Go ahead. On exhibit two, there actually are two motors on that boat. It's just a camera angle that only showing one. And it is the exact same boat, but that is a 32-foot boat with outboards on the back. The nature of the outboards has changed. But it's a catamaran, so you're seeing one hull and you just don't can't see the other hull at all. I'm very disappointed that the appellant here took on self-help and decided to put this piling in without city approval. I do think in looking at the city code that I don't see that the piling itself or the board is a meaningful impingement at all. It's just a terrible location for houses and boats and you know it's too bad that people can't work it out but I'm not sure I find that it's creating a navigate any bigger navigation problem than he's already there and stopping people's boats from running into each other may be a bigger safety advantage. Thank you Miss Jim. I too am concerned that the original pile was removed in 2012 and then reinstalled without the necessary permitting that I find very worrying. I also feel that the fact that boat and its proportion extend beyond the 30 feet, adds to the challenges of getting in the docks, the ski jet, jet ski docks at 286. Also given the statement we've had about how difficult it is to dock this boat with unequal rail support, I would suspect that putting the dock on the extreme of the property is not the best location for it. But again, as my colleagues have said, it's disappointing that two neighbours were not able to come to an applicable understanding between themselves. Yeah, it's a feud. I mean, what we're looking at is a feud. The applicant has three boat lifts. Two of them are located on the extreme left side of his property. One is on the extreme right. He has one of those boat lifts is occupied with, has a boat on it. And the boat lift that he chooses to use for his boat is the boat lift closest to his neighbor's property. It's, you know, and I agree. It's unfortunate that the two neighbors weren't able to reach an amicable solution. I too think that we have a history, the city has a history of rulings on this matter. I am inclined to support the city's history of rulings. I don't see enough evidence to overturn their findings. The location of your boat lift is, if I was in the property next door, I can understand their annoyance with your decision to put the boat right there instead of one of the other lifts. But I can also understand your position that, you know, I have a right to this boat lift. Why are you objecting to my one piling? So for me, it comes down to supporting the actions of staff over a long period of time and the decisions that the applicant made, particularly to install the piling that I believe he knew would not be allowed by the city without seeking the appropriate without at first coming, coming before the city and asking for it. you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, some reasonable matter but I don't think that's happening. So is there any further discussion? I'd say one or two questions. So where we, from our decision here, is our decision what decides this matter, then also get kicked? Oh, it goes to council. It goes to council. No, it's not. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. It's a good way to get the council. the city's history of decisions takes precedent. Are there any further comments? Can we, will someone like to make a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion if I may. That we reject the subpoena. I think if you reject it, you have to say why. Recommended denial. No, I think this is a new, I think it's your sustaining staff's decision. I mean, I move to sustain staff's decision. I move to sustain staff's decision. I second. Do you want me to do a roll call? I'll see you in the next one. Before I answer I can just clarify because it's a different one. So what are the answers to this then if I'm in the affirmative I'm agreeing with this sustaining and if I say no then I'm disagreeing with that. I agree. The piling should come out. Correct. The staff was right. I agree. Yes. I agree with the staff. Member Maher. Yes. Member Kaplan. Yes. Vice Chair Fiori. No. Member Dabby is absent. Member Cogland. No. Member Creece. Yes. Chair Cross. Yes. Thank you. The measure passes five to two. City Council will hear this. What? When will City Council hear this? I'm slowly remembering the protocol. Thank you. So now having concluded the regulatory agenda, we will move to correspondence and communication. Oh, I thought we just had public comment. Oh, is there anyone like to make a general public comment since hearing no no desire to do so we will move on to correspondence and communication. Anyone have anything they'd like to say? Yes. Do we have an update on the memo is that John and I provided regarding the comp plan consultant? The memo was provided to City Council. They considered the draft of the RFP last week a week ago and agreed. I incorporated all of the PAB's suggestions to the scope, suggested revisions to the scope of work. I incorporated that into the scope of work that was provided. They agreed. They directed staff to move forward in issuing the RFP with the PAB's recommendations. When will the PAB be able to review the request for the request? I think we're finalizing. They requested a couple little changes. We'll be finalizing probably this week. And then. Well, and I'll just add on to that. First off, I'll go to Vice Chair's question first. I think there was one change on a, I just remember a discussion on a lead person. Well, yeah, there was more to the memo and just the consultant. Yes. I think there was a discussion on the lead person that Council said they kind of, they were a little reluctant on, but what they did agree to, and I think it was a suggestion from me and Jay was to have a point person be a non-voting member on the selection committee for the comprehensive plan contractors that we eventually get, right? And once we receive responses to the solicitation. So there would be someone that this board would designate as a non-voting member to be included in those discussions when we review the consultants. But for some reason, I remember there being something about a lead. Yes, but that was more so in how we're going to communicate with council, the progress of