Report 2016-01
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER’S OFFICE
RaceTrac at Palm and US 41
Analysis of Automobile Service Station Waiver
&
Right-of-Way Vacation
Hearing Examiner Mark Strain
9/28/2016
Page 1 of 37
REPORT NO. 2016-01
HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
DATE OF HEARING: June 23 & 30, 2016.
Introduction
On 4-24-2016 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) remanded applications for a RaceTrac
Convenience Store and Fueling Facility to the Hearing Examiner’s office for analysis and
findings. This report is in response to that request.
In the evenings of June 23rd & 30th, 2016 the Hearing Examiner (HEX) held a public meeting to
gather evidence and hear testimony. In addition the HEX reviewed extensive historical and other
available documentation and studies to adequately analyze the RaceTrac application for an
Automobile Service Station Waiver (ASW) and a companion right-of-way vacation request.
This report is in two parts; Part 1 is the ASW analysis, findings and supplemental data and Part 2
is the analysis, findings and supplemental data for the vacation request.
The use of the terms “automobile service station”, “facility with fuel pumps” and “service
station” are used interchangeably.
The attached analysis provides extensive details and exhibits to support the findings and
conclusions in each part. Each finding within the body of the report includes a narrative
explanation with reference to review and source information.
PART 1
PETITION NO. ASW-PL20150002369 – RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. requests a waiver from
the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant
to Section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code, for property located on the south side
of U.S. 41 between Frederick Street and Palm Street in Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [Companion to Right-of-Way Vacation VAC-
PL20150002788].
Summary of Findings: Automobile Station Waiver
Page 2 of 37
After review, testimony at public meetings and analysis of the facts, the findings in support
of the Automobile Service Station Waiver are as follows:
• That the Hearing Examiner heard this matter pursuant to the Board of County
Commissioners direction on April 26, 2016.
• That the nature and type of man-made feature lying between the proposed facility and
the existing facility with fuel pumps lessens the impact of the proposed facility with
fuel pumps in relationship to the existing 7-11 facility to the northeast. The site plans
for Plan A and Plan B are separated from the existing facility with fuel pumps by US
41, which is a 6-lane divided arterial road right-of-way at this location.
• That the proposed fueling facility is not engaged in the servicing of automobiles.
• That the proposed facility fronts on and can be accessed from a six (6) lane divided
arterial roadway and two platted county maintained roadways.
• That the access proposed for US 41 does not have an adverse impact on the residential
area.
• That the use is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
• That the project and uses will not adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas and
natural resources.
After review, testimony at the public meetings and analysis of facts, the findings not in
support the Automobile Service Station Waiver are as follows:
• That there is no natural or man-made feature lying between the proposed facility and
the residential property to the south or the residential property to the west.
• That the proposed facility would sell food, gasoline and other convenience items on a
twenty-four (24) hour basis creating adverse impacts to residential properties without
additional conditions.
• That the access proposed for US 41 does not have an adverse impact on the residential
area and that the access for the proposed facility from Frederick Street and Palm Street,
which are two (2) lane platted road rights-of-way to the west and east bordering the
RaceTrac properties, will have an adverse impact on the residential area.
• That the required market study did not validate the need for this facility at this location.
• That the facility proposed was not contemplated by the original zoning.
Page 3 of 37
• That the granting of this distance waiver will have multiple adverse impacts on adjacent
residential land uses without additional conditions.
Additional conditions could be applied to either site plan to reduce impacts to the abutting
and adjacent neighborhoods. These conditions should include the following:
a. Reduce the number of fueling positions to a maximum of twelve (12).
b. Require intersection improvements to Palm Street at US 41 to include dual left turn
lanes, a dedicated through lane and a dedicated right lane
c. Include mitigation standards required by Ordinance 2015-46 for facilities with fuel
pumps within 250 feet of residential property.
d. Enhance the wall requirement of Ordinance 2015-46 with a twelve (12) foot masonry
wall with same architectural features of the primary building, on a minimum three (3)
foot berm. Landscaping on both sides of the wall as required by Ordinance 2015-46
with tree height of fourteen (14) feet at planting as measured from the base of the
wall.
e. No vehicular traffic allowed behind the building adjacent to residential.
f. The dumpster and loading area will be no closer to the southern property line than the
building.
g. Building setback to residential a minimum of 107 feet and parking setback a
minimum of forty (40) feet.
h. No customer entrances on the south side of the building.
i. Light fixtures will meet the International Dark-Sky Association’s standard for
outdoor lighting and include parking lot lighting to be no higher than fifteen (15) feet.
j. Outdoor amplified sound is limited to the pump area unless required for safety
reasons. The non-safety amplified sound volume to be only audible at the fueling
position and only utilized from 7 AM to 7 PM.
k. Access to Frederick Street is prohibited.
l. Provide thirty (30) foot additional right-of-way along eastern property boundary with
Palm Street.
