Loading...
Exhibit II CCPC Minutes 5-13-1998AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:05 P.M., WEDNESDAY. MAY 13, 1998 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI 'TRAIL EAST, EAST NAMES,FLORIDA: NOTE:ANY PERSON WHO DECIDED TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1.ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2.ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4.PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5.BCC REPORT 6.CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7•ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.OLD BUSINESS 9.NEW BUSINESS A. First of Two Public Hearings To Review Proposed LDC Amendments 10. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 11. ADJOURN 5/13/98 CCPC AGINDMmd May 13 , 1998 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With that, I will call this evening meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order and begin by callingtheroll . Mr . Priddy is excused. Miss Urbanik. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr . Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr . Davis, here. Mr . York. COMMISSIONER YORK: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Oates is excused. Mr. Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And Mr. Wrage, COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Addenda to the agenda, I would -- I would guess we would want to hear from speakers immediately following each -- eachitemthewayit' s broken up. And I have a question about the -- Mr . Mulhere, you presented us some -- some paperwork about the summaryagendaitems, the policies and procedures to the BCC. How did that o all work out? MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere for the record. It hasn' t been heard by the board yet. It is scheduled to go to the board next Tuesday.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And then I will make copies and distribute that to you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. Just a matter of curiosity.With that, I guess we can move right into the public hearing ontheLandDevelopmentCode. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, presenting the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code for this first cyclein1998, which will extend until the board' s meeting of June 24th of this year to provide ample opportunity for modifications to what agenda items you' re dealing with today. I am going to go through each of the items and very brieflydescribethemsothatyougetthegistofwhatthey' re about and if anyone has a problem with them, additional commentary from staff, th l relevant authors of some of the amcndmens are here to go into detailifnecessary, and any members of the public who have a concern about any particular item. The first amendment on your agenda proposes to revamp thedevelopmentstandardsintheRMF-6 zoning district. That zoning district was structured in such a way that it really dealt with existing RMF type zoning, didn' t anticipate people wanting RMF-6 '' zoning, absolutely makes no provision for single-family housing on lot sizes commensurate with what lot sizes would be if it were zoned single family. So we simply added or introduced relevant lot Page 2 111 May 13 , 1998 standards to deal with single--family housing in the event you wanted to build a single-family house in the two family and in the overt you wanted to build a two-family house and a lot standard for three or more. In addition, because there is considerable conc•_rn that , for example, all of Naples Park is zon.'1 PMF--6 yet they' re on fifty- footlots, this ordinance specifically provides that any lot of record, irrespective of its size, can be utilized for a single- family house. The next item deals with dimensional -- introducing the notion of space between buildings for multiple structures built on a site under common ownership in the C-1 , C- 2 , C-3 , C-4 and ('-5 rii:!trirts , There currently is no standard and that hole we fele.. needed . o, st._ addressed, and this proposal would have a fifteen-foot -- minimum fifteen-foot separation requirement for clustered commercial buildings . The next item -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Mr . Vino, with this spacing requirement, is -- if there' s a breezeway connecting two buildings, like over a drive or something, then how is that treated? MR. NINO: We generally consider that one building . If joined by a roof? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh. MR. NINO: We consider it one building . But if it ' s clearly separated, then we' re asking for the fifteen-foot separation. Actually, its one half of the height of the t.uilding or fifteen --0 of fifteen feet . The next item on the agenda has to do with modifications to the C-1/T district to expand the types of uses that would be allowed there and to eliminate the requirement that C- 1 /T only represent,developments of twenty-five thousand square feet with a maximum lot width of two hundred feet . Now, I should add, and I 'm going to add this statement to several of the amendments that are packaged, when these amendments were put together, everyone expected that the E.A. R. based amendments would bynowhelawandthey' re not . MS . STUDENT: That ' s one of the things I need to ascertain from staff is because really, if these are not -- if they' re inconsistent with the present plan, we can' t go forward and adopt them. And I have that question about the neighborhood center, too, in the PUD district . We do not have the legal authority to adopt these if they are in any way inconsistent with the current plan. And I don' t know that anybody -- I was looking for someboay from long-range today -- and I couldn' t find them -- at Development Services to ask this question. So I don' t know if the plan can be interpreted currently where these are consistent or they' re absolutely inconsistent . I would need to talk to Barbara Cacchione, and like I said, I couldn' t find her today. So I think what we may need to do is just, you know, look at this with the idea that on both of them if they' re inconsistent with our current plan and they would serve to implement the future land use element, which is not yet law, and it will not be law until , you know, Page 3 May 13 , 1998 we finish the rest of this process where we had the hearing last week . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well , if we proceed with reviewing them and ultimately passing them or. to the BCC -- MS. STUDENT: Legally you don' t have the authority to. If they' re inconsistent -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Pending -- pending the E.A.R. approval process . MS. STUDENT: No. That ' s -- I had talked to David about doing this with some other ordinances on rezonings and he said no, we' re - - we can' t do that . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : So in other words, we can' t even transmit to the board? MS . STUDENT: Well , you can go to the board and we can again tell them, you know, that legally we can' t do it . I am going to have to ascertain this first, because I don' t know right now without talking to -- MR. NINO: Of course, we have until June the 13th. If the matter isn' t successfully resolved by then, we have the option to pull it. MS. STUDENT: I can tell you right now, they are not, - - it ' s not going to be successfully resolved by June 13th. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione with the Comprehensive Planning Section. This one should be withdrawn. Basically, what we' re deleting on page five, those standards are still in the Comprehensive Plan. So I think it would just be safer if we come back with the package once that ' s in place. MS . STUDENT: Also, Barbara, while you' re there, is that also the case for the neighborhood commercial and the PUD district? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes . MS. STUDENT: Okay. That will have to be withdrawn as well then. MS. CACCHIONE: What we'd like to do is bring that all back for you in your July cycle. We' re hoping then that by that time you get ready to adopt those. We thought we would be in good shape by now,but we're not . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Okay. We will rely upon you-all to tell us which ones to pull because of the problem we fight with the E.A.R. process . MR. NINO: Well , as I indicated, all of these were prepared long before we expected we'd be up against a roadblock. COMMISSIONER YORK: Four and five are withdrawn; is that correct? Pages four and five? MR. NINO: Yes, that would be withdrawn. MS. STUDENT: For the board's just knowledge about what happened, I will be happy to explain why we thought that we would, you know, be able to have the future land use element . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, I think we' re -- I think we' re aware of what' s going on and -- MS. STUDENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- and the holdup. MR. NINO: The next item then is on page eleven, amendment to the LDC, Section 2 . 2 . 14 .4 . This is not so encumbered. This this would add to the C-3 district a provision for requiring lighting. And I Page 4 May 13 , 1998 might add that this provision is in place for C = l , C- 2 , C-4 and C-s , but somehow or other, it wasn' t in C-3 , so we' re filling the gap. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think that' s a pretty easy one, Mr. Nino. MS. STUDENT: And, Ron, is there any problem with the distance between structures? I wouldn' t think . MR. NINO: No. MS. STUDENT: I didn' t think MR. NINO: No, that has no comp. plan . MS. STUDENT: Thank you. MR. NINO: The next item then -- based on what ' s transpired, the next item would also be -- no, this is not the case . The next item would introduce some personal service uses . As a matter of fact, you may recall , I think what stimulated this was the amendment to a building in the Collier Industrial Park for a beauty shop and it was generally concluded that beauty shops and -- barber shops and beauty salon! made a lot of sense in an industrial area where there' s lots of employees that need those_ :,erviccs . And in addition to that, however, gunsmith shops were added as well or proposed to be added as well to this amendment. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There' s quite a few in the industrial district . I think there were five or six counted by staff . COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I can get my hair rut but I can ' t buy a gun ; is that what you ' re telling me? 411 CHAIRMAN DAVI No, now you can do both. MR . NINO: You can get a haircut . COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And you can practice, too . MP.. NINO: The next item, however, is so encumbered with growth E.A. P. amendment -- the E.A.R. amendment process , so we can skip the next one . COMMISSIONER YORK: Which is the business park addition? MR. NINO: Yes, uh-huh. The next one is the community facilities . COMMISSIONER YORK: Page number, please . COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Twenty-three. MR. NINO: Page number twenty-three . This amendment would have educational services, groups 8211 to 8231 , added to the list of uses that would be permitted in the community facility district . Specifically, that would include institutes of higher education like universities and colleges . And we thought that that use was compatible with that type of district and ought to be allowed in the CF district. The next district -- the next amendment has to do with amendments to the PUD district . And to some extent that -- this amendment is also inconsistent with the current growth management -- future land use element . I might add that ironically it' s only inconsistent to the extent that the PUD we' re dealing with is -- is not less than three hundred acres, because I think otherwise these amendments could be dealt with, but since they would decrease the threshold for introducing neighborhood commercial developments of less than three hundred that makes it inconsistent . So I guess for now we will set Page 5 Mr/ 1 3 , 1998 the whole thing aside. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I visited the one at Village Walk over the weekend in anticipation of this and -- nice facility and works really well . MR. NINO: Well , I guess we can wait another six months . The next item has to do with an amendment to the area of critical state concern sensitive treatment areas and creates some exemptions . You will all recall that about a year ago there was a problem with the agricultural -- with this applying in agricultural lands and this amendment rectifies that situation and would have the area of critical state concern concerning ACSC-ST overlay no longer apply to agricultural lands . MS. STUDENT: And we won that case. It ' s on appeal, but that doesn' t ;Affect what we can do because we have an ofde: that It ' s good, depending on what the Court of Appeals does with it, and we don' t know, you know. Hopefully, it will be able to stay in and, you know, DCA and the county will prevail , but you never know when you get before a panel of judges . MR. NINO: The next item on the -- in your packet deals with the establishing the Immokalee overlay district . Currently in the PUD, there are overlay districts and there are two of them in the current LDC. In addition to -- is this not: on? MR. MULHERE: What page are you on? 411 COMMISSIONER YORK: Forty-eight . MR. NINO: Page forty-eight, fifty. MR. MULhERE: Page forty-eight . You missed page thirty-eight. MR. NINO: Oh, I missed page forty-eight? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, on the ST. MR. NINO: Oh, okay. Well, that , too, provides for an exemption for -- for water management structures and oil and gas geophysical surveys, so that ' s simply another exception to the ;T overlay requirement . MR. MULHERE: May I just add one thing, these amendments that have sort of an environmental issue or impact have been presented to the E.A. R. , and ' if we' re silent on that issue, it ' s because the E.A. i;. supported it . There is an amendment here that was not necessarily supported by the E.A. B. , but we will discuss that with you . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Thank you . MR. NINO: Thank you for reminding me of that , Bob, The next item is the Immokalee overlay district . And while this appears to be a lot of amendments, in fact, it - - it introduces the Market Street overlay district , but in order to establish an umbrella format, we' re repealing everything that ' s there and bringing in a new section that chronologically will follow, and reintroducing the Jefferson and the Market and moving the parking requirements from the current parking district to the Immokalee overlay subdistrict area . Michelle is here -- Michelle is here to speak to any special concerns that you might have relative to how this will work. Michelle is the author of this . She' s done quite a bit of work on it . If you 0 have any questions, she' s here to answer them. Page 6 May 13 , 1998 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Just -- not necessarily a question, but are we getting closer to dealing with the uniqueness of imnokalee and its redevelopment? MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michelle Mosca . I 'm sorry, your question was? CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Are we getting closer to dealing with the uniqueness of the Immokalee community and providing the tedevelopment opportunities? MS. MOSCA: That ' s, in fact, what we' re trying to do by introducing two additional subdistrict.j . Yes? MR. MULHERE: Let me add that it ' s not unlike the Marco Island overlay where we introduced it comprehensively with the intent of coming back at future dates with -- potentially several future dates with additional amendments to that overlay to reflect the unique nature. We hadn' t finished Marco's overlay either, but we brought it forward in part because we were finished with parts of it, and the same thing applies here. And then we will come back probably in future cycles with additional amendments to address, for example, the Main Street area . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Mr. Wrage. CO!' ISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah, I wish Pon would have told me before I read the whole thing there wasn' t that much change . But the question 411 on the parkirg, does that change? I couldn' t -- - as far as the shared parking is concerned? MS. MOSCA: No, it ' s not . COMMISSIONER t'JRAGE: Is that still the same? MS . MOSCA: It ' s the same. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you . MR. NINO: Now we go to -- MR. MULHERE: Page seventy-two? MR. NINO:: - - page seventy-one . This %3:i: ::d:n'5nt. would have the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan specifically identified as part of the Land Development Code by refere:.:e. And there was some expressed interest in ensuring that that amendment was carried forward this cycle by members of the County Board of Commissioners, so it ' s here . And the next one •-- also, this is part of the results . from the amendments to the automobile service station ordinance tthet ' s hooforra you. That ordinance introduces some special landscaping requirements which need -- also need to be reflected in the landscape section of the code and establishes a buffering and screening between land uses unique to automobile gas stations . COMMISSIONER YORK: Does that include -- Ron, does that include MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER YORK: -- convenience store, service station type operations? MR. NINO: Any development that had a gas station as a component. 0 to it would be required to observe these buffering requirements . Page 7 May 13 , 1998 MR. MULHERE: Perhaps since we' re at that stage and we have to hand that out -- that amendment Anyway, because we don ' t hive that included in the packet, this would be a good time to address the service station amendment . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, I think so . MR . NINO: The -- the service station amendment , i t ' :, safe to say, is one that ' s been generated by the County Board ofCommissioners . We were challenged to deal with the question of service stations, and -- and I think the order was to limit the number that could possibly he developed at the ,tct ivir_y centers in Collier County. So after considerable investigation or. the part of our staff , including researching what other communities aro rir)i nO throughout thr' country, consultation with our legal staff , an amendment was put together that basically - - that basically makes - - if a gas station i:; going to occur, it ' s going to have to achieve a greater visual result. . There' s enhanced landscaping, enhanced siting requirements , hut perhaps -- and the most controversial of all is hhat this amendment introduces tha notion of spacing between gas sty ions . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : I have got that highlighted .g e the space separation requirements you could review with us so we can understand . MR. NINO: Yes, I would like to have Susan Murray and Bryan, who were the authors and did ail the research on this, speak directly tothatissue . They have prepared some poster boards that illustrate what would be the result of this on certain activity centers that you might be interested in learning about . MS. MURPAY: Good evening. Susan Murray for the record. Bryanissettingupsomesampleactivitycenters . ;e kind of focussed more on the interstate activity centers . What we tried to do was establish a reasonable number of gasoline service stations within an activitycenterquadrant, that being two to three per quadrant, so eight to twelve per activity center . Again, most of our samples are focussed on the interstate activity centers . I did do quite a bit of researchfromothercommunitiesthathadsimilarseparationrequirementsthat ranged in area from three hundred to over a thousand feet theyrequired . Do you have specific questions? CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Well , with the five hundred foot threshold you' re saying there could be as many as twelve if you count all four quadrants in an activity center? MS. MURRAY: Could be. It really depends on the length, obviously, of the activity centers . For example, the activity centeratPineRidgeanuI-75 looks like it would work out to be eight per total activity center the way things are laying out now. Maybe Bryan can expand a little bit . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Bryan, maybe you could, because that ' s a good example because we know there' s some existing stations there that we' re familiar with and see how this impacts it . MR. MILY. : For example, you have the Angileri PUD that was approved for a gasoline service station, which is -- basically the 411 yellow areas are indicating planning and developments approved for Page 8 May 13 , 199A gasoline service stationn . TheThenP red :.nrvice ntationn here indicating) are indicating two service stations that are alreadydeveloped. Because they' re developed, then thin criteria of the spacing kicks in. What that means is if there' s a developed gasoline service station -- and we' re going to use that five hundred foot separation requirement -- then that dashed red line would indicate those properties in that area that would be accountable to either getting a waiver or a variance to the separation requirement by the Board of County Commi:;s inner . COMMISSIONER YORK: Bryan, could you just -- on this particular activity center, I know that there are, I think, eight or seven that are approved for service stations and there are two existing. Could you point out the ones that -- MR. MILK: Let me tell you the existing -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. MR. MILK: -- and then I will certainly do that . In the Vineyards PUD, both of these properties are approved for gasoline service stations . And there's a Mobil station located here on the corner, so there' s one. There' s also an outparcel there that supposedly is going to be used for- the Vineyards professional office. That is really the area that could be developed, because these areas in red really are the Cleveland Clinic and that Publix shopping center. So for all intents and purposes, that ' s a built-out project. There are areas for gasoline service stations, hut it' s reallyy i410 n the yellow right here (indicating) . COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. MR. MILK: So we have one station there. Astron Plaza and Pena Medical Clinic, that' s not an approved land use in either PUD, so that' s not available. Over on the other side, the Sutherland PUD has approved gasoline service stations . All of the red area indicate Sutherland, and a majority of the area for the most part is developed already except for the two yellow areas that are really outparcels at this time. Both of these outparcels would be subject to the criteria and waiver requirements of the proposed code as currently proposed here. What we did or what the board did is Pine Ridge Center or Pine Ridge Center West and Gateway, each of those PUDs came forward here recently through sunsetting requirements . All those PUDs had gasoline service stations . As a part of the amendment cycle, the board, actually, in Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West, they took away the gasoline station use. The petitioner and agent for..Naples; ' Gateway voluntarily took that away. So in this corridor, basically, one, two, three, four, five, there' s five remaining lots to the north that could come in for gasoline service stations . And there' s potentially two outparcels there and this large agricultural property there ( indicating) . However, all of these properties but these two here are going to be in that five hundred foot radius for the exemption or waiver request . And that' s important from the standpoint that whether they go through 0 a waiver or they come in under a property that ' s developed, they're Page 9 May 13 , 1998 going to have to comply with the criteria, the architectural landscaping, the site design, all of those standards that are currently proposed in front of you , 1 que+nn to t, kc thin ones stop fuit_hor , Ira ' .. 'Jo 'Jown to hnvin Boulevard and 1-75 . There' s existing three gasoline service stations there on the corner now. I believe there' s a Mobil , a Chevron and there' s another one on these three corners . If youwere to take that five hundred foot requirement per that activity center , it really only takes in this area (indicating) . All the yellow areas within the activity center are areas that gasoline service stations could be developed. And what that means is, if you' re going to come in and apply for a gasoline service station here, you ' re going to comply ::ith the rules and regulat:_ons . Then that five hundred foot hand goes around you also . So it ' s kind of the first guy in sets the trend for the spacing criteria that ' s going to he provided for in the proposed ordinance . COMMISSIONER YORK : I understand what we' re trying to do, but my concern is that, you Know, those property owners of those PUDs that have been approved are going to feel that they' re having, you know, rights taken away from them, and given the litigious nature of society today, are we going to invite lawsuits by doing thin? MR. MILK: Let me give you a good example here . Here' s Immokalee Road and 1-75 . On every intersection corner, every planning 411 development allows gasoline service stations, all of them do. In the yellow is those specific areas or tracts or parcels identified for gasoline service stations , All I know is in this partiruiar Pelican Strand, on lot one, Shell Oil has an approved site development plan. It's not permitted. It ' s not under construction, but they went through that process . So technically, they' re going to be the first guy in here with a gas station and they' re going to set the pace for that five hundred foot standard there . The next guys in, they' re going to have to come in for the waiver and look at the spacing, the right-of-way configuration, any -- any open space marsh or that sort of thing that would give it the ability to come in and ask for the gasoline service station within the five hundred feet . So a very unique place is going to be that corridor in Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Let ' s say for a minute, Bryan, that Shell Oil Company, one, they' re there, so now you draw your red circle of five hundred feet . MR. MILK: And what we' re going to do, Mike, is if they pull an active building permit, then they' re there . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Okay . Well, let ' s just say they do that, so they' re then,:. They' re the center of the five hundred foot -- MR. MILK: Right . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- circle. MR. MILK: Right . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Which basically would take in -- MR. MILK: Basically would take in all of this -- the frontage 0 there on Pelican Strand and the frontage on Donovan and Stiles . Page 10 411 May 13 , 1998 CHAIRMAN DAVIS : So in other words -- MR. MILK: It would take in the frontage of these three PUDs . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Which, I guess, in reality then bumps the next gas station to the east side of I-75 unless they apply for the waiver . MR. MILK: Yes, sir, that ' s correct . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Okay. So let ' s say there' s one over there now. Now you've got two. MR. MILK: Now you have two. CHAIRMAN DAVIS : So now everybody is going to have to apply for a waiver. MR. MILK: That' s exactly right . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Tell -- so I 'm the gas station guy and I go gee whiz, two' s not enough. This is a major intersection in your community, so two is just simply not enough. What process do I go through? MR. MILK: You go through basically a variance process through both the Planning Commission and the Board to -- on the site plan now, because you have to apply for the waiver, you ' re basically going to apply to the Board and yourselves a site plan which would depict the site itself, the facility, and what's around that facility and howyou' re going to impact that land use, and the architectural renderings . so hisically you' re going to provide d d'2tailed sitedevelopmentplan, architectural rendering, and surrounding land uses 40 within that five hundred foot radius . MS. MURRAY: You' re also going to -- Susan Murray, for the record. If you look on page ten under section two six two eight pointfour, you will see there is a list of four criteria that you'd have to also be able to meet in order to obtain a waiver. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, if I might -- I haven' t -- I was just given an updated copy of the land code amendments today and I haven' thadachancetostudythat, but I would prefer to call it a variance.That ' s -- than a waiver -- MR. MILK: That' s fine. MS. STUDENT: -- if there' s no problem with that . MR. MILK: Our scope was to make it a public hearing process,identify the criteria, provide you the criteria in which it would be consistent with the proposed rules and regulations in both illustrative and site development plan format . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I can appreciate having read through this that what we' re saying here is we want gasoline stations, slash, convenience stores to look nicer than they do now. MR. MILK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DAVIS : And I don ' t disagree with that . I guess whatI 'm a little concerned about is how difficult the process is . Oncethefirstpersonisinthere, the big advantage they have for additional -- over additional competition and -- MR. MILK: It ' s going to be perhaps an advantage depending on -- I guess it all is based on the premise the board was looking at 0 separation requirements . As Susan originally said, there's probablyanywherefromathousandfeettotwohundredfeetspacingcriteriaout Page 11 111 May 13 , 1998 there from all of the municipalities that we looked at . We felt that five hundred feet, of course, is right in the middle of that criteria and wanted to show how that was going to be illus':ratively applicable to our activity centers . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Given - - if I can interrupt you -- given that activity center, would you say it would he reasonable to say that we will probably have four to -- four to ten gas stations in that situation, given what you have dev' lop,A to thj :, point:? T mean, you had said before it might be as many as twelve. MS. MURRAY: For that specific? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh. There seems to be a lot of yellow area in all four quadrants . MS. MURRAY: Yes . It really is again going to depend on the breadth of the activity center . fome tire :,hotL and fat; :soma arc very long. And obviously frontage on major roads seems to he a great appeal to gasoline service stations. So in that case, because that activity center appears to be a little shorter, there may he less . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Than the twelve you talked about . MS. MURRAY: Uh-huh. Again, it really depends on the size of the activity center, because you're then looking at five hundred feet, and depending on how the activity center is laid out, which they aren' t all the same. CHAIRMAN DAVIS : So you move away from this one, you go to the west down by Sam' s Club, where there' s a gas station at the cornerbytheWendy's, so now you put a five hundred foot circle around it - MR. MILK: Yes, sir . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- which gets you -- which gets you on -- MR. MILK: Any approved gasoline service station would have that five hundred foot boundary drawn around that property boundary. Any proposed gasoline service station within that boundary would have to come in for the waiver or variance request proposed in this amendment . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Which then gives us the opportunity, I guess, to make the decision, are we getting too many in this area? MR. MILK: That ' s correct . Now, the big factor is -- and it ' s really not going to be your decision, is there too many because they' re required to submit a market study on whether they are a= if there' s a direct need for additional stations . So the criteria is based on spacing, but it ' s also governed on a market study which would justify the need for an additional station within that area or that intersection. So it does two things. It provides guidelines and site development plan criteria and it justifies itself for you and I think that it needs to be there in the first place. Something that the board had some concerns about when we talked about Angileri and Pine Ridge corners on -- here' s -- here's a number of projects that are approved for gasoline service stations. "hhere is really no criteria for them and everybody wants them. How are we going to at least get a handle on that? And that ' s where the spacing criteria became a factor and the market study became a factor with associated site design and standards . So -- Page 12 111 May 13 , 1998 MR. MULHERE: I think I would have to add -- Bob Mulhere -- that we got more than I think general direction fro7 the hoard. It was actually quite specific to look at, locate -- restricting the ability for gas stations to locate, you know, without regard to the number within an activity center . And beyond that then to look at addition•il architectural landscaping, signage restrictions . And then beyond that we got direction to include as a component of this a market study. And so there are, I guess, several angles or hoops which someone who wishes to -- to -- depending or. where they are, if they have the zoning or they have to request the zoning, they will have to go through to establish the ability to -- to construct a service station in an activity center . And it also provides a -- an opportunity for the board to look at the development of service stations within PUDs that already have that right through this proc(m: . So -- and the other thing is that we did look at -- - initially we did work with the attorney' s office and we found that we are within our rights to regulate, through a distance requirement , the number of service stations . :;e do that currently, as you probably are aware, for establishments that are primarily engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, bars and nightclubs . There is a distance requirement -- separation requirement for those establishments and there is a waiver process through which they can go to the Board of County Commissioner:; to redur,e or entirely wive that di ;!an't'e, eJ!.d th.1t ' .' why we structured this in the form of a waiver . We will have toworkwith the attorney' s office. My preference is that it stay in MS . STUDENT: I don' t recall that . Maybe it was, but I don' t recall that the other thing was called a waiver, hut maybe . MP,. MULHERE: It still is . MS. STUDENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: Well , I see what we' re trying to accomplish here, but I -- I am wondering. Let 's take activity center number four there. If somebody went into a service station, let ' s say, on the northwest corner there, you put one in there, it would Neem to me that then you do your five hundred foot -- five hundred foot circle around it, that would preclude one without a variance going in across the street. MR. MILK: ' That ' s correct . COMMISSIONER YORK: But it might be -- but it might be in the best public interest for another service station to be there for safety and convenience, across the street . Five hundred feet this way indicating) , five hundred feet that way, five hundred feet that wayisfine, but crossing an arterial road and using, you know, the arterial road as part of your five hundred foot circle I think might be a problem. MR. MULHERE: Well, that' s part of the reason that we put in number one on page ten. Understanding they would still have to go through the process, they can demonstrate that there's some natural or manmade barrier that -- that -- let ' s say reduces the need for the 411 distance or the separation requirement and gives cause for the boars Page 13 411 May 13 , 1998 for public health, safety, welfare or even for convenience -- to suggest that maybe across a divided highway another service station appropriate because otherwise you'-d be forcing traffic to continue down somewhere to make a U-turn, and this way they can access it right off the exit. And that' s -- that' s the intent of that . And you don' t- have to meet all of these, you know. That decision is up to the board. But there' s not a requirement, I don' t think, ',hat these are inclusive, that you have to meet all of them. You :simply need to maks, your case, state your case. COMMISSIONER YOP' : Well , I don' t have any probls•rn with limiting the number of those kinds of uses within an activity center . I just don' t know if I can agree with the way - - with your formula . MR. MILK: It is restrictive, no doubt about that . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Mr . Wraoe. CO 1ISSIONER WRAGE: And that' s what I 'm struggling with. First of all, I live there. We should have about three more . We need a gas war in that area, but -- say there' s two right across from one another, what is the criteria that I am going to have to deny one say on the other side of the interstate? MR. MILK: Typically, the market study. COMMISSIONER WPAGE: But then I am not sure that that falls within the realm of the folks up here. I may know what a market study is or I may not , you know. But how many, you know -- and I realize it ' s, you kncw, the guy that' s going to put the gas station there definitely wants one. And if there' s two gas stations and only five thousand cars going through there in a day, he ' s obviously going to put one, you know. I 'm not sure that criteria corresponds to the board. I don' t know. Obviously, the commissioner thought it did. MS. MURRAY: It would be part of the required criteria, I mean, you would be considering a lot of other things, too, in addition to the market study. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, that ' s what I 'm asking. What am I going to turn this -- what ' s the criteria that ' s going to cause me to turn that down other than the fact that I just don' t want another gas station there? MR. MULHERE: Well, they' re listed on page ten. And in addition to the market study, those other criteria listed there are what the Planning Commission and the Board will review in order to make a determination as to whether or not a waiver in all or in part of that five hundred foot separation should he granted. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The unknown quantity here -- and it's -- time will tell, I suppose, if this is approved is -- how strict ultimately the Board of County Commissioners wants to be location-wise. MR. MILK: I mean, we have struggled with how to provide--this criteria in a manner that is reasonable and strategic in looking at it on a case-by-case basis, providing that criteria that Mr . Wrage had cited, you know, what are we going to look at, does that make sense, is it applicable, and so forth. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Sure. 111 MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, if I could just kind of switch gears Page 14 May 13 , 1998 for just a second, because T especially wanted to call your attention to -- on page eight, section two six two eight two, because you did not receive that as part of your original submittal , and it does kind of deal a little bit with exceptions, especially for existing gasoline service stations, because what you' re going to find is, for instance, on the south side of Pine Ridge Road, that there' s gas stations that are next door to each other, and basically the code as it ' s written would -- or not as it ' s written now but would render those nonconforming should one of those service stations disappear. Basically, what we tried to do here was - - and it ' s a little hit complicated and tedious, the language, but we tried to say that if you are an existing automobile service station, and I know in one or two cases there was a planned unit development that was approved with very specific architectural criteria -- if you are either one of those, then the criteria specifically one through five, and those relate to the dimensional requirements -- the minimum frontage, the minimum depth, the minimum lot or parcel size and the separation requirements:, you would not he con: idered noncoar rl.miriq if you were either an existing gasoline station or you were approved under this -- these PUDs with regard to those five criteria . However, what we then tried to do in a matter of fairness to other service stations that would come in later on, because the code is quite restrictive when you got into landscaping and signage, 40 setbacks -- not setbacks, but specifically landscaping and signage, building colors, et cetera, was we didn' t want to penalize the service stations that came in later that were going to be required to have the smaller ground signs and that were going to he required to have undulating berms and be heavily landscaped. We said that those service stations that were not -- nonconforming under the separation requirements and dimensional requirements, however, should they meet the other criteria in the code as far as nonconformities go -- in other words, should they cease to exist for ninety days, they would he required to bring their sites up to criteria six through eighteen, which would include the landscaping and signage, but that they wouldn' t be required to go away because they didn' t meet the five hundred feet requirement or the site -- minimum site area requirement . So we tried to do that so we didn' t mess too many people up. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr . Bruet . COMMISSIONER BRUET: Does this criteria, Susan, only apply to activity centers or is this throughout the county? MS. MURRAY : It ' s throughout the county. So, yeah, your commercial zoning districts would fall under that . COMMISSIONER BRUET: So if one commercial is a PUD and he has permission or a listed use of a service station and opposite or on the other side of the road you have another commercial PUD, he has service station in there, first come, first served is what you're saying;; i.s that right? MR. MILK. That ' s correct . COMMISSIONER BRUET: So the second user, even though he has an approved PUD with a service station, he would have to go through the Page 15 A May 13 , 1998 variance process, of course, to be able to -- MR. MULHERE: Actually, we will call it a waiver for now until we the waiver process. COMMISSIONER YORK: I understand that the County Attorney or somebody has said that that would he perfectly, you know, within our rights to do this . MS. STUDENT: Well, let me explain what I looked at . I looked at, I think, a five hundred foot linear, you know -- I have to go back and read the cases to see about this business of across the street , because I think I was -- I think what I looked at -- and I didn' t know that was a wrinkle in it , in the RLS, linear , you know, per one side of the street, and that' s what. I looked at . MR. MULHERE: 'ilell , I can only tell you that we know of many, whether they' re legal or not, we know of many other municipalities and counties which have distance separation requirements for service stations and other types of establishments, whether they' re sexually oriented businesses or whether they are establishments primarily engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, and our own code, in fact , has a very similarly structured separation requirement for establishments primarily engaged in the nale of alrehnl is heave rngon , So we will have to take a look at that , too, then in that case. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, no, I think that that -- I think that that ' s all right, but, you know, I am just telling you, you know, when the 40 question is %asked, that our office reviewed it and, you know, I have to go back and just read -- I have to just look at one of the cases, really, to see if they have the ordinance in there that states how it's measured. COMMISSIONER YORK: I think that maybe five hundred linear feet might be a better term -- MR. MULHERE: We can take a look at that . COMMISSIONER YORK: -- so you could have it across the street . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : I guess that ' s what we' re getting down to, and I guess at the end of this discussion we may want to take a straw vote and see where we' re at on the locational criteria. I had -- I had some points I wanted to 'lake on some different parts to it if we' re ready. Anybody have any more questions on the locational aspect? Needless to say, moving to the signage part on page seven, is it? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Some observations. On the window signs, the code the LDC currently has, and I think it 's twenty-five percent, is the maximum coverage you can have of windows . It' s either twenty or twenty-five percent; I can' t remember which. And I would -- the concern we have with particularly service stations, which cover their windows completely, is one of enforcement. I mean, we can change it from twenty-five percent to zero and if we don' t enforce it, nothing is going to happen anyway. I just throw out that you might want' ,to look at that twenty-five percent that' s currently in the code as being sufficient to handle it. 111 MS. STUDENT: I just -- this is something, too, that our office Page 16 May 13 , 1998 is going to look into. I think we did it where we did put some content things on the Marco Island overlay because everybody -- there was a consensus on that, but I just want to look and see where else wehavedonethisinourcode, because what you try to do is to make the regulation content neutral but -- in other words, you would have it - requirement be so small , maybe that 's all you could get on the sign. There's other means to accomplish what you' re trying to do.MR. MILK: I think, Mr. Davis, you made a good point the other day about safety and to he able to see through all of that propaganda and advertisements so you could see the interior of the building asyouapproach. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, yeah, as I told you -- we discussed this the other day that, you know, if I pull up to a convenience store/service station at one o'clock in the morning, I look inside and look aroundbeforeIgoin, and if I can' t see inside, I simply go to another one.You know, it is -- 1 think it is a safety i n^ue, hecauno rather than walk in on a robbery in progress . COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Do you have any work at one o'clock in the morning? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, that's social . Moving along, under ItemB, where you talk about an illuminated corporate logo, a maximum of twelve square feet can be on canopy, and then there is still, in addition to that, the way I read this, the ability to have a wall 40 sign as you would normally be allowed under the LDC. MR. MILK: That is correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I would -- I would say to you that I think just leaving it the ability to have a wall sign or two wall signs ifthey're on the corner, so be it, period. Whether they choose to putitonthecanopyoronthebuilding, I think that ' s up to them. I don' t see a reason for gas stations to be treated special and be given an extra identification out on the canopy that the next business wouldn' t, be it a bank or whatever. The prohibition MR. NINO: If the convenience store is a significant part of thedevelopmentandtheywantedtoputawallsignovertheconveniencestorebutthegasolineorientedsignswouldbeonthecanopy, wouldyoufindthat -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, I think it just should be one -- I'm sayingitshouldbeonewallsign, period, and if it's a national brand name of gasoline and some convenience store operation that has a Subway orBlimpie' s or something in it, common practice in this county is ifonceyoudotheformulation, if they' re allowed seventy-eight squarefeetinsignage, those three logos can be put in a row on the buildingtrappedinarectangle, perfectly legal . And I think -- it just strikes me that why treat them differently than the rest of the retailbusinesses . And I particularly like the idea that the canopies cannotbebacklit. I find those offensive and they really light upatnight .On the pole signs, I would suggest that like we did in o architectural standards, that we might consider the criteria ?tdbe =the same as outparcels in a shopping center where as I recall it provides 111 a maximum height of fifteen feet, sixty square feet in sign area and Page 17 May 13 , 1998 then all of the landscaping at the base and elsewhere that's in the architectural standards. Seems-- seems a reasonable way to go. The ones we have seen that have sprung up since we passed the architectural standards look pretty darn nice. They' re pretty much in scale with the building they represent . And a point on that, elevation always seems to be a concern, that, you know, right now they are measured to the centerline of the road, which can be quite a bit higher than the surrounding property, which means you don' t get a fifteen foot sign, you get one that 's twenty-two feet tall . I would suggest that the height be measured to the parkinct lot elevation of that particular business. It strikes me then as you drive by, everything is in scale. MR. MILK: Do you have any prohibition about that natural landscaped area around that, either pole sign or ground sign? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, I think that two hundred square foot landscaped area, in the architectural standards, it ' s what, a hundred square feet_? MR. MILK: I believe it is a hundred or a hundred twenty. It's a little less. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, I think that' s good because usually it's going to -- it's going to work in with their landscaping requirement anyway. So I think that -- MR. MILK: We will have to fit it into the concept of the berm and tree clu::ter and that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You haven' t -- you haven' t given any prohibition against directional signs, so you would go to the LDC for that? MR. MILK: That' s correct . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And where there' s no limitation -- so you can put two six-square footers at each and every entrance. So if you have got three entrances, you have got six, maybe eight, six-square foot directional signs . MR. MILK: This was the only departure from the sign code, these A, B, C and D here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I was driving towards a point . You might want to look at limiting those, because if you -- if you reduce it one place, the logical thing to do is look where else you can get more. And you might want to limit it -- I 'd throw out two per -- MR. MILK: Entry. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- entry point. Because I think that's from a safety standpoint, that gives the ability to say entrance, exit, I think would suffice. That' s the only comments I had on that aspect of it. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I have another comment about air and water. I don' t know why without charge is in there. I don' tbelieve we can constitutionally tell people that they can' t charge for something. MR. MILK: But that is in there, though. We have addressed that . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That air and water has to be free. MR. MILK: Yes, sir. 411 MS. STUDENT: Well, I don' t believe it 's -- excuse me, I don' t Page 18 May 13 , 1998 believe it 's constitutional, so I think it needs to be removed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well , two weeks from tonight - MS. STUDENT:, I am telling you my gut feeling. 7I am not going tobeabletofindacaseonthis. I discussed this with ML . Weigel, and he' S in agreement with me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MS. STUDENT: So I think it- needs to be removed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That concern dealing - - MR. MILK: Can we say provided as a service and not free of charge? Can we -- MS. STUDENT: Why can' t we just -- all we' re concerned with in mymindiswheretheyput -- this is all the county ought to be concerned with is where they put the facility for it . I don' t know why we' re concerned with whether they charge or not . To me that ' s irrelevant to a zoning code. And what the constitutional problem is impairment of the obligdtion of contract where the local government starts telling people, you know, what -- what you can charge or how: you have to deal with your clientele. And furthermore, there may be a substantive due process problem with it that we have taken some revenues, you know.So unless you can show me a compelling -- really compelling reason whyit's in there, I think that we can ju ,t address the location of those things and if they charge or don' t charge, you know, that's irrelevant to what we're about here. COMMISSIONER YORK: It 's like telling me if you have a checkingaccountwithme, I can' t charge you for checks . MR. MULHERE: That 's the next amendment . COMMISSIONER BRUET; Great idea . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You might on that -- on that matter, though, you might want to look at maximum size of identification of thosefacilities. I know -- I know that you have a prohibition against advertising above the pump, which I think is great. There may be something already in the code that I don' t recall that would limit ittolikemaybetwosquarefeetorsomethingbecauseI 've seen some, youknow, that there's air in, you know, eighteen-inch letters down the side of the unit . MR. MULHERE: And that' s usually free air . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That ' s -- that 's an attention getting device togetyouintothestation. Anything -- any other comments or any more input from staff onthisissue? Anyone from the public that would like to speak on thisissue? MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson. And Mr. Bruet. raised a very good question when he asked does this apply to locations otherthanactivitycenters. Indeed it does, and indeed it's going to render non-conforming many service stations and convenient stores throughout the county. And I think most of those folks may not knowwhat's -- what' s proposed here for them. I had not planned to speak tonight . I thought that X had .'thar_ staff had agreed to some specific language for exceptions from these Page 19 A May 13 , 1998 new requirements except for the operational standards, because those are how you operate your buninesr and tho ;., nrr thinqn thnt , you know, don' t impact how you have physically planned or constructed your building or what kind of landscaping you have already put in. Now, the -- the language that I saw for the first time tonight for exceptions - MS. STUDENT: I don' t think-- could I have -- I don' t think I was given that language unless 3 it's in the printout that Marie did today. I didn' t receive a handout like everybody else, and I 'm not sure if it 's in - - thank you. MR. ANDERSON: In the handout that came this evening, it ' s in -- on page eight in Section 2 . 