going through the council and recommend a changes from us and also the public. Like how is that process going to unfold? I think that was part of the point person because someone's gonna need to communicate with council Regularly about the process if we're gonna take up parts of the comp plan John yeah over the course in the next couple months or year So and then to your point share if I just may finish I thought you guys already reviewed the scope of work Yeah, they reviewed the scope of work. They reviewed the scope of work and offered suggestions to revise the scope of work. Those were suggestions were incorporated into the scope of work that was then presented to council last week. We were provided a draft, not the final. So the only thing that's changed from the scope of work just to clarify is the changes that you already made were incorporated. I just want to make sure that you're not expecting to see it again before it goes out, because we do want to send it out. Oh, we don't have to provide comment, but we would like to read it, I guess. Just share it. I just know that Congress and parliament want to get this out of. Yeah. That's, do we want to review the RFP before it goes out. Do we want to take everyone at our word that all of our recommendations were adopted? Well, that's published. I mean, I can provide to you what I provided to City Council. There was only one minor change, which was to the point person, being a non-voting member in the selection committee. So I can send you right now what was published. I can just send you a link to the agenda. You can see what was published. But if you'd like to see once we incorporate that change, then I can also send that out. Nice. Now I'm confused. I thought our points about the scope and the goals of the consultant were incorporated. They were. Oh, okay. So in addition to the pay-up. Council approved, but at Council last week they just made that one change. And we may read the RFP as it is prepared. We can read the final version of the RFP. Yes. We haven't finalized it as of right now, but probably by the end of this week it'll be done. And may we read the final version of the RFP and if anyone has objections to it, notify staff and then should someone have an objection to it, we could discuss it in our next meeting. I think council's direction was to issue it. I think it's a set. I don't think we have enough time to do that. All right. I'm in favour of speed. On that point, we did agree, I believe we agreed, that each PAB meeting that being a gender item to give updates relating to movement on the comprehensive plan, anything comprehensive plan related? Yes, I will not give you. I will update you at every council meeting. There's not going to be a lot of update once we issue this RFP. We're suiting for them to return to the people. Even if it's found there's nothing new, but I think if it becomes an automatic agenda item as you as maybe early on, then it could just be put on the and left on the permanent agenda. Yeah, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about our next agenda to ensure that issues that we have are placed on that agenda. So if anyone has an agenda issue that they feel should be on the next agenda, please say so now and we can as a group ask Miss Martin to put it on the agenda. Sorry. Keep in mind the way the rules of procedure work is that if it's a direction that's going to be a staff initiative, staff time, only city council can direct staff time. So if it's just a discussion item that's not going to require preparation of materials, that's fine. But just keep that. Well let's see what my request elicits. I think on the same point of the any amendments or any alterations or progress or otherwise with the comprehensive plan that should be encapsulated in comprehensive plan agenda item be update or no updates and I think the same thing could be at this current time putting place for the traffic study. Where are we? What's changed as a regular update to each board meeting until? Can we have two permanent agenda items? One would be status of the comprehensive plan RFP or just the comprehensive plan RFP or Yeah, I'm in the middle I can direct my staff so I can commit to the comp plan one I've talked to the director of I can't direct Allison's time so but I will have that conversation I'm not her boss and I'm not the city manager We can't we can't that could that could simply incorporate a document the council already have it just becomes what have you done? It's up document. Okay. We can't I mean I Take I take everyone's point that we can't just tell staff go do this or go do that But it would seem to me reasonable that we could ask for reports Updates about what staff has done Yeah, that's all we're asking. I think the request has been made and we'll... Yeah, you would say it's a reasonable request for the committee. No, I think it differs if you're gonna sit here and ask questions or if you just want an update. No, we just want to know, where are you, what have you done? I think it just leads us in a good habit of knowing that this is where we are. And we've got a continuing story until such time as these stories in a better position. My next point is very simple one. I've been getting emails from staff into three email boxes. My own personal email, the email I set up when I joined PAB and then the PAB official email. What I'd ask is can staff look at updating all, so it's only the official mailbox cuts. I just don't want to get mixed up between. I have the same issue and I agree with that. So how do I find out what my PAB email is? I have a question. We talk to David. Okay. So I had this, I want to discuss the idea of increasing the parking allotment in the garage for the, for the the for the playhouse. Well, we are building a parking garage. The playhouse has 123 dedicated parking spaces. Allocated a parking garage, the unallocated spaces in the parking garage through a complicated process enable increased development. Because they are looked at as providing parking which a developer would otherwise not be able to provide. Sometimes they're sold as a fee, sometimes they're just recognized as available parking when otherwise the applicant would not be able to demonstrate that they had sufficient parking. It's frequently used for intense commercial purpose, like a