The recommended conditions are intended to reduce adverse impacts anticipated from the
proposed development.
Page 4 of 37
PART 2
PETITION NO. VAC-PL20150002788 – RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. requests the vacation of the
County and the public interest in an unimproved 30-foot wide public right-of-way described as
“Avenue B” and a portion of an unimproved 30-foot wide public right-of-way described as “First
Street,” according to the Col-Lee-Co Terrace subdivision plat, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 32
of the Public Records of Collier County. The subject property is located on the south side of U.S. 41
between Frederick Street and Palm Street in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida [Companion to Automobile Service Station Distance Waiver ASW-
PL20150002369].
Summary of Findings: Vacation of Rights-of-Way
After careful review of the gathered data, testimony at the public meetings and analysis of
all facts, in summary the findings in support of the vacation request are as follows:
• That the Hearing Examiner heard this matter pursuant to the Board of County
Commissioners direction on April 26, 2016.
• That letters of no objection have been received from pertinent utility companies and
agencies.
• That there is adequate public benefit to be received from the proposed vacation as
conditioned.
A condition should be applied to both site plans to improve the public benefit from the
requested vacations. The condition should include the following:
a. Provide thirty (30) foot additional right-of-way along eastern property boundary
with Palm Street.
Page 5 of 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
Introduction/Summary 1
Part 1 WAIVER
Background 6
Submittal History 7
Findings 13
History –Land Development Code 27
Part 2 VACATION
Background 31
Submittal History 32
Findings 33
Public Meeting 35
Exhibit List 36
Additional Exhibits 37
Page 6 of 37
HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
PART 1 - Automobile Service Station Waiver (ASW)
PETITION NO. ASW-PL20150002369 – RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. requests a waiver from
the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant
to Section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code, for property located on the south side
of U.S. 41 between Frederick Street and Palm Street in Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [Companion to Right-of-Way Vacation VAC-
PL20150002788].
BACKGROUND
This request is for a distance waiver required by section 5.05.05 of the Land Development Code
(LDC) specifically for Automobile Service Stations. In 1998 the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) imposed a radial distance threshold for automobile service stations (also
referred to as: service stations or facilities with fuel pumps) when development of an additional
service station is proposed within 500 feet of an existing station. The purpose of this waiver is to
ensure that automobile service stations do not adversely impact nearby land uses, especially
residential land uses. The high levels of traffic, glare, and intensity of use associated with such
facilities, particularly those open twenty-four (24) hours, may be incompatible with
surrounding uses, especially residential uses. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the health,
safety, and the general welfare of the public, special regulations apply to the location, layout,
operation, landscaping, parking, and permitted sales and service activities of facilities with fuel
pumps.
The BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals), by resolution, may grant a waiver of part or all of the
minimum separation requirements if it is demonstrated by the applicant and determined by the
BZA that the site proposed for development of an automobile service station is separated from
another automobile service station by natural or man-made boundaries, features, structures, or
other features which offset or limit the necessity for such minimum distance requirements.
The BZA's decision to waive part or all of the distance requirements shall be based upon the
following factors (LDC section 5.05.05.B.2.a.i):
i. Whether the nature and type of natural or man-made boundary, structure, or other
feature lying between the proposed establishment and an existing facility with fuel
pumps is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facility with fuel
pumps. Such boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not limited to,
lakes, marshes, non-developable wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a
minimum of a 4-lane arterial or collector right-of-way.
ii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles
during regular, daytime business hours, or, if in addition to or in lieu of servicing,
the facility with fuel pumps sells food, gasoline, and other convenience items during
daytime, nighttime, or on a 24 hour basis.
Page 7 of 37
iii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located within a shopping
center primarily accessed by a driveway, or if it fronts on and is accessed directly from
a platted road right-of-way.
iv. Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact
on adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses.
The waiver shall be based on the following submittal requirements being met (LDC section
5.05.05.B.2.b):
The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for a facility with
fuel pumps waiver request. The request for a facility with fuel pumps waiver shall be based
on the submittal of the required application, a site plan, and a written market study analysis
which justifies a need for the additional facility with fuel pumps in the desired location.
The waiver may include additional conditions or requirements by the BZA (LDC section
5.05.05.B.2.c):
Additional conditions. The BZA shall have the right to add additional conditions or
requirements to its approval of a distance waiver request in order to insure compatibility of
the facility with fuel pumps with the surrounding area and the goals and objectives of the
GMP.
