Loading...
Exhibit CC BCC minutes 7-7-2015July7,2015 Item #9D ORDINANCE 2015-46: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04- 41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER ONE -GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02 DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.05.05 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS, MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ESTABLISH SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS; SECTION 5.05.08 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS; SECTION 5.05.11 CARWASHES ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; SECTION THREE, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FOUR, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION FIVE, EFFECTIVE DATE -ADOPTED WITH ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 9D on the agenda this evening. This is also an amendment to the Land Development Code amending Chapter 1, general provisions, including Section 1.08.02, definitions; Chapter 5, supplemental standards, including Section 5.05.05, automobile service stations, more specifically, to establish site design standards for facilities with fuel pumps, architectural and site design standards, car washes in adjacent Page 207 July 7, 2015 residential zoning districts. Ms. Cilek? MS. CILEK: Thank you. Yes. I'm here today to present the revisions to this LDC amendment in LDC Section 5.05.05. This will be the second hearing, and I will also be seeking your recommendations to move forward. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ms. Cilek, let me make one comment for everybody that's here. I trust that a number of you are here because of the second hearing on this item. This item does take four votes in the affirmative for passage, but I will also remind you that this item does not pertain to the RaceTrac application on Palm Street and U.S. 41. This is site design standards and supplemental standards that will be for all applications going forward. And so any comments that you have on the record should pertain to this item and not to the specific application on U.S. 41 and Palm Street. Thank you. MS. CILEK: Thank you. As directed at the last meeting, the conditional-use provision has been removed, and enhanced site standards such as requiring consistent architectural theme, canopy standards, and lighting standards will be required for all gas stations. These site standards will further be enhanced when the facilities are located within 250 feet of residential property. Staff recommends using this distance method in lieu of the terms "abutting" or "adjacent" because it can be applied more consistently throughout various development scenarios; however, to address common situations, two exceptions have been included in this amendment. These originate from the conditional-use process reviewed at the last hearing. It's important to note that these exceptions still will require the site design standards for all gas stations, which are identified in LDC Page 208 July 7, 2015 Section 5.05.05.C, but they will not be required to provide the supplemental standards established in 5.05.05.D. The first exception, which was generated at the Planning Commission meeting with assistance from public speakers, applies when a gas station is separated by at least a 100-foot preserve with 80 percent opacity and is at least 12 feet in height within one year. The second exception would occur when a gas station is separated from residential property by a four-lane arterial or collector right-of-way. As noted on the slide, the supplemental standards will not be required. But, again, the standards for all gas stations would be required. As with all cold (sic) language, there will be situations when meeting all of the site standards at either level may not be possible. For example, in a redevelopment scenario. In these situations, an applicant may seek relief through a public hearing process. This could be through a planned unit development, a planned unit development amendment, applying for a variance if there's a land-use hardship, or if it is, indeed, a redevelopment situation, then the site plans for redevelopment --or site plan with definitions for redevelopment. Each of these requires a public hearing process which will evaluate the requested relief and will require specific public notice to surrounding neighbors. Following the review and recommendations today, staff will be preparing additional site design standards for facilities with fuel pumps that have 16 or more fuel pumps that are within 250 feet of residential property during the next Land Development Code amendment cycle which will occur this fall. And it was included in the list of prioritized amendments that you approved just a few hours ago. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Questions or comments from the Board? Page 209 July7,2015 Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much for this. And, indeed, I think you responded to the Commissions' and the concerns that were expressed here; however, there doesn't seem to be a caution for deliveries that would be adjacent to residential or at a certain time, meaning they --people --trucks could come in and make deliveries at all hours of the night whether it's on the back, with residential side. And I'm going to pass this out to my colleagues here, and I'm assuming you have a copy of this, right? MS. CILEK: I do. I believe so. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And this was --I brought this to our Hearing Examiner's attention, and he developed this language. And we can see if this is something that we would agree to. And basically it says that deliveries shall be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. when located between the neighboring residential property and the facility with fuel pumps. So, basically, if the deliveries are on the front of the building, it's 24-hour delivery, whatever they want. But if it's on the back and it's adjacent to neighboring or it's on the side that's adjacent to neighboring, they would be prohibited in the nighttime hours. MS. CILEK: And this is something that we did see in the guidelines or guidebooks regarding gas stations, and we had discussed it among staff in earlier conversations, so we're happy to move forward with this language if it pleases the Board. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And that's it. Thank you. That's all I have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's worthy of putting in this amendment. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, great. MS. CILEK: And it's just the highlighted language that would be added. The un-highlighted language already exists in the amendment Page 210 July 7, 2015 as it is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we need a motion to add it, or do we hear from public comment and then make the motion later, or how do we --do we need a motion to add it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion later. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Make a motion later. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think that that's an excellent idea, because I've been worried about --because the delivery trucks, especially with these giant gas stations, they have breakfast in the morning, so they have to deliver during the night, and that beep, beep, beep, beep, beep will, you know --people would have trouble sleeping. But I think if it's in the front, there's enough to absorb some of that sound that gives them a better --a better possibility of having some quietness. And, too, with all of the new rules that are placed in this, there's going to be some walls and things to protect them as well, and I think that that's very important, too. Right now there isn't that provision, and so I think those are good. I would still love to see --instead of 16 fuel pumps, I'd like to see eight. That would be my preference. But other than that, I think that it's a lot better than what it was; not as great as it should be. That's all. MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Would you like to hear from the -- Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just --I didn't know ifthere --I'm listening to you, Commissioner Fiala. I wonder if there's any shared sentiment up here to maybe changing that number of pumps and Page 211 July 7, 2015 reducing it? Maybe not to eight; maybe to 12. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the majority of pumps. That goes back to the issue of the map that, you know, the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Talk into your microphone. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, sorry. That goes to the majority of all pumps then. Then it wouldn't even make sense to have two tiers because the majority of all the new stations are, like, the higher number. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sixteen. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what we're protecting is against the larger, because that's where the propensity is. I mean, we're not going to have a lot of pump stations. We're not going to have a lot of stations that have 12 or eight pumps, you know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean everything's going to be monster now? COMMISSIONER HILLER: That seems to be the trend, if you look at it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's happening in my area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. That's why we want to bolster the standards against the larger stations because the likelihood of the smaller stations just -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So 16, you think, is small? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah, because most of the stations --I mean, they're inching, you know, up to 16, 18, 20. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, they're inching up to 24. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Well, 24 being the biggest. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And that's what we've got, 20, 22, and 24 in my area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's why we have the enhanced supplemental standards. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think also, realistically, if somebody's Page 212 July 7, 2015 going to put in a facility that's a large facility then they have the ability to be required to have additional standards. You know, they've got the economic strength to do that. If you're talking about somebody that's got six pumps, I don't think they're going to be able to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Financially. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't think they'll be able to financially qualify with even what we've outlined, because what we've outlined here is really extensive. I mean, I don't --I think this is going to be -- you know, this is going to be the most aggressive standard that I think you'll find anywhere. I'll be surprised if you'll ever encounter anything that's as extensive and complete as what staff has generated. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So the intention is 16 pumps and above we're going to look at -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to try to look and see if there's other things that we can do to mitigate further. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, what happens if in the summertime stations come in with 24 pumps? They're not --they're not going to be under that new regulation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Probably not, ma'am. But, I mean, this is --in my view this is extensive. I don't know if the Commission shares my view. I think this is about as --you know, I'm anxious to see what staff comes up with to enhance this, because this is really very, very aggressive as far as buffers and requirements and lighting. I mean, I think it's going to be --I think it's going to meet everybody's approval. If not, I'll be really surprised. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And there's no way we can put out some kind of caveat that if you're coming forward with a 24-pump COMMISSIONER FIALA: They have to come before us, then, if they're coming for 24-pump. CHAIRMAN NANCE: They're --staff is going to come back Page 213 July 7, 2015 with --you know, they're working on this right now to come back, and I think they'll advise us. COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're coming back with a supplemental standard to make it --to put in even more buffering and more restrictive requirements over 16. But what we've done is we've adopted already very strict standards for everything. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Going forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You've made a good point. Let me ask a question about that. I'll stop you right there. Because I thought everything over 16 would then have to come in for approval. That is not true? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. MS. CILEK: It would be administratively approved through the standard Site Development Plan process. And they will abide by, if adopted today, these standards, which are two levels. One that applies to all gas stations and the other that applies to those that are very near to residential property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what we have is we've bolstered the standards for everything that's close to a residential neighborhood regardless of the number of pumps. So we're --we have two standards. One for everybody that we've made stricter than it was, and then the second standard is for anything that's close to a residential neighborhood is even stricter regardless of the number of pumps. And then what we're going to come back and do is, regardless of where anything is, if you have 16 or more, we're going to even make it stricter for the 16 and more. But we've already --we've already -- we're already protecting -- CO MMIS SI ONER FIALA: So these only apply to 16 and above? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. This applies to everything, Page 214 July 7, 2015 everything. But we have enhanced standards for everything that's next to residential, like, in addition. So we've got this --we used to be here (indicating), now we're here for everything, and then we're here for next to residential. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Next to residential. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm thinking of is --now, I realize this doesn't work with Palm A venue --or Palm Street because they're with the older rules yet, right, but now with --like Manatee Road, and the old rules still applied, but they were building a 20-pump gas station there flat up against mobile home parks, 55-and-older mobile home park. Well, there's no sleeping for those people from there on in. And I was complaining to Mark Strain about it because they didn't even have to come before us. We couldn't ask them to do anything because they didn't have to do a thing. And I said, Mark, I need you to come with me and take a ride, and he did. He didn't have to do that, but he did. And I told him what it looked like. Well, when he got there, he said, oh, my gosh. It's right in their backyard. I said, that's what I'm telling you. And I said, and see all those trees there? They're all Melaleuca. They have to come down. And they only have a requirement to build a 4-foot. Well, a 4-foot wall is going to do nothing to protect those people. So Mark --and I have to say this was a great thing. Mark said, they're coming in to see some sign variations. Maybe I can work with them. And so then he --we talked about what would be the most important things to protect those people. And an 8-foot wall would work as long as it had trees on both sides, and I assist --excuse me. So I insisted on trees on both sides as well to help buffer that. And then Mark even threw in a buffer along the front end, and that was Page 215 July 7, 2015 fine, too. So that was able to appease them, but at least we could talk about it because they needed something. I just want to make sure that, you know, because --I think it's because it was forced down our throats, it's tougher for me to -- because I want to make sure we're protecting the neighborhoods. Everybody that lives in a home now doesn't want that to be in their yard. And people --Mark was saying something like, well, everybody should check to see what zoning is by them. I don't know of many people that do that. Maybe there's some people smart enough to do that. I sure wasn't. I mean, I just bought a home. And I'm trying to protect those people that don't know to check their zoning first, because who would think that there would be a monster station? They didn't think that 20 years ago, even 10. MS. CILEK: Let me share two things with you. Staff has done a lot of extensive research to make these standards very comprehensive and so that --so that they will provide the utmost compatibility with regards to site standards and being near residential property. So in the future, these being applied to that situation will greatly enhance, you know, the gas station that would be proposed near a mobile home park. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just clarify, like, isn't, for example, the wall next to residential for the situation that Commissioner Fiala is describing 12 feet now? MS. CILEK: IfI may, it is on Page 7 under 5.05.05.D, and it is actually eight feet in height but it's on a 3-foot berm. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's 11 feet. MS. CILEK: That is 11 feet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they would have 11 feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I know that now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, a lot of the things that you spoke to with the Planning Commission chairman have been Page 216 July 7, 2015 incorporated into this for all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So, I mean, this whole thing has been raised to a whole 'nother level -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, and I think -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: --and then those next to residential are, you know-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that helped to open his eyes as well when he saw the difference it made. Because we went back then with Hitching Post and did the same thing. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right. Well, this is a combined product of all those efforts. So, I mean, I'm personally very delighted that we're at this point because this is about --I think this is about as good as we can reasonably put together. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Until we find the next thing, but then we can go back and change it again, and that's the only thing -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Always. COMMISSIONER FIALA: --that gives me a little bit -- MS. CILEK: We'll be back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: --of comfort is that -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: They're going to look further. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because as soon as it's done, you're going to find something else. MS. CILEK: We'll be back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then we can bring it back. MS. CILEK: And just to relate information to Commissioner Taylor's comments about the number of pumps, we will bring the research back that shows, on average, you know, what applications are coming in, what number of fuel pumps for you as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But my concern is between now Page 217 and when you bring it back -- MS. CILEK: That is true. July 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: --the stations --that wonderful direction that Commissioner Nance authored, Chairman Nance authored at our last meeting is negligible, because once we pass this, those 16 pumps and above, they're under stricter standards, but they're not under what we envision going forward. And short of --I don't know how you remedy that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, I don't know --frankly, I don't know --you know, I left this open for staff who are very thoughtful to come up with additional standards. Unless you just want to make the buffers thicker and wider, whatever, I don't know what you're going to come up with, because this is about as comprehensive a program as you could possibly require for every applicant. In addition, I honestly don't know any applicants that we've had coming forward that haven't made an effort to work with the community, even within their requirements to meet special circumstances. I mean, look at what has happened even on some of the other applications. People have gone in and we said, hey, well, you know, we've got this special circumstance, this particular layout of this property; what can we do? And people have also come up and worked with us to do that. So I just think we've raised this so high. I believe if we get it too, too high, you know, I believe we're going to be challenged as to whether we're really realistic as what we're asking for and acceptable in the community at all -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: --well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: --because, I don't --you know, I hope you've reviewed this. This is extensive. It really is. MS. CILEK: And we'll use our time wisely to provide you additional standards. Page 218 July 7, 2015 Any other comments on the amendment? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think what needs to give us comfort in the interim period is that no matter how many pumps, anything close to a residential area we have really jacked up. I mean, we have jacked up standards to really protect the residential neighborhoods which to me is the greatest concern. I'm --yes, I am concerned about the impact of, you know, one of these pump stations, you know, in a commercial zone, but I'm more concerned about the impact of the station relative to a residential area and, with respect to that, we have gotten very aggressive, and no matter how many pumps. I mean, whether it's 8, 12, 16, 24, I don't care. I mean, for residential it's very tough. You can go over them . again. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I predict that it's basically going to exclude the small stations altogether. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think so. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Because I don't think they're going to be able to afford it. Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Taylor, additional comments before we hear from the public speakers? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller? Mr. Chairman, we have six registered public speakers on this item. The first speaker is Vern Hammett. He'll be followed by Bruce Anderson. MR. HAMMETT: Good evening. My name is Vern Hammett. I'm a Collier citizen. As you can imagine, I'm disappointed that the conditional-use provision of the LDC amendment was removed during the previous Page 219 July 7, 2015 BCC meeting. One argument for the removal of this language was the concern from some on this commission that the conditional-use portion was not legal. My question is, then, why was the County Attorney not asked his opinion? I assume that he reviewed this language and could make a reasonable assessment as to its defensibility. Also, it was articulated effectively during previous commissioner dialogue that the conditional-use process would allow for a closer examination of proposed mega-station development when located close to residential property. I can think of specific examples where this closer examination is incredibly important. Older communities were never laid out by our former planners in a manner to consider mega gas stations because this concept didn't exist at the time. This is a new entity. And in circumstances of new residential development, particularly PUDs, it certainly makes less sense for conditional use because mega-station location could be considered at conception. Finally, I'm still of the opinion that the health and welfare issues associated with living in close proximity to large service stations should be closely examined, and I'm concerned that this commission doesn't seem to share that sentiment. In closing, I'd like to know why the County Attorney was not queried when the legality of the previous draft was questioned, and I'm asking you to reconsider the conditional-use process, keeping in mind that it will provide the ability to take a closer look at mega-stations' developments when located next to our older, well-established residential areas. And we're talking about 16 pumps. Maybe the 16 pumps --until we can get the new language for stricter criteria, maybe 16 or above between now and then should be conditional use until we can get that criteria in place. Page 220 July 7, 2015 Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bruce Anderson. He'll be followed by Robert Pritt. MR. ANDERSON: I'm waiving. MR. MILLER: Robert Pritt, and he will be followed by Rick Baer. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Robert Pritt. I'm an attorney with Roetzel & Andress. I'm here on behalf of American Commercial Realty and Naples South Plaza that's located at Tamiami Trail East and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in District 1. I did speak at the first hearing. On behalf of my clients, we have a tremendous opportunity to redevelop this constrained plaza by tearing down about 15,000 square feet of tired and mostly empty commercial areas and replacing it with a facility with fuel pumps, what I always thought was a service station, and a convenience store of about 6,000 square feet plus the fuel pumps. Successful development of this plaza is largely contingent upon being able to develop this service station facility. The problem that we have and still remains is the measurement for the separation from property --being currently from property line to property line. I did put up on the visualizer --and, unfortunately, the red does not show up very well. But I showed you what the plaza looks like. And, essentially, the edge of the back, that yellow building there --if you look at yellow building and the orange building on your screens there, the yellow building would be the back of the proposed convenience store, and the orange building is the building that is the closest residential property. In fact, they kind of both go away from each other rather than Page 221 July 7, 2015 toward each other. So this is not that type of a situation where they're always up against each other or going to be that closely --close to each other. The pumps --I don't know if you can see that in the visualizer, but I'll put my finger on it here. The pumps are way out here on Tamiami Trail East about as far away from that orange building as you possibly can get. The way that the ordinance is --the draft is written, it would seem that we miss it by just a few feet. If we go --if we went from the edge of the back of the store to the edge of the property line, it's about 205 feet. The edge of the back of the store to the closest edge of that multifamily structure is about 280 feet, the edge of the fuel pump canopy to the property line is about 300 feet, and the edge of the fuel pump canopy to the closest edge of the multifamily structure is 3 7 5 feet. So, in fact, they're quite a ways away. I was encouraged to hear staff say that site plans with deviations are still a possibility, but we're really --this is one of those situations where the ordinance does not quite take into consideration the factors here, and this is an example of one of those situations where no matter how you visualize it, it's not really up against anything, but it could be thrown in with --not be able to have the exception that's afforded. I've learned that over the years if you're going to object or say that there's a problem, you ought to come up with a solution, so here's my solution. My solution is to read up and down the paper. Oh, no. That's it right there. Essentially what this would be would be simply to add a No. 2 to the exception in 5.05.05.D. You already have the exception --the yellow highlighting would be the change. You already have the language that you see that is 5.05.D (sic), and then just add something that would say "or to the fuel pump structures are separated from Page 222 July 7, 2015 existing residential property by a minimum of 250 feet, and the store structure is separated from existing residential property by a minimum of 200 feet." I thought about three or four different ways of accomplishing a similar result, but that would --to me to would be the best way to take this problem that we would continue to have and take it away. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions you have. Mr. Baer is going to speak also. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Take that language off. I think I have another solution. MR. PRITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take that white paper off the . viewer. It's a site design problem, okay. If you take your product and move it towards or into the parking lot and replace the parking next to the retail buildings or, you know, somewhere else where it can be utilized, you solve the problem. You'll get the separation distance. I mean, that's similar to asking the Board to move the residential away from your commercial. Just move the commercial within the project away from residential. It solves your problem. MR. PRITT: I won't even argue with that. The only problem is, is this is already --this has already been built; the buildings are what they are. We're tearing down a lot of the buildings to move it as far away as we possibly can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're redeveloping, like you said. So you're redoing the whole site out of it. So redo the parking lot. Move your building in the parking lot away from the residential, and we could keep the language the way it is. That's my solution. MR. PRITT: I understand. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I like it. Page 223 July 7, 2015 MR. PRITT: Anything else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that would work. What do you think, Bob? MR. PRITT: Well, the whole thing --I don't want to keep throwing out problems, but the problem is, is that the whole plaza is one --is one unit. And try as we might, that plaza is going to be -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Site plan deviation. MR. PRITT: --there where it is. I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Site plan deviation. MR. PRITT: Well, I was encouraged to hear that from the staff, and I would be encouraged to hear that from the Board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not closer to the residents, you know. Move your building into the parking lot. MR. PRITT: I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your deviation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And going along with what Commissioner Henning just said, you're tearing down that building in the front, too, that old dress shop that became a general --or Dollar General or something. You're tearing that down, and you're tearing down half the shopping center, right? MR. PRITT: Let me have Rick Baer tell you what they propose to tear down. It is actually the wing that is on that --on the east side, the northeast side there, and that would be what would be used for that. So when he gets to speak, he'll explain that to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, great. MR. PRITT: I think. Okay. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Baer is your next registered speaker. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir. MR. MILLER: And he will be followed by Tom Hardy. MR. BAER: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Page 224 July 7, 2015 Rick Baer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this . evening. First, before I try to answer some of the very good questions, I want to commend the Commission and the staff for the continuing efforts which are constantly made in Naples and Collier County to make it one of the best places in America to live. And that's just what attracted my associates and I to acquire this property some time ago, and it's why we have hung on with it through some rather difficult economic times, particularly with this property. When it was acquired, it was anchored by a Winn Dixie, and it was predicated upon an entire redevelopment with a redevelopment that was going to take place of the Winn Dixie store. Unfortunately, they went bankrupt and shut the store shortly thereafter, and it's been a collection of struggles and various things over time. We proved the validity to the Wynn family of operating one of their Sunshine Ace facilities on the East Trail, and then they relocated into their own land. So once again, working towards redevelopment. So looking --oh, where's --Bob, can you bring your drawing back, put it there? MR. OCHS: There you go. MR. BAER: Oh, look; miraculously. MR. OCHS: Do you want to work off this microphone? MR. BAER: Testing, okay. So the redevelopment which is contemplated right now only involves this area here. This is the 15,000-square-foot building which is close to 41 that goes back which has substantial vacancy. The other buildings on the shopping center are not anticipated at the present time for change, though we are hoping that this will be an impetus for further redevelopment of all of the property. We are currently under construction at the shopping center to bring in a new Sears appliance facility to the property, and that ties in Page 225 July 7, 2015 with the point relative to revision of the parking lot, because we do have a number of regional and national merchants which are a part of the main part of the shopping center which would remain, Sears, Dollar General, and Anthony's in particular, all of which have legal rights that go for another 20 to 30 years that constrain movement of the driveways. So it would be rather difficult if not impossible to move that building substantially. So the one point that I would make, because I believe in the separation between the fuel service areas and residential, is that the principal concept of separating fuel service from residential should be measured. If it's building to building, then you're going from the nearest point of where, ultimately, the convenience store building goes to the nearest residential building or, if it's from the fuel pump, that you measure from the closest point of the area servicing the fuel pumps to the property line and that additional buffers and such, per the regulations that you've set out, can be provided, and that would be our intent to provide them in the best possible way while still keeping the property viable, because the majority of it does have to stay; otherwise, it would be financial Armageddon. So that would be my main point, and that's what I encourage you to consider, and I thank you for the opportunity. I'll be pleased to answer any questions that I can. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. I would like to make one comment, then I'm going to go to Commissioner Fiala. Sir, honestly I will tell you, it was very clearly the intent of this entire board to establish an extraordinary standard. It was requested by the community. And the only way I could find comfort and I think others on this board could find comfort and not go into a conditional-use process was to start out with a very, very aggressive standard. Furthermore, Commissioner Taylor has added a couple more this Page 226 July 7, 2015 evening related to noise that I think are appropriate. So I'm just remiss, and I think others are going to be remiss, to tell you that I'm going to start making exceptions to this. I apologize to you for that, but that's the only way that we're not going to have a conditional-use process in Collier County is if we stick to this. And I think this has been vetted in the community. It's been the subject of many meetings. It's been the product of almost a year's work by staff going over it and considering it. And I thank you --I thank you for your comments, but I believe that these are the standards we need to adopt, and I believe that's what the community requests from us. So thank you for your comments. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Yeah, I don't know how long you've owned this place, but that shopping center is an embarrassment to the community. It's so run-down looking. Now, maybe you've only owned it a year or two and maybe --you keep talking about redevelopment. You plan on getting there, although it sounds like you're going to do it piecemeal. How long have you owned it, by the way? MR. BAER: I've been involved in the ownership for quite a while, but I was out of any active management until about six months ago and put forth the plan that was bringing in Sears and now working to do the convenience store, so -- CO MMIS SI ONER FIALA: Because that place really needs to be mowed down and redeveloped entirely, to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm sure that the new stores would love it. MR. BAER: And one thing I should have mentioned is that we have been in discussion with the residential community, which is on the far edge we're pointing out on the plan, regarding redoing the existing landscape barrier that's there and building it up in a very attractive manner for all sides. Page 227 July 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I live right down the street, and I'll be watching it. And now I know who to call. MR. BAER: I'll give you my home and cell phone number. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and you know what? I'm not kidding. MR. BAER: Nor am I; nor am I. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the Wawa will be the best thing that could happen to that whole site. I would just like to see it redeveloped totally rather than leave it like it is and try and do it piecemeal by piecemeal. It's kind of like buying --going to the dentist and saying I need a pair of false teeth and, oh, by the way, I only want one tooth at a time, you know. MR. BAER: I understand your point but, unfortunately, contractually, because of other leases which are in place, the only alternative would be to hand it to bank and let the bank redevelop it in 20 years, and then it would really be bad. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's a lot of empty ones, though, right? I mean -- MR. BAER: Well, there won't --with what we are doing here, there would only be one or two spaces empty, all of which would likely be occupied, because we're actually not working on leasing those now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it starts about Anthony's now, and then it goes to the UPS, and then it goes -- MR. BAER: Yeah, all of that --that's 100 percent occupied there, so we would be moving some of the existing merchants from the building which would be removed, and that's going to fill up most, if not all, of what is at the complex. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Remaining ones. Thank you. I just wanted to say I hope you -- MR. BAER: I appreciate your input. Page 228 July 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: --do a better job, because we're trying to improve the appearance of our community. MR. BAER: I agree completely. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tom Hardy. He'll be followed by Rich Yovanovich. MR. HARDY: I waive. MR. MILLER: And Mr. Hardy waives. Mr. Yovanovich also waives. That concludes your public speakers on this item, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the amendments with the addition --additional language that Commissioner Taylor submitted. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second that for discussion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's great. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further discussion from Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Comments? Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify the additional wording where it says deliveries should be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 p.m. (sic) when located between the neighboring residential property and the facility with the fuel pumps. In other words, deliveries in the space between the -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: The building. COMMISSIONER HILLER: --building and --the facility and the neighborhood. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: ~o they can have deliveries on the other side. MS. CILEK: Uh-huh. Page 229 July 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. That's not as well written as it should be. I understand what the intent is, but -- MS. CILEK: Well, we can take a look at it when we come back for the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it just --something like -- why not deliveries made between the facility with the fuel pumps and the neighboring residential property shall be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Or when the delivery is adjacent to the residential property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, because all you're trying to do is describe where the delivery occurs, and you're prohibiting the delivery in that particular space. Actually, let's ask one of our reporters. That's their job. fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Replace "when" with "in the area of'' COMMISSIONER HILLER: What? MR. CASALANGUIDA: --"in the area located," and you'll be COMMISSIONER HILLER: We need wordsmithing. What? MS. CILEK: "In the area located" is -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Deliveries, you know --or, yeah, in the area located between; yeah, that works, too. So deliveries shall be prohibited between the --in the area between the neighboring residential property and the facility with the fuel pumps. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll include that in my motion, and then I'll call my motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Acceptable, Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 230 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed? (No response.) July 7, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. It passes unanimously. MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Item #12A RESOLUTION 2015-149: RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 14- 155, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE "ZONING IN PROGRESS" DECLARATION WHICH PROHIBITED THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to a companion item, which is Item 12A under your County Attorney's report. This is a recommendation to rescind Resolution No. 14-155, as amended, relating to the zoning-in-progress declaration which prohibited the issuance of development orders for automobile service stations. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a second. Any comment from the Board? MR. OCHS: Mr. Klatzkow, you had two options in your Page 231