restaurant. When we look at our concerns about intense use and its implications on traffic and quality of life in the in the Naples Square area and the surrounding area one of the drivers of those of that concern is intense commercial use. You know as we've seen with the as we've seen with the red with the two restaurants we're going to get. One of the ways the city has of restricting intense commercial use would be reducing the number of parking spaces that were unclaimed in the parking garage. So were we to assign more parking spaces to the theater. It might help them with their, with their, with their, uh, parking, their, their valet parking plan, which I think is going to be problematic because there will be cars parked on this first and second floor. And they'll be parking, they'll be valet parking along over the place. You know, if they had another 60 spaces that would probably help their valley parking plan, it might even reduce the necessity for a valley parking plan. I think it would benefit the play, and council could use it as a lever to ensure, to, to, to, to keep develop, to keep, to keep intense commercial development under control or, or some degree of control in the, in the upcoming applications. They could always reverse themselves. They could always say, you know, we know you only need you don't really need that 180 we gave you we're going to take it back to 123 because we really want to use we want to give the part we want to use the parking somewhere else. But if we give the parking to the playhouse, then we're giving the city greater control over the intensity of development around the playhouse, which I think would be a good idea. I think this district is a little different than the D-Down Town. So the D-Down Town does not unlike Fifth Ave. So in Fifth Ave, there are the two parking garages. The first parking garage, all the spaces have been allocated. There's nothing available. The second parking garage, we still have 200-something parking spaces to be allocated. Once those are allocated, that's done. The D downtown is different from the fifth ab overlay. The D downtown, which is the district that this is located in, provides a payment in lieu of parking. It's not tied to a parking garage. So you can, you can, for up to 25% of your required parking, you can pay into a fund. That has nothing to do with the number of spaces in the parking garage. That parking garage hasn't existed. This district was created in 1998. There's never been a parking garage from which to allocate. So the payment in lieu of is separate in a part from any specific number of parking spaces in a garage. So limiting allocating more spaces in the public parking garage will not prevent anyone from their ability to pay for 25% of their parking. That's provided in the code. Additionally. What is that amount? It's just 25% of your water preference. What is the dollar per spot? We just passed an ordinance. It's over $45,000. It's just 25% of your water. What is the dollar per spot? We just passed an ordinance. It's over $45,000. It's something. But additionally, with respect to that, and it increases every year. What, some of this park, with the 160 parking spaces that are allocated within the parking garage, who were they not allocated not to the theater or the playhouse? So they were allocated to the- Yeah, the allocated spaces in the parking garage that's under construction right now were direct results of the negotiations as part of the public private partnership between the Landswap and the win family and go through playoffs and the CRA. And that was a very complicated negotiation and there were part of that landswap and part of the fees, all of that was negotiated as part of that and there was a specific number. I am correct in saying that those spaces, the allocation of those spaces, enabled wins to develop their- And enabled the whole- Area to develop- But that was done separate and apart from this section of the code that allows for payment in lieu. But the fundamentals remain intact. The fact that the garage was there, the fact that there were, aside from the legal match, the code machinations, the spaces that there were, aside from the legal code machinations, the spaces were there and a deal was made to increase density based on an allocation of space. The parking garage is there because of those two developments. That's the idea. That parking garage was only possible because of the land swap and the public private partnership. And so that was why we will give you this land to build this garage, but we want to use those parking spaces. Furthermore, the parking garage is in a planned development. So, out. Are you sorry? The plan development is the issue. Right. And there is nothing more going on. The planned developments have done the But this is yeah, this will be no doubt You're saying that you're saying that because we have this parking garage and because there are 180 Unallocated spaces in the parking garage the fact that there's a hundred and eighty 180 unallocated spaces in the parking garage will have no effect whatsoever on any development that's going to take place. Let's say the arts district which is adjacent to the Naples. I'll correct. Nobody's going to come in here and argue but you have a half empty parking garage. No because all the requires is that they give us money. Unless the agreement is amended. Right, yeah. Which means all parties would have to sign on. Which means you would probably see it. Which means City Council would have to approve it. The D-Dontown was developed opposite of Fifth Avenue. The D-Dontown was developed. money we're going to use to build these garages. And conversely, if the parking garage were not there, that would have no impact on what could be developed in the. Correct. Correct. That there is no parking garage in this district has been there since 1998. So we've been expecting money. And the arts district is nobody's going to, nobody's going to come in and say, but there's 180 unallocated. the district is nobody is going to come in and say but there's 180 unallocated. If they want to pay instead of providing parking they can do that now regardless of whether there's a garage or not. They may say that but it doesn't actually impact. Okay. the move we adjourned. Second. Second. The meeting is adjourned. you you you