An ASW application has been provided for BZA review in the form of two proposed site
plan alternatives: site plan A and site plan B. Both site plans request a convenience store
with eight (8) fuel islands to accommodate sixteen (16) fueling positions. Site plan A would
allow further commercial development within the adjoining properties owned by the
applicant and site plan B would limit the property development to the convenience store and
fueling positions and in lieu of additional commercial out parcels, a neighborhood park area
is proposed.
SUBMITTAL HISTORY
The applicant for this waiver is RaceTrac Petroleum Inc. RaceTrac’s first submittal
(PL20140000378) involving this property was a site development plan (SDP) on February 18th,
2014. This plan proposed a twenty-four (24) pump fuel facility and a 5,928 convenience store.
This submittal pre-dated the changes to the LDC that occurred in 2015 and as a result this ASW
application is reviewed by applying the language of the LDC at the time of first submittal. The
SDP located the building and fuel pumps in the more eastern portion of the site. A 7-11
convenience store with fuel pumps exists across US 41 from this location. The RaceTrac
property is approximately 135.7 feet from the 7-11 and within the 500 foot radial measurement
requiring an automobile service station waiver (ASW). RaceTrac submitted an initial ASW
application (PL20140000797) that was initially processed, modified and eventually withdrawn.
RaceTrac submitted a second ASW application on October 21, 2015 (PL20150002369).
Page 8 of 37
Efforts by RaceTrac to permit their facility began in late 2014 by submission of a Site
Development Plan (SDP). The SDP application has been modified numerous times from an
initial twenty-four (24) fueling position facility to twelve (12) fueling positions and currently to
sixteen (16) fueling positions, all submittals included a convenience store component.
Automobile service station waivers are heard by the County Hearing Examiner (HEX) pursuant
to Ordinance 2013-25 unless the HEX disqualifies himself from a particular case when he
reasonably perceives that he has a real or perceived conflict of interest, or that the case is one of
great public interest or concern. When the HEX disqualifies himself, the matter shall be heard
by the Collier County Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners or the Board
of Zoning Appeals, as the case may be, following the established procedures set forth in the
Collier County Land Development Code as if there were no HEX. In April of 2014, a resident of
the adjoining neighborhood contacted the HEX to discuss the application and requested to meet
on-site. The meeting was held on April 11th, 2014 at Mills Lane with the HEX, staff planner
Fred Reischl and many neighbors. As a result of heightened public concern expressed during
this meeting, the application process was deferred to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A neighborhood meeting was held voluntarily by the applicant with the public at 3:30 PM on
May 21st, 2014 within the Growth Management Division building at 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive. The applicant introduced a revised concept plan at this meeting for a twelve (12) pump
facility and convenience store, reduced lighting intensities, modified canopy heights, and located
the development more central on the property. This meeting was well attended by the public,
some members of the public rejected this revised concept. A resubmittal was made to county
staff for a twelve (12) pump facility on October 17, 2014.
Twelve (12) pump plan (See Exhibit FFF):
The first ASW submittal (PL20140000797) was never completed and withdrawn by the
applicant on December 8th, 2014.
Page 9 of 37
On July 15th, 2015 the applicant submitted revised SDP plans for a sixteen (16) pump fuel
facility with a convenience store. This plan is similar to the current “Plan A”, which places the
fuel facility further west abutting Frederick Street and creating two out parcels, one to the east
along Palm Street and one to the south adjacent to residential properties.
On December 10th, 2015 two site plans were submitted as part of a new ASW application. Both
site plans, referred to as Plan A and Plan B, are within the 500 foot radial distance requiring the
need for a waiver.
PLAN A (see Exhibit A):
Plan A would allow the property to develop with C-4-GTMUD-MXD commercial uses on
potentially three (3) separate parcels. This zoning district is inclusive of the Bayshore-Gateway
Mixed Use District overlay. Parcel uses are restricted to the extent that each must meet the
minimum development standards of this district. Plan A is not reliant upon a request to vacate
the platted street and avenue within the site (see Part II of this report). The first SDP on this
project was submitted prior to recent changes in the LDC for the automobile service station
section of the LDC and the applicant is permitted to proceed with their site planning under that
prior LDC section. According to the applicant, the intent of plan A is to meet the language of the
LDC at the time of the first SDP submittal for this property.
The general parameters of plan A are as follows:
Page 10 of 37
1. Provides eight (8) fuel islands with sixteen (16) fueling positions and a 5,928 square foot
convenience store.