6 .28.2 . That language i;: very limited. It only applies -- only accepts the requirements of subsection one through five. It has conflicting language internally in the exception language. And even though I am a mere lawyer, I find it hard to understand what the language is intended to -- to do. I know we had an explanation of it, but that ' s not really the way that it reads. I would like to read into the record really the eery straight forward and simple language that I had proposed and that I thought had been agreed to and I expected to see tonight . Exceptions : Except for Section 2 . 6 . 28 . 2 , operational standards, the provisions of Section 2 .6 .28 shall not apply to nor render non-conforming any existing automobile service station or convenienr.e 411 store selling motor fuels or any existing PUD in which a specific architectural rendering or graphic depiction was approved for an automobile service station or convenience store selling motor fuels . End of -- end of the language. The rationale for this amendment is that other than operational standards, these new regulations should only apply prospectively and should not make non-conforming any existing service station or convenience store or a PUD such as the Angileri PUD that I was involved with. You -- some of you were on the Planning Commission at the time that the Angileri PUD came before you. In fact, it came before you twice. The second time was a charm. And there were numerous additional specific development standards imposed on this POD solely because it was going to have a service station convenience store located in the front of it . And one of those additional restrictions was a commitment to a specific architectural rendering, except to the extent that it conflicted with the county' s soon to be adopted architectural guidelines . This PUD was -- was ahead of the curve when it came to architectural guidelines . We proposed them before the county ever adopted them, and we have got them in the PUD. We also agreed voluntarily to more stringent landscaping requirements than were otherwise imposed, and these folks are in the middle of the site development plan process . And this -- these new standards would render it non-conforming before it -- before the doors ever opened. And based on the factual record for the Angileri PUD, I think that they clearly have a vested right to the service station as was approved specifically in their PUD. Page 2O 7 x , _ May 13, 1998 They' re very different from any other PUD in Collier County that may authorize generically a service station. The record is quite clear and Racetrack only closed on the front parcel after all the zoning approvals were in place, tied specifically to its existence. And I would like to point out something interesting on these maps that we're shown. With this five hundred foot separation requirement, if it were applied blanketly, the Racetrack service station could not be built as approved in the front, fronting on Pine Ridge Road. However, they could build much closer to the residences at the back of the Angiieri PUD, because that's outside of the five-hundred-foot radius . But I would just ask you to approve some straight forward exception language that will not subject the county to undue litigation and will not render non-conforming many mom-and-pop operations that have existed for many years here in the county. What they're proposing is fine to be applied prospectively, but you shouldn' t render non-conforming people who have already been in operation for a number of years or a PUD, such as the Angileri, where specific standards were imposed with everybody' s full knowledge that a service station was going in. And I will be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMA"1 DAVIS: Any questions of Mr. Anderson? Aft COMMISSIONER BRUET: I have one quick one. If the -- for the gas stations that are made non-conforming due to this, what does that really mean to them? What impact does that have on a ten, fifteen year-old gas station that's been doing business for ten years? MR. ANDERSON: Okay. That means if they close down for ninety days, I believe -- MS . STUDENT: I believe it' s a hundred and eighty days . MR. ANDERSON: A hundred and eighty. Or if they -- if the building is damaged by more than fifty percent of the value, then they can't rebuild except in conformity with these new guidelines, these new requirements . MR. MULHERE: Except the -- except the waiver requirements because the language that we proposed did -•- did exempt those existing gas stations from the waiver requirements, But Mr. Anderson is correct that the other conditions that we proposed here would apply. Is that -- is that correct based on the language that we -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: You need to clarify that. Now I am confused. MR. NINO: Well, I believe the intent -- the intent of our language is that existing gas stations, in the event of destruction, right, would be able to rebuild, but they would have to comply'With all other -- lot improvement, architectural standards, Land g.,Development Code standards. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So you' re bringing them -- you would bring them -- through that -- would bring them up to the current standards . MR. NINO: Yeah, yeah. 41, COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. rv`_ Page 21 111 May 13 , 199R MR. HILY: To -- to really the greatest extent possible, becau,, they may not have a hundred and fifty foot frontage and they may not have thirty thousand square feet . Rut that is correct . MR. ANDERSON: That leeway language is not in it there, though, friends . It is in there for landeaping --- generally for the landscaping section in the code. It says when you have a non-conforming structure and you want to rebuild it, it says you will comply to the extent feasible or possible. There are some, you know, elastic words in there that allow for some discretion and good judgment to be exercised. That language is absent from this draft . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Would -- Mr . - - nomoorie from : t a t f could respond to Mr. Anderson. MR. NINO: Does Mr. Anderson have a problem with using his language and providing that nevertheless any existing gas station that did not meet the locational criteria would nonetheless specifically be required to comply with development improvement standards, but are clearly exempt from the dimensional -- the spacing requirement? Would you have a problem with that, Bruce? MP. .MULHERE: I could swear that ' s what I said, but -- HP. NINO: Would you have a problem with that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, I would. I look at the landscaping standards and, you know, we're going to have undulating berms with a three-to-one slope, landscaping adjacent to all property lines . If a service station parcel is internal to the PUD, if they back up to a motel or a fast food restaurant, why should we have these extra landscaping requirements applied? Earlier we were talking about not cutting them -- not giving them any greater degree of flexibility than is permitted under -- other businesses under the code, nor should we be more unduly restrictive on such standards than for other uses under the code. MR. MULHERE: I tend to agree that -- well, we' re talking about to my knowledge, there's only one -- one PUD that went through the process of submitting a very detailed, very specific rendering and agreed to additional architectural landscaping, lighting and signage requirements, and -- and that was fairly recently. So I tend to agree that, you know, the intent was to structure an exception that excluded those. It happens that there's only one, but those types of -- of proposed service stations that have gone through that process . I think the concern on the staff ' s part was that we not also take away the ability in the future, if an existing service station was destroyed for any reason by an extent of greater than fifty percent, that we not take away the ability for us during the improvement of that, the reconstruction of that facility to apply the additionalstandards, that, in fact, will even apply, to theAngileri PUD by their commitment to those standards during the 't1' ,roee : These may be a little more restrictive in some ways, andthey're probably a little less restrictive. And -- and I think that you know, that we can live with an exception that -- that identifies` those those service stations that are permitted in the PUD that were 0 approved by the Board and -- and had a specific rendering attached to Page 22 May 13, 1998 . that approval, a very site specific rendering attached to that approval . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: How does that sound? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it sounds good in concept, but so did mypreviousdiscussions. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And we have two weeks from tonight that I am sure the staff will welcome you, Mr . Anderson, to -- to work somethingoutalongthoselines, because what I hear being said here seems to make sense. MR. NINO: I think clearly staff is saying it agrees that - andlet's face it, if the Angileri PUD by virtue of its specific approval should be exempted to that non-conforming -- that gas stations that are non-conforming by virtue of the spacing requirement would beallowedtorebuild, no question, they would be exempted. However, in the process of rebuilding they would have to comply with the enhanceddevelopmentstandardsoftheservicestationsection. MR. MULHERE: Excluding one through six, one through five, whichis -- if I can find that here. MR. NINO: Lot area dimensions . MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. NINO: I am talking about landscaping and signage.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, and I think the language that Mr. MilkmentionedthatIthink -- the similar language in our landscape code as best they can. COMMISSIONER YORK: Where feasible. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I mean, you know, let' s face it, if there's not enough width there at the front of the property for the landscapingbufferthat' s required, what are you going to do? MR. MULHERE: Perhaps that's some language that we can address.We can -- we can -- I think we can get together and put somethingtogether. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I don' t mean to belabor the point because there's a lot of instances in here of these standards that are not accepted that conflict with things that were specifically approved onthisPUD, and I just don' t want to find my clients non-conformingbeforetheyeveropentheirdoors . MR. MULHERE: No, I -- we agree with that and I think maybe wedidn't structure the language entirely to get at the issues that are of concern to you, but I think we can. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Yes. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question of staff . On outsidedisplayproducts, does that mean there would be no longer sidewalk sales allowed or tent sales that the businesses have? MR. MILK: On a temporary basis, there is an ability to have thetemporarysale, temporary use. I believe it' s twenty-eightcalendardaysayear . But from a normal display on a continual basis, norE Ash COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Do they need a permit to do that? lip MR. NINO: Yes . Pigs 23 May 13, 1998 1?- 4CHAIRMAN DAVIS So in other words, they' re not going to everysingleweekendhavePepsi-Cola or Coke stacked up the sideof thebuildingrunningasale. kMR. MILK: if they do, they have to get a temporary use permit toA84, ;: do so through our process. _< COMMISSIONER PEDONE: It's only two seventy-nine.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The -- right now you're talking -- a criteria ofafive-hundred-foot radius out from the existing business?MR. MILK: Actually, it's a parcel boundary.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Parcel boundary?MR. MILK: It's an airline distance. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, okay. MR. MILK: So it would be more of a geometric.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So it would be a square?MR. MILK: A square. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. How does that differ from -- oh, geez,w the word just - MR. YORK: Lineal? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Lineal -- that Miss Student --MR. MILK: It depends on how it' s applied. Lineal across theStreetorlinealonthesamesideofthestreet?4,44 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So lineal could be applied to only one side ofthestreet? MR. MILK: Based on some of the discussions, right.410 COMMISSIONER YORK: That's what I would -- MR. NINO: When we talk about lineal, it would be limited to onesideofthestreet . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. So in other words, one could locate .. across the street and then that same lineal five hundred feet wouldcomeintoplayforthatsideofthestreet? MR. NINO: Exactly. fisc: CONMKISSIONER YORK: I am much more comfortable with that.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: What I was at there is if it's a twolanestreet, there's really not a problem. But once it gets to four lanesandespeciallysixlanes, my idea is that four lanes are more -- isthatwhatyou' re saying? That' s just my thought .CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Arterials? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Four lanes or more. MR. NINO: Well, let' s face it, eventually all of our arterialswillbesixlanes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. Just just a thought. I don' t. know howtherestofyoufeelaboutit. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I -- I agree with Don. I think you need tolookintothelineartypeofameasurementasopposedtotheimpactsontheothersideoftheroad. I think that's -- you're asking forsomelitigationthere, headaches, i think. a.. MR. MILK:- Just an airline distance all the way from tt a _ownership boundary. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I would encourageg you to look more4 `sr YF Page 24 Malt 11, 1998 lineal criteria. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone here -- what ' s everybody think about the idea of a lineal -- lineal criteria of five hundred feet on each side of the street? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think it ' s a good idea. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Everybody -- we all seem to feel very comfortable with that as opposed to the as the crow flies . MR. NI O: Okay. So we will carry that forward. MR . MILK: That ' s four-lane divided or undivided? COMMISSIONER YORK: Well , the problem I think we have there is, you know, what the traffic plans are for the future. I think that I think that -- especially in an activity center that holds true, but I think it would hold true for anywhere in the county as long as -- as long as the standard is there and it ' s lineal , you know, being either side of the street, this street being any street . MP . NINO: But the exception if it ' s lineal , then that would be remcved from the exception provision and the remaining criteria would apply. COMMISSIONER YORK: Yes . COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think it ' s even worse for the two-lane highways . You take Davis Boulevard at 91 , you have the Mobil on one side and whoever it is or. the other side . If you don' t want -- if somebody's trying to get into Mobil and they' re heading west, they' re holding up •_he traffic trying to make a turn behind them and the traffic going to get on 951 isn' t letting anybody in. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I think the other thing, too, is if it's a if it's a feasible location for a gas station, it ' s only a matter of time before that' s going to be a major roadway anyway, in most cases. MR. MULHERE: That ' s no problem. We will carry forward that recommendation. COMMISSIONER YORK: But I think the market study requirements and all that still should be in place. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I wanted to go back and make one comment when I was talking about that sixty square feet . The code also currently allows ten square feet additional for gasoline service stations. I would suggest that that not apply here. And at some future time I would suggest that ' s taken out of the code. It gets right back to treating everybody the same again. MR. MULHERE: I think one of the things we need to do is make sure that the sign code references -- references these -- these special sign restrictions for service stations. and we need to make sure that the sign code is consistent with these special - CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, I think as I recall, it's ten square feet additional for pricing reader boards . MR. MULHERE: So we will -- we will take a look at that, CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, I don' t really think you need that. .° ' MR. MILK: But you feel comfortable with that outparcel signage criteria that we have used recently, then? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, the ones we've seen. There's one right Page 25 7 1FAII May 13' 1998 mOI out here at Santa Barbara and Radio, that outparcel there put in the g, smaller version, and it's in scale with the directories for the shopping center. To me that's an example of where it worked very nicely. MR. MULHERE: I saw one at the McDonald' s on the East Trail, too. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh., yeah, It seem.^, to be working real well . f Anything -- any other concerns, comments or questions on the gasoline service stations? All ight. I guess we can move on, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Told you Bruce was good for an hour. CHAIRMAN DAVIS Not very `much people showed up, but ,. COMMISSIONER YU?Y.: Thank God. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And you trill probably have to call us back to the right page number . COMMTSSIONEP. BRUET: Bruce is as good as a hundred. MR. NINO: We wish to sneak in an additional sign regulation. The staff was encountering problems withtethered aiyns and things . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Balloons . M.P.. MULHERE: I can tell you what the issue is. We don' t allow inflatable signs . They're prohibited by the code. But the code words it, it said -- it says prohibited tethered. And we have an appeal pending which we' re looking at that makes the case that -- or rather an interpretation pending, that makes the case that since -- that an oinflatable s .gn that is not tethered but is anchored otherwise is not in violation of the code. We don' t think that was the intent, but we' re going -- we're proposing to amend the ordinance to take the word "tethered" out so that inflatable signs remain prohibited. MR. NINO: This is a prohibited sign. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Taking the word out to make the code representative of what our intent was in the first place. MR. MULHERE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think it's a great idea. MR. MULHERE: Tethered. MR. NINO: The next amendment deals with the requirement -_ CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Page? MR. NINO: Pardon me? Seventy-five. MR. MULHERE: Seventy-four. MR. NINO: Seventy-four. COMMISSIONER YORK: Marker signs for non-residential projects, MR. NINO: Oh, yeah, okay. This is an amendment to section two five, which would allow for three boundary marker ground or wall signs at developments larger than forty-five acres for residential -. .large residential projects, provided there's a -- provided there's: a three-hundred foot separation between any two boundary marker signs. Again with the same limitation that we have now that no ;sign exceed thirty-two square feet nor contain any other promotion o salt -1 tti material. Apparently there is a strong wish by the developmen ..°cotm t n ity to 41,' allow those types of project marker signs and we don't have a problem Page 26 411 may 13 , 1998 with it from our point of view. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The D.R. I. for Island Walk included signage like this. Basically, it shows you where a project begins, where the entrance is and where it ends. The only comment I have is I think it should be sixteen square feet instead of thirty-two. MR. NINO: Sixteen? 116-_h CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thirty-two is .allowed at the main entrance so why not let these proportionately be half of what ' s allowed at the main entrance rather than equal to. Just seems logical . MR. NINO: Well, we bow to your expertise in the area of signs . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anybody COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I am just wondering if the reason the sign was kept bigger was - - I am wondering if the sign was kept larger because of the visual -- for some of the elderly that can' t see, perhaps. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think at sixteen square feet you' re still okay. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Still all right? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Because you' re going to keep it pretty simple. It's just going to be the name of the project to identify that that' s where it begins. MR. NINO: I think Calusa Bay. That's probably not any largereAskthansixteensquarefeet, on Goodlette Road there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I am just afraid at thirty-two, that's " four -feet by eight feet. That's -- you know, that's a big sign. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Does she mean the four guys at the end wearing glasses? MR. NINO: And this is a long-standing controversial item of who shall sign landscape plans and we' re being specific here about -- MR. MULHERE: No, no. MR. NINO: No? MR. MULHERE: This is not landscape plans . This is the sign code. MR. NINO: I 'm sorry, the sign code. MR. MULHERE: It's not controversial. MR. NINO: It requires a registered architect to sign -- allow the Florida registered architect to sign advertising signs. . MR. MULHERE: That is consistent with state statutes, COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Is it only a Florida registered architect? MR. NINO: No, currently engineers are allowed. The architects were ticked off that they weren' t allowed to do that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's consistent with what we doelsewhei ? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. It's consistent with .the; 'Statutes . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No objections? MR. NINO: The next item deals with administrative ability to grant minor deviations to yard requirements. We have that - ,We :have that ability now and it's generally thought to be two and a half:: t > . inches, however, there is another section that provides for a variance 71,41) granting -- an administrative variance of up to ten percent,;-;It'.. to Page 2'7 I I Aft MP May 13 , 1998 exceed two feet. Well, because of the way the ordinance is worded, quite frankly, we found ourselves regularly granting two-foot ; administrative variances, and I think we can safely say that' that's not -- just simply not desirable and the development community, quite frankly, 'is taking advantage of us. We' re --- we' re processing a tremendous number of them right now, and we don' t think that's the intent of the zoning ordinance. However, we agree that two and a half inches is` a -- is a very small tolerance or very small threshold andl i.; that ' perhaps it ought to he emended up to : ix i rwh.ni . And that would be a reasonable resolution, we think, of the problem that faces the development irdust.ry when they go r '. build a house. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Seems reasonable. MR. MTILHERE: `tech, I think -- I will just add something. It's a question of -- the two different typesypes o£ administrative variances were for two different scenario:, . One i:; you have a mistake that's made during construction and it's a very small mistake. In this case no more than two point five inches. We would like that to be increased to six inches to give us a little more flexibility. The other one is you have the existing home that may have been constructed several -- ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, and there is a violation -- 4 - `.there is a violation of thea encroachment of the setback discovered .1Y ' during a survey, and we' have up'°to two and a half feet in that -- in that situation. Those are the two scenarios. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That still applies. MR. MULdERE: That's correct. 4" CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, we have to deal with that . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And if no one has any objections to that? . COMMISSIONER BRUET: That's a great idea. COMMISSIONER YORK: I think it ought to be a foot . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: They say'that 's what they feel comfortable with. MR. NINO: The next item resultrs from concerns raised by . the Revenue Department relative to the location and accessibility of.dumpsters. And in response to their concern, an amendment was -- a 1 proposed amendment was drafted. The specifications for this amendment, quite frankly, are authored by the revenue people that deal with the matter of dumpsters. And in terms of the access issues and how the approaches ought to be constructed, these recommendations are Ed Kant,s, and we feel comfortable that those two specialists know what they' re doing and that these, therefore, would be appropriate regulations. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any concerns`? MR. NINO: We added -- we added the pictorials to become ,a part of the ordinance amendment. 4z The next item deals with home occupations. I would ask you - we're pulling that one all together. Forget that. We're 'pul,li 'igthat. People feel that that is one that has some constitutiona e, ,,' issues and others feel that it has a tremendous administrative uurden that perhaps ought to be dealt with in some other manners, ,40CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. I. thought it was a .good ide K 4a Page : $' r 411 May 13 , 1998 MR. NINO: Thank you. I thought it was, too. Nobody else did. MR. MULHERE: Part of the difficulty -- part of the difficulty in we think it' s -- well, according to Marjorie, it ' s probably not within our rights to say what you can and cannot put in your garage if you otherwise meet the conditions of the home occupation. In other worti, to say that you have got to keep your garage available to park your car, you can' t put something else in there. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, but what about people who park their commercial vehicles in the driveway or alongside the house? Is that included in this? MR. MULHERE: There are specific exemptions to allow them to either have to screen it or not, and there' s a separate section MS. STUDENT: We cover that in a separate section. The problem was we have another ordinance about vehicles parking in the right-of-way, but I understand from Mr . Mulhere that home occupations aren't supposed to be having clients come there anyway. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MS. STUDENT: So, you know, the constitutional overbreadth comes ' with trying to add a lot of stuff in the ordinance, and when you get down to the basics, it's just thou shalt not park a vehicle in your driveway that' s within a county right-of-way. And that' s the regulation. And when you look at all of these other things, we get into areas we shouldn' t be regulating when the bottom line is this is liowhat we need to do. That's the problem with constitutional overbreadth. MR. NINO: Let me say, I believe we have a problem here. L personally experience it in the area that I live in. Bob knows I have been talking about this for a couple of years, and I still think it's an avenue that needs to be explored. There are a lot of home occupation businesses that we have granted in this county, like landscapers, for example, who by the nature of their business are going to have their equipment at home, and they're always going to push the envelope. They constantly pose a code enforcement problem. They spend a -- they consume an awful lot of the county's time, and we need to do something about it . And I can tell you that I'm not going to give up, and I will be back again. MR. MULHERE: I would just make the suggestion that the next time we propose an amendment we work with code enforcement before we bring it to this board. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Sounds good. We look forward to it. MR. NINO: Next item deals with the amendment to the communications tower provisions to provide for -- for dishes, and, Bryan, would you like to give us some background on that? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mister communications towers. MR. MILK: These changes really are not substantive, hey°'re basically changes that we -- seem necessary for this particular': ordinance and this era, the era being the P.C.S. communication tower that we' re now faced with and really the more pertinent criteria that we provided for is under Section 2 . 6 . 35 . 6 ,2 , 1, where it talks-About 110 the base of a communication tower . Any tower up to seventy-five fees. tr Page 29 N may 13 , 1005e'; in height is a permitted use, however, it ' s got to be set back from the residential zoning district by seventy-five feet . We don' t want lthe case where you have got a monopole in somebody's back yard or Yk somebody's side yard. There has to be some area of open space between the single-family house and that base of the tower . And we were afraid -- it hasn' t happened yet. We were trying to eliminate that real process . The other change -- we have had a lot of the P.C. S. providers aggravated because in the code, it you don ' t have twenty acres in an agricultural zoning district, you can' t have a communication tower whatsoever. If you don ' t have twenty acres and you don' t have a central service site, like a fire station or a sheriff ' s station, you can't ask the board for a communication tower. What this proposes is that if you have twenty acres or less, then you're going to go to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission to ask for thatspecific_ tower . 7t , in fact, applies or provides a mechanism now through the process to ask for a communication tower on those properties that aren' t twenty acres. And the problem the site acquisition people are having is -- and a lot of these areas are remote . They can only co l l ec f l vely annemhl ofiveortenacresandnotthetwentyacres . So in effect that area is unserviceable because they can' t get enough -- it can' t get contracts or leases on a twenty-acre parcel . And that ' s usually -- and we tried to say that based on problems of acquisition or renting or whatever, lip that's got to be provided for and we will bring that rationale for justification to the Planning Commission and the Board on these sites that are less than twenty acres. The twenty acres really goes back almost nine years ago now to what we originally looked at in the agricultural zoning district . So based on a long story short , if you don' t have twenty acres and you want a tower, there' s a public hearing process now to go through to state your case for the necessity of a tower. We' re Still providing for shared use of towers . Honestly, this is working very, very well in Collier County. The Sprint and the PrimeCo and S.B,A. , Nextel, a lot of those communication industry people are sharing withGTEandCellularOneandalotoftheselarger, self-supporting towers that we see in the industrial parks and commercial areas throughout town. We merely wanted to make it accessible for the twenty acres or less and give a setback for these residential areas that would be allowed a tower of seventy-five feet or less . And if I can answer any questions, I would be happy to do oto, CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any question of Mr. Milk? We will move right along.ya MR. NINO: The next item has to do with the amendment ter the subdivision regulations I am going to ask Tom Cook to makesure thatinhistimespenthere, that he at least gets to talk to-;youY MR. COOK: Yes, for the record, Tom Cook, Engineering plan keview Manager. a This proposed amendment is dealing with the rural area&re4ie, Page 30 44 410 ,,,May 13 , 1998 sub ivisions, which would require the subdivision to submit ae preliminary and final subdivision plat which they are exempt from now. And the reason we' re recommending this is to be consistent with the Florida State Statue 177, which requires platting whenever you have three or more lots. And, also, it would provide the opportunity to have the Board -- or the Planning Commission, the Board of, County Commissioners, and the public provide comment through the hearingYprocesswhenaruralsubdivisioni:; tieing proposed. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions? MR. COOK: Pretty straight. forward. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: They seem to like it, Mr . Cook. MR. COOK; Thank you MR. t7INO: Thanks, Tom. Now :we' re into the definition section. What happened to that? MR. MULHERE: Page ninety. MR. NINO: t'ie' re into an amendment that -- that would have -- an amendment to the site development plan section, ;hich very simplywouldrequirebicycles -- sidewalks and bike paths to he installed by the -- any person wishing to develop a property on a county -- on the county -- on a public street. And you have in your agenda package descriptions or illustrations that show how that would be achieved. Currently -- currently if someone comes in wit hasite Wdevelopment plan for, you know, a bank or anything on a street like Airport Road or any -- or Immokalee where there aren' t any e ,tewakn, r . there currently is no way thatA`we can require them to in tall,,a sidewalk. There are many people that feel, you know, that we have got to address this deficiency. It's true, people are going to argue well, the sidewalk that goes nowhere achieves nothing. But the fact of the matter remains that over, time when everybody adds a piece of sidewalk, eventually they all get hooked together and eventually we' re getting closer to the time when, there is indeed a system of sidewalks throughout the county on all the county's major thoroughdfares. . ' So we think that this is not an unreasonable burden for,a to developer of a piece of property that are asked to incur -- to build a piece of the county' s sidewalk system. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And if - and if it was a situation where it did make absolutely no sense, they could request to be exempted from it? MR. NINO: Yes. MR. MULHERE And, you know, this -- this comes into play wherewehavepreviouslyapprovedcommercialzoning, not wherea. new subdivision -- commercial subdivision or residential subdivision . for example would be approved, because that 's going to have the sidewalk requirement . it comes to this board through the PSP proceegillut there is a lot ofexisting commercial zoning out there .where: •areel by parcel there was no requirement for sidewalks endo -Y0‘1141":0),"!%70;4„. :11!.-likes, sense to have to construct them. 7 71' MR. NINO: Mike's got a problem with it . COMMISSIONER BRUET: No, I was wondering, have you ever 1,9leo ed S into the opportunity, you know, where they -- developers comez along Page 31 May 13 , 1998 and you know that a piece of sidewalk is going to sit there for four or five years with no practical use. why not make him contribute to j some kind of a fund so that you can -- MR. MULHERE: That's a possibility. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- you know, and take that money and put it into a project so some day you can put in some legitimate, functional sidewalks that have some N.R. NINO: I think I find -- yeah, I would agree. SI COMMISSIONER BRUET: Th:s is not -- this is not in the best z;s interests . MR. MULHERE: I think that is being currently done and can be done. That is an option. We' re -- obviously, it doesn' t make sense. They can through transportation agree to contribute their fair share of the construction costs and the actual construction could occur later on. That can happen. CO:'IMISSIONEP BRUET: That makes a lot more sense than this piecemeal stuff . To me it does. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, I think it ' s a great idea . MR. NINO: I would think this amendment, Bob, would have to indicate that a cash-in-lieu-of -- that would go into some kind of an escrow account or something. MR. MULHERE: Well, what we' ll do is we' ll talk with Ed Kant before we -- before our next meeting. Might want to make a note. 111 MS. STUDENT: That might really he something, too, that would go into a -- I don' t know if it would be part -- I guess it wouldn' t be part impact fee, but I don' t know that I see something like that in the code. It' s a different kind of ordinance than, you know, a regulation for how you develop the land. So that might be something that we need to talk about. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BRUET: You didn' t have any trouble creating impactfeesforeverythingelse. Why couldn' t you create one for sidewalks? MS. STUDENT: Well, no, I am saying that we have an impact fee ordinance, and it's in a different part of the land code. But I thinl it doesn' t need to be in this part, and we have already met our advertising, you know, and I think it should be in a stand-alone ordinance similar to the impact fee ordinances which are adopted by reference in the code. MR. NINO: This is a revision for what ' s in your package. This provides an exception to the native vegetation protection requirement for specific -- is this the one that provides -- no, that's not what this is. What the hell is this? I got mixed up here. MR. MULHERE: 3 .9 . 5 . 5 . MR. NINO: 3 . 9 . 5 . 5 . This provides for an exception for essentia services and cemeteries for the native vegetation preservation; , requirement. And Barbara Burgeson is here. It' s -- quite frankly, it's generated out of some specific concerns that we took under advisement . The matter did go to the E.A.B. , and I might advise you that the E.A.B. were opposed to providing any -- any reductions and any exemptions for agricultural or exemption service plans or Page 32 10 May 13, 1998 cemeteries or any special purpose use, they were opposed to thatproposition. However, staff remains of the opinion that you ought to a at least take the issue under advisement .v,,,- Barbara, do you have anything penial? MS. BURGESON: Other than to answer questions . For the record, re Barbara Burgeson with Current Planning. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions? r& MR. MULHERE: I think there's som'ore from the public . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Apparently not . MR. NINO: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If you have some comments on this, please coma up to the microphone and state your name for the record. MR. HINCHCLIFF: My name is Paul Hinchcliff . I am the chairman of the Environmental Advisory Board, and I appreciate the opportunitytotalkwithyoutonightaboutthisissue. And as Mr. Spagna says, yes, indeed, the board is opposed to granting an exemption such as this and would encourage you to end up thinking of this particularissueintermsofperhapsavariancethat, in this case, the cemeteryonthenorthendoftownmightendupapplyingforitasopposedto something that we need to amend the LDC in order to he able to accommodate. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ron, Mr. Hinchcliff makes -- sounds like a -- presents us a pretty good idea. What' s staff perspective on 410 that, because if it is a situation as cited by the example - MR. MULHERE: I had a fairly lengthy conversation with Mr. Hinchcliff this afternoon and I -- you know, I agree with a lot of theE.A.B. 's contentions or concerns that we' re providing an exception process that' s not broadly defined or narrowly defined, I should say.Although it is limited to agricultural zoning and it is limited to essential services or cemeteries, the genesis of this is a single-useissue. It is the Naples Memorial Gardens, which is the only cemeteryinCollierCounty. They came to us indicating that they were very close to having tokeepbodiesoniceandneededtoexpand. And we thought gee, that' s pretty close to an essential service, maybe we should provide an exemption from the native vegetation requirements from them. And maybe there would be some other circumstances down the road where an essential service, a government facility, it might make sense to provide some or all a waiver. Having discussed, though, the issue with Mr. Hinchcliff and agreeing to come -- to go back to the E.A.B. on their first June . ; meeting to discuss it further with them, you know, we are willing totakealooktoeithermore -- much more narrowly construct this, or perhaps to suggest that a variance process is the appropriate -- appropriate. I do want to say, though,, that it probably won' t be the.:end of the story because if Naples Memorial Gardens intends to come forward, they had hired Mr. Pickworth, who was also involved in structuringsomeofthislanguage, and he may be here in two weeks. He's not hereAnow, you know. I throw that out there only that there may be some Page 33 May 13 , 1998 other interested parties arguing on the other side. But I think that, you know, over the next two weeks we will work with this a little bit, and if we don' t structure it and change it to come back to you, we still intend to go back to the E.A.B. and carry their recommendation forward to the Board on this issue as well . So CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you for coming. MR. HINCHCLIFF: Mr. Nino, thank you very much for the time. MR. NINO: Thank you. Can we go over that item that I handed out? And that has to do with an amendment to vegetation replacement requirements. And the reason here is to encourage property owners and managers to remove non-native plant species which have invasive growth habits by reducing the replacement size from caliper for caliper to a 1 :1 ratio at the mitigation size listed in section three nine five five four. Barbara, do you have a minute to expand upon that amendment? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeon. What we're doinghereinthissectionrightnow, three nine five two six -- we right now require a like-for-like replacement . If someone wants to remove a non-native plant, we allow them to do that . They have to replace it, with native vegetation en a caliper per caliper basis. So let's just say somebody' s got a twenty-inch non-native plant they want to remove. We say that they need to replace it with a total of twentyinchesofnativevegetation. In some cases the non-native vegetation is -- is something thatnotonlydoweallowthemtoremove, but we would really want toencouragetheremovalof. And this allows for the exemption to that caliber per caliber basis for those plants we really want to encourage removal of and dropping the requirement down to fourteen inch - or I'm sorry, a fourteen-foot tree, which is what we're using right now as a mitigation standard in that same section, and it's referenced here as three nine five five four. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So if someone was in the position of what they originally planted years ago was okay in the code but now is no longer okay -- MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS : -- there is an incentive to replace them? MS. BURGESON: Yes, there is . COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Do you mean if I wanted to remove Melaleuca, I would have to replace it with something? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's different. MS. BURGESON: No, no, Melaleuca is different. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Well, it's not native. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but it's exotic. MS. BURGESON: Right. It' s specifically listed as one of the eight exotic, non-native, noxious species that we require removal. In the landscaping code, there's several other plants above and beyond those that we would encourage removal of, and that's where these come into play -- that's where these standards would come into play. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The example I cite is a common one, isn't it, Page 34 411 May 13, 1998 44., that fifteen years ago, twenty years azo or fifteen years Ago there were things in the landscape code for trees that now are considered -- we don't allow them any more to be used for landscaping? MS. BURGESON: Well, Carrotwood would be one that we would encourage them to remove. It's not required to be removed right now, but we would want to. MP.. MULHERE; Ficus. MS. BURGESON: There's several Ficus Benjamina, which is another one that's -- there's a couple of non-native species such as -- Indian f Rosewood is one that's come up in a couple -- couple of instances . For instance, up at Princeton Place they have got those. They havebeenwantingtoremovethem, but they're so old now that replacingthemoncaliperpercaliperwouldmeanthattheentirebackareaI- along their lake would be native trees and they want that view 4 { maintained. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Any concerns with this one? Thank you. MR. NINO: We're now' at division six. MR. MULHERE: Do you want to speak on that? MR. HINCHCLIFF: Excuse me. May I? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I 'm sorry. Mr. Hinchcliff . MR. HINCHCLIFF: Again, for the record, my name is PaulHinchcliff. I am with the Environmental Advisory Board. You folks41 ' 4'10` touched on an issue that's rather close to me. And I was on my wayoutandIjusc. overheard this there. There is something that I have wanted to encourage all levels of i--'', county government to consider on this issue of what we commonly. refer1toasexoticplants. Much of the charm of this county is based `on exotic plants, and I don' t really feel as though the term exotic really ends up cutting to the issue very well . And if we were to think in a replacement mode in our mind at 4' least when we hear that term and replace it with a term called evasive, I think we would be getting much more towards the issue. It's not a matter of something being non-native or native in this particular instance that I think that is the essence of the argument .It ends up being whether or not that particular plant is going to enduphavingawidereffectonnotonlythedomesticecosystemsaround the developed areas but also in the native habitats out in the .farX,-parts of the county. Carrotwood, Bishopwood, a number of these other species are slowly encroaching out into those other areas. , A numberofyearsagothatwasn' t a problem. Nowadays it is. It's theinvasive character of these plants as opposed to their non-native status thatishavingmuchoftheproblemsthatwe're -- that we're trying -to getto.with these sort of issues. t , .k Exotic tends to be a rather inflammatory termin tha aV There's manythings that again"are quite charming and; norie ots would choose to end up replacing around here that are indeed xot , ut 4t4_.„they aren't necessarily invasive. Just -- vim - ` CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. We appreciate the point 4* MR. HINCHCLIFF: Thank you very much. v P ti v Page 35 May 13 , 1998 MR. NINO: Getting on to division six three, some definition amendments being proposed. The first one has to do with the definition of a 'single family or one family. We woke up to find out K that perhaps this definition was allowing mobile homes and single -- mobile homes that are really licensed for travel on the highways as rF opposed to manufactured houses -- there are some concerns that we 9 - were allowing that. We were wide open to that type of development . So we wanted to make sure that indeed when we talk about_ .. , single-family homes, we're not talking about mobile homes that are licensed for travel on the highways. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: This doesn' t have anything to cio with the manufactured home that was put up in -- just north of Immokalee, Willoughby Acres? That was an issue a couple years ago, MR. MULHERE: No. The problem was, if it was the result of a code enforcement case, where a homeowner a;as cited, I believe, for having an illegal or non-conforming mobile home on the property, and it was related to the Looneyville case as well because there were' several mobile homes-- Looneyville is the code enforcement case out in the far eastern part of the county. 'There were several mobile homes on the property. And when we looked at the definition, we know intentionally -- unintentionally the definition indicated that a single-family dwelling includes a mobile home. Ard, in fact, that would be true. A mobile home is a single-family dwelling. But when Ask you went back to the single-family districts under permitted uses, the 1 .. term =single-family dwelling was used. 714,—, So, therefore, within-.a residential single-family district, according to this definition and using that term, a mobile home would also be permitted. We know that really wasn' t the intents:;That's never happened. We, therefore, are clarifying that definition. MR. NINO- Is that what I: said? NA. MULHERE: I don't know. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Pretty much. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: We're getting down to singing time around here. MR. NINO: Are there any questions to that? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. We will holler if there is . MR. NINO: Page ninety-five. No, we did that. MR. MULHERE: Ninety-six. MR. NINO: This is an amendment to the -- to amendthe,word sign construction. This clarifies what constitutes a construction sign. Apparently we need -- we needed greater specificity to define what is meant by construction sign, and thi3 amendment is intended .,to address that deficiency. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: This is an on-going problem. MS. STUDENT: I think -- I think we need to reword it, maybe, but 2: think we need to reword it and say construction :,signs do#1no ntain promotional or sales material . That way it makes it ;` mores4 o definition than a regulation, and I would be more comfortab 411 MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's certainly reasonable. ",4 zh4 h Page 36 4,410 ,May 13, 1998 MR. YORK: Well, what about - what about a sign that saysfinancingprovidedby? s#: , MR. BUDD: As long as you don' t have any loan aps . attached to A g . the sign. MR. MULHERE: That's a development sign.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. MR. MULHERE: And that can be -- that information can be placedonadevelopmentsignbutnotonaconstructionsign . That ' s part ofthereasonwhywe' re trying to clarify this.l.': CHAIRMAN DAVIS:Basically, the code allows a property owner twoe,„. signs of varying sizes depending on the size of the parcel . One is asalespromotionalsignandoneisaconstructionsign.gn. And what' sbeenhappeningissomepeoplehavekeenputtingtwosalespromotional.signs on and trying to call them the two different things . Sothisclarifienitandcleansitup. I think it ' s been difficult, becauseitwasn' t defined, for code enforcement to actually enforce it .MR. MULHERE: But you can put that language -- you can identify alender. That 's not a problem. MR. NINO: And finally we're amending Appendix B that deals with Itypical ststreet secteet ions and riaht-of-way design standards . And again 3, CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Could you do about an hour on this for. us?Okay. Please go ahead, Mr. Cook. 1410 MR. COOK: Again, for the record, Tom Cook, Engineering PlanReviewManager . This is a proposal to the LDC section which would provide thetypicalstreetsectionsandright-r,f -wadr• A J .: gn standards . And thiswasreviewedandapprovededbythetrafficmanagementtaskforceseveralyearsago, and for your additional information, it did come before thePlanningCommissionandalsobeforetheBoardofCountyCommissionersasanLDCamendment . gut for whatever reason, it did not getincorporatedintothedocuments, and this goes back to 1995.So, basically, this is the same document or same typical sectionsthatwerereviewedandapprovedatthattimewiththeexceptionthatwehaveprovidedatypicalcrosssectionforastreet, for acul-de-sac street, and I would like to point out on that particularcrosssection, we' re recommending that a sidewalk only be required ononesideofthestreetifthere's twelve lots or less. And theotherthingistheoldsectionswelookedatforyourcollectorsandyourarterialstreets, we showed a bike path lane of three feet wide,We're changing that to four feet wide to be consistent with theFloridaDOTandnationalrecommendationsforsafetypurposes, And1basicallythat' s it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anye questions for Mr. Cook?COMMISSIONER BRUET: Do you mean it was approved by the Board and Altl' by the Board of Commissioners but never was incorporated? ,l MR. COOK: Some way I guess the documents, Iguess,v<didnt- 'et -inadvertentlynadvertently omitted MR. MULHERE: It -- it may be that for some reason „it wasnt rAllincorporatedbyMunicipalCodeCorporation, but in any case we'kri Page 37 Abk May 13 , 1998 ro ing to readopt them again because there's some minor changes. MR. COOK: Right. Like Bob said, we did clear upa few other things on some of the design and -- MR. MULHERE: I did the research. It was attached to the w approved ordinance, but the Municipal Code Corporation amendments Wyk , didn't reflect it, so CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. How long does it normally take for the -- for municipal code amendments to - „ it .seems like it just taken tel really long time. y MR. MULHERE: It does take a fairly long time. I'm going to hazard a guess and say it's probably upwards of four months between the time. that the board approves the amendment and the time we get the Y codified version. 3: . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anything else, Mr . Nino? MR. NINO: No, I 'm sorry I 'm sorry I took two hours, but CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We asked a lot of questions . So two weeks from tonight will be our second evening hearing on this, which I would assume is going to be pretty brief . There's just a couple issues we talked about . MR. NINO: And several items have to be withdrawn. So the packet will be a lot thinner and try to reflect - COMMISSIONER YORK: New packet? 5. MR. NINO . Yes, we will give you a new packet, and we will ' try to ilk" reflect the comments that were made tonight . lor CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you . with that, this meeting is adjourned. J. *** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7 :08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL A. DAVIS, CHAIRMAN y k TRANSCRIPT, PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING. SERVICE,;: INC. BY DEBRA J. DeLAP, NOTARY PUBLIC. 1.4 w,.. Page 3R