2. The convenience store and fuel islands are located in the northwest area of the site.
Dimensions provided do not include distances from all project property lines, based on
scaling Plan A the convenience store is approximately 200 feet from the southern
property line and fifty (50) feet from Frederick Street. In similar scale, the fuel pumps
are approximately 300 feet from the southern property line and eighty (80) feet from
Frederick Street.
3. The convenience store is positioned between the pumps and the residential property.
4. Additional commercial parcels are proposed that would likely provide additional uses
closer to the residential property.
5. The applicant has proposed recessed LED lighting to meet the International Dark Sky
Associations criteria for outdoor lighting. Light fixtures will not exceed twenty (20) feet
above grade with luminance at residential property lines not exceeding .5 foot-candles
and .2 foot candles beyond.
6. Outside speakers and music will be limited to 7 AM to 7 PM, only audible at the fueling
position except for required safety communication.
7. Fuel canopy height to be a maximum sixteen (16) feet clear.
8. Buffering to meet standards of LDC Section 5.05.05.D. Side boundaries (non-right-of-
way sides) shall be planted with single row hedges consistent with LDC Section 4.06.00;
rear boundaries shall be planted with a single row hedge with a minimum of four (4) feet
height at planting, planted three (3) feet on center, and maintained at five (5) feet. On
this plan the fuel pumps are separated from the southern residential properties by another
commercial parcel. Based on the earlier LDC that this ASW is subject to, a six (6) to
eight (8) foot wall would be required between the commercial parcels closest to the
residential property.
9. Operations would be twenty-four (24) hours, seven (7) days a week.
Page 11 of 37
PLAN B (see Exhibit B):
Plan B would allow the property to develop with C-4-GTMUD-MXD commercial uses but
potentially limited to only the fuel pumps and a convenience store. This zoning district is
inclusive of the Bayshore-Gateway Mixed Use District overlay. Parcel uses are restricted to the
extent each must meet the minimum development standards of this district. Plan B is reliant
upon a request to vacate the platted street and avenue within the site (see Part II of this report).
Plan B proposes eight (8) fuel islands with sixteen (16) fueling position and a convenience store,
access to Palm Street and US 41, buffer standards improved over site plan A, a park site along
Frederick Street and no further commercial development of the site is proposed.
The general parameters of plan B are as follows:
1. Provide eight (8) fuel islands with sixteen (16) fueling positions and a 5,488 square
foot convenience store.
2. The convenience store and fuel islands are located in the central area of the site close
to US 41. Dimensions provided do not include distances from all project property
lines, based on scaling Plan B the convenience store is approximately 185 feet from
Frederick Street and 107 feet the southern residential property line. In similar scale,
the fuel pumps are approximately 210 from Frederick Street and 170 feet the southern
residential property line.
3. No vehicular traffic is proposed behind the building adjacent to residential.
4. Dumpster and loading area are on the west side of the convenience store.
Page 12 of 37
5. No customer entrances are to be located on the south side of building
6. The convenience store is positioned between the pumps and the residential property.
7. The applicant has proposed recessed LED lighting to meet the International Dark Sky
Associations criteria for outdoor lighting. Light fixtures will not exceed twenty (20)
feet above grade with lumination at residential property lines not exceeding .5 foot-
candles and .2 foot candles beyond.
8. Outside speakers and music are limited to 7 AM to 7 PM, only audible at the fueling
position (excepting required safety communication).
9. Fuel canopy height to be a maximum sixteen (16) feet clear.
10. Buffering adjacent to residential is greater than required by the LDC at the time of
this application, but the buffer is not consistent with most recent code changes. Plan
B proposes a thirty (30) foot wide buffer, a ten (10) foot high architectural masonry
wall placed fourteen and one-half (14.5) feet off the property line, at the top of a
perimeter berm three (3) feet high. A five (5) foot high single hedge row will be
planted on the residential side of the wall with trees planted twenty-five (25) feet on
center. Trees will be twelve (12) feet high at time of planting. On the facility side of
the wall trees will be twelve (12) feet high and spaced every thirty (30) feet.
11. Operations will be twenty-four (24) hours, seven (7) days a week.
12. The applicant has stated that the development option for the remaining parcel area is
up for consideration and discussion if plan B is approved.
Page 13 of 37
FINDINGS
Based upon analysis, testimony and exhibits presented in connection with this matter, the
undersigned Hearing Examiner makes the following findings:
A. That the Hearing Examiner heard this matter pursuant to the Board of County
Commissioners direction on April 26, 2016.
a. See Exhibit C: BCC minutes dated 4-26-2016
Motion made by Commissioner Nance, seconded by Commissioner Hiller to
provide analysis and deliver the facts to the Board for consideration. Motion approved
unanimously.
B. That the nature and type of man-made feature lying between the proposed facility and
the existing facility with fuel pumps lessens the impact of the proposed facility with
fuel pumps in relationship to the existing 7-11 facility to the northeast. The site plans
for Plan A and Plan B are separated from the existing facility with fuel pumps by US
41, which is a six (6) lane divided arterial road right-of-way at this location.
a. See Exhibit D: US 41 right-of-way plans
b. See Exhibit E: Traffic Impact Statement
US 41 is a six (6) lane divided arterial roadway under the jurisdiction of the
Florida Department of Transportation at a width of 120 feet. This is a man-made
feature lying between the existing 7-11 convenience store with twelve (12) fueling
positions at 2135 Tamiami Trail East and the proposed RaceTrac facility diagonally
southwest across US 41 at 2096 Tamiami Trail East.
The existing 7-11 facility is positioned to capture traffic moving northwest
towards the City of Naples via right turns and through connections at Commercial Drive
which intersects US 41 and Palm Street at this location. Vehicles traveling in the
opposite direction on the southeast bound lanes would be required to make a left turn at
US 41 and Commercial Drive or enter by crossing US 41 via Palm Street to access this 7-
11.
The placement of a second fuel facility on the opposite side of this six (6) lane
arterial road could reduce left turn movements from southeast bound vehicles and thru
movements from Palm Street.
C. That there is no natural or man-made feature lying between the proposed facility and
the residential property to the south or the residential property to the west.
a. See Exhibit F: Aerial photograph
b. See Exhibit G: Plat Book 1 Page 32
c. See Exhibit H: Plat Book 2 Page 82
The plat for the proposed RaceTrac property was subdivided in 1925 and named
Col-Lee-Co Terrace. Lots were platted to be interconnected with streets and avenues or
provided frontage along the Tamiami Trail (now known as US 41). Platted Avenue A
has become Frederick Street, platted Avenue B and First Street have not been
developed and are being requested for vacation by RaceTrac (see report Part II).
Page 14 of 37
The adjoining plat to the south of Col-Lee-Co was subdivided in 1946 and
named Inomah. This plat created a twenty (20) foot alley to the south between the Col-
Lee-Co Terrace plat and the subdivision of Inomah. The alley is not developed.
Frederick Street is developed as a county maintained two (2) lane undivided
roadway providing access to US 41 from the residential neighborhood to the south.
Neither the developed Frederick Street nor the undeveloped alley provide a sufficient
boundary to lessen the impacts between the proposed RaceTrac development and the
residential neighborhoods to the south or west.
D. That the proposed fueling facility is not engaged in the servicing of automobiles.
a. See Exhibit I: Applicant’s narrative
The applicant’s narrative was submitted as part of the ASW review and included
in the staff back up information supplied to the BCC and HEX. Page three (3) of the
narrative states that “…RaceTrac does not offer automobile services such as repairs, oil
changes, etc.”
E. That the proposed facility would sell food, gasoline and other convenience items on a
twenty-four (24) hour basis.
a. See Exhibit G: Applicant’s Narrative
The applicant’s narrative was submitted to staff as part of the ASW review and
included in the staff back up information supplied to the BCC and HEX. Page three (3)
of the narrative described the services offered by RaceTrac to include gasoline sales,
coffee bar, frozen yogurt, prepared hot food options, indoor and outdoor dining areas,
free Wi-Fi and electronic device charging outlets. Their stated operation will be on a
twenty-four (24) hour basis.
F. That the proposed facility fronts on and can be accessed from a six (6) lane divided
arterial roadway and two platted county maintained roadways.
a. See Exhibit D US 41 Right-of-Way
b. See Exhibit E Traffic Impact Statement
The site fronts on US 41 with approximately 577 lineal feet of frontage. US 41 is
a six (6) lane divided arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour
(mph) and is under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Transportation.
Sections of US 41 appear to be platted and other sections are not clearly indicated. To
the West the site has approximately 444 lineal feet of frontage along Frederick Street,
which is a platted two (2) lane undivided local roadway. Frederick is county maintained
with a posted speed of 25 mph. On the East there is approximately 203 lineal feet of
frontage along Palm Street. Palm Street is a platted two (2) land undivided local roadway
with a speed limit of 30 mph and county maintained.
G. That the access proposed for US 41 does not have an adverse impact on the residential
area and that the access for the proposed facility from Frederick Street and Palm
Street, which are two (2) lane platted road rights-of-way to the west and east, will have
an adverse impact on the residential area.
a. See Exhibit D US 41 Right-of-Way
b. See Exhibit E Traffic Impact Statement
Page 15 of 37
c. See Exhibit J TIS response letter
d. See Exhibit K Insufficiency letter
e. See Exhibit L Market Study
f. See Exhibit M Palm Street Improvements
g. See Exhibit N TIS Memorandum
Both proposed site plans provide for direct access to US 41 by right turn in and
right turn out. Plan A includes access to Frederick Street and to Palm Street. Plan B
initially provided access to Frederick Street; in a subsequent submittal the applicant
provided a revision providing access to Frederick Street only via a proposed park and no
longer from the fueling facility. The US 41 and Palm Street access remains part of Plan
B. Plan A would increase traffic by the creation of uses on out-parcels 1 & 2. Plan B
impacts are limited to the RaceTrac facility.
Frederick Street and Palm Street are two (2) lane undivided roadways connected
to US 41 and maintained by Collier County. Commercial Drive is a two (2) lane
undivided roadway that extends north of US 41 across from Palm Street. US 41,
Commercial Drive and Palm Street form a signalized intersection.
Configuration of the US 41 access, including turn lanes, would accommodate the
forecasted traffic volume according to the traffic impact statement (TIS) for plan A,
including potential square footage for out-parcels. Since Plan B contains no out-parcels
the traffic generated by RaceTrac would be less than plan A and expected to also meet
the standards for the US 41 access. Plan B was not considered in the TIS.
Frederick Street does not have a full opening access onto US 41. There is a left
turn from US 41 onto Frederick Street for northwest bound traffic on US 41. Both
RaceTrac plans reflect a full turning movement onto Fredericks Street from the RaceTrac
site. Consideration should be given to limiting turning movements for Plan A onto
Frederick Street to left in, right in and right out or prohibiting access to Frederick Street
altogether. This would reduce the potential impacts for traffic heading south into the
residential community and possibly increase impacts on Palm Street.
Both site plans rely on an access to Palm Street. Palm Street has a full signalized
median opening onto US 41. Current configuration for Palm Street provides a single
right lane from US 41 onto Palm, a single left turn lane out of Palm onto US 41 and a
single through/right turn lane to Commercial Drive to the north or US 41 to the southeast.
US 41 provides a single left turn lane onto Palm for northwest bound traffic.
RaceTrac’s plan provides a full access opening onto Palm Street from their site.
Improvements to be provided by RaceTrac at Palm Street include a southbound lane from
US 41 onto Palm and a southbound right turn lane onto their site from Palm Street. On
the east side of Palm Street, the through/right turn lane is being extended with additional
taper to the south for added vehicle stacking. No other turn lane improvements are being
proposed for Palm Street.
The left turn lane from US 41 from northwest bound traffic onto Palm Street will
be extended by approximately 40 feet and the left turn further to the east will be
shortened in the same amount.
According to the applicant, beyond the noted road improvements, no additional
turn lane or intersection improvements are required as a result of plan A.
Page 16 of 37
EXISTING INTERSECTION AERIAL:
The TIS addresses peak traffic conditions based on the proposed improvements.
The peak volumes would create a backup of vehicles attempting to exit onto Palm Street
from the site to enter the left turn lane at Palm Street in order to make a left turn onto US
41. The length of the left turn lane available on Palm Street after proposed
improvements would not accommodate all of the vehicles waiting to make this turn
during peak hour at a normal traffic signal cycle, assuming no other traffic from the
adjoining neighborhoods. That would require on-site stacking until the left turn lane on
Palm Street clears and more vehicles are eventually able to enter that lane. In addition,
the right turn lane from Palm Street onto US 41 is a combined through/right turn
movement, which will cause a vehicle making a through movement over to Commercial
Drive to delay right movements until the light cycles.
The TIS is based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) manual. Use code
853 (Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps) was utilized to estimate the trip
generation potential for the site in addition to the outparcel retail components. The
manual is intended for use in estimating the number of trips that may be generated by a
specific land use. The trip generation rates are weighted averages from studies conducted
throughout the United States and Canada. Users of this manual are encouraged to
supplement data in the manual with local data collected at similar sites. Data for the
manual is submitted on a voluntary basis and ITE conducts no original field surveys.
The TIS as submitted relies upon the ITE manual trip generation.
RaceTrac’s market study acknowledges that their convenience stores outperform
the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) fuel gallons sold by 1.5 to 2
times. The market study also noted that on a national average, the fuel gallons sold per
retail outlets in general for the Southeast Region of the U.S., which includes Florida, is
3.26% higher than elsewhere. RaceTrac’s calculations included the higher averages and
performance standards. The fact that RaceTrac provides multiple services may account
for some of their increased performance, including offering more than 4,000 retail and
Page 17 of 37
grocery items, premium food offerings, beverage offerings, indoor and outdoor seating, a
coffee bar, frozen yogurt and free Wi-Fi.
At the public meeting, the applicant was asked whether the higher performance of
their operation creates greater traffic impacts than those estimated by the ITE manual.
The applicant responded by reviewing two existing RaceTrac operations and analyzing
their performance against the TIS traffic generation and concluded that the actual number
of vehicles experienced at the two sample stores was a lower rate than that calculated
based on the ITE trip generation data. Yet their market study provides repeated
references to higher performance at their facilities. This was acknowledged by
RaceTrac’s marketing representative, Mr Galland, when questioned at the recent June
30th, 2016 meeting responded:
“…As you noted, we -- I guess for the purposes of this market study, generally speaking our
stores outperform the NACS weekly average by one-and-a-half to two times on an annual
basis, so for the purposes of, yet again, being conservative, I took the approach of let's
assume that this store is fantastic, it pumps two-and-a-half times the industry average,
again, we come up with a figure of four-and-a-half million gallons expected out of this
particular location…”
Traffic projections as calculated in TIS using ITE standards, create a condition at
Palm Street and US 41 that would unfavorably impact the access to US 41 by the
surrounding neighborhood using Palm Street. The short left turn lane at Palm Street
limits vehicle stacking within the right-of-way and will require stacking on-site at peak
times. This backup scenario will exasperate problems at this intersection.
If this application is to be approved, intersection improvements should include
improvements at the Palm Street approach onto US 41 by widening Palm Street along the
applicant’s eastern property line. This should include dual left lanes, a dedicated through
lane, a dedicated right lane, and a reconfiguration of the alignment geometry from Palm
Street to Commercial Drive to lessen he impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods.
.
H. That the required market study did not validate the need for this facility at this
location.
a. See Exhibit L Market Study
b. See Exhibit O 2015 NACS Fuels Report
c. See Exhibit P 2013 NACS Fuels Report
d. See Exhibit Q Map of alternate market areas
e. See Exhibit R FDEP Fuel Facilities
f. See Exhibit S 2012 NACS Fuels Report
g. See Exhibit HH 2014 Market Study
The submitted market study was produced by RaceTrac’s Market Analysis Team
(RaceTrac Team) to show that the market area proposed is underserved in both total fuel
and convenience options and the quality of existing facilities in the market area. For the
purpose of this ASW, only issues relevant to justifying the need for fuel pumps at this
location will be considered. During the second evening of the public meeting on June
30th , 2016 supplemental information was provided and included in this review.
The following are concerns with the Market Study as provided:
Page 18 of 37
1. A linear market area was used which limited the supply area.
The RaceTrac Team provided their supply analysis for an area within a five (5)
minute drive time from the proposed site. The RaceTrac Team did not note if this
distance was radial measurement or linear in the market study, however at the public
meeting the applicant indicated they used a linear area along US 41 that corresponded to
a five (5) minute drive time. This drive time was applied to a total travel distance along
US 41 of 4.2 miles (approximately 2.2 miles in one direction and 2.0 in the other
direction). Within that area are six (6) other convenience stores with fuel dispensers.
According to testimony, RaceTrac chose this as their ideal market area. They also
acknowledged that a radial area could be taken into consideration but considered their
primary trade area is along US 41. RaceTrac provided the following table of additional
fueling facilitates within their linear market area:
The market area selected by RaceTrac has an impact on the supply and demand
calculations. If the market area was measured based on 2.2 mile radial distance, a 2.2
mile road travel distance or a non-linear 5 minute drive time distance, the supply changes.
Using a 2.2 mile radial measurement, which is the distance RaceTrac noted is within a 5-
minute drive time, there are twelve (12) retail fueling facilities; using a 2.2 mile road
travel distance there are a total of nine (9) retail fueling facilities; and using a five (5)
minute drive time from the subject property there are eight (8) fuel facilities. It is
assumed that bulk fuel facilities do not sell retail fuels and therefore are not included.
The following map provides the three (3) possible market area results: the red circle is the
2.2 mile radial measurement, the orange lines with the “2.2 road” notation are the
distances by 2.2 mile road travel; and the green lines “5 Min Drive” are the distances
from the proposed site by a five (5) minute drive time. All distances were measured
based on available internet mapping and measurement tools.
Page 19 of 37
The RaceTrac Team’s report included a table listing thirty-two (32) multi-product
dispensers (MPD’s) at the six (6) locations within their selected market area of US 41.
Typically each dispenser provides two (2) fueling positions. Reviewing the market area
based on a 2.2 mile radial measurement for distance, a 2.2 mile road travel distance, or a
five-minute drive time analysis, the number of fuel pumps increase in each scenario.
A previous 2014 market study supplied by RaceTrac used a three (3) mile radius to
determine the total population and employees as part of the justification for this facility.
The fuel providers found by the RaceTrac Team in this earlier study remained the same
as reported in the most recent study. However, the demographics used in the 2014
market study are different than the demographics used in the most recent study possibly
because in 2014 the demographics were stated to include a radius of up to three (3) miles.
In the most recent study the demographics the RaceTrac Team stated they used a “five-
minute drive time from the subject property”.
It is not unreasonable to assume that drivers outside US 41 would utilize the
RaceTrac site for fuel, nor is it unreasonable to assume they might use other fueling
facilities within the nearby surrounding area. These additional fueling locations would
add to the available supply and should be considered in a broader market approach. A
broader market approach would also change the demand figures.
Page 20 of 37
2. The demographic data is unsubstantiated.
The RaceTrac Team produced the following demographics table in their market
study, which they noted as: “These demographics, which represent a five-minute drive
time from the subject property, align with those RaceTrac deems ideal for a successful
location”:
The market analysis did not provide source information for this data nor the distance
outside the drive corridor these statistic refer to. It is unclear how the demographic data
equates to the fuel demand calculations.
RaceTrac produced the following supply table:
Page 21 of 37
RaceTrac supplied the following Demand Table (note that “Market Demand” should be
“Market Supply” in second table):
FDOT’s 2015 traffic count of 35,500 vehicles annually was used to provide traffic
volumes along US 41 nearest to the RaceTrac site and relies on the FDOT traffic counts
along US 41 as the bases for determining fuel consumption. There does not appear to be
figures or multipliers used in this demand calculation that correspond to figures in the
demographic table. Similar to the supply side of the market approach, a broader study
area would change demand values.
3. The average gallons of fuel needed per week per driver could not be validated.
The RaceTrac Team believes there are six (6) fueling facilities with thirty-two (32)
fuel dispensers within their selected market area along US 41. Data from the National
Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) was used to provide statistical information to
calculate and justify the need for their site. Source documents were not provided,
however NACS has a website that provides a large amount of information. RaceTrac
originally provided demand based on a convenience store count, but during the public
meetings supplemented that information with demand values based on both the number
of convenience stores, the number of dispensers and an average of both stores and
dispensers.
Utilizing the traffic counts and fuel consumption provided by the supply and demand
tables, the annual fuel demand was computed as 19,272,240 gallons per year. To
calculate supply, the RaceTrac Team used the higher dispensing value (125% of 35,053)
Page 22 of 37
for six outlets (assume those provided in study) and computed a supply value of
13,670,793 gallons per year. When applied to the same number of convenience stores,
but using the number of dispensers that would be present at those stores, the supply value
increases to 15,404,861 gallons per year. Using these demand and supply calculations,
an annual deficit is shown for both calculation methods.
The RaceTrac Team believes their facilities outperform (provide a greater volume for
supply) the NACS fuel gallon average by 1.5 to 2 times, and to be conservative, the
RaceTrac Team used 2.5 times the NACS average to calculate their contribution to offset
their calculated fuel supply deficit. With RaceTrac’s entry into this market area, by
calculations based on convenience stores, there is still a deficit of 1,044,516 gallons; if
deficit is calculated by dispensers, there is an excess supply (surplus) of 689,552 gallons;
if supply is calculated averaging these two methods the supply deficit is 177,482 gallons.
All methods of supply calculations depend on value of gallons used by drivers. The
value from a 2012 NACS report supplied by the RaceTrac Team stated that 10.44 gallons
of fuel per week are consumed by the average driver. More recent data is available from
NACS but does not appear in the RaceTrac Team’s analysis. Data was not provided to
show how the 10.44 gallons per week related to the vehicle characteristics for this site.
For example, since this is not an interchange activity center, the expected heavy-duty
vehicles that may be used for averages would not be as relevant to this location. It is
unclear how vehicle characteristics factored into the gallons per week average used by
the RaceTrac Team. The 2012 NACS article stated as follows:
“Based on the latest available vehicle data and demand numbers, the American
drivers use 1.49 gallons of gasoline per day, which averages out to 10.44 gallons per
week or 544.6 gallons per year per vehicle. (Source: U.S. Energy Information
Administration)”
Other data available in more recent NACS fuels reports, state that the average
American household consumes 384 gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year (2015 NACS
Fuels Report). This is equivalent to approximately 7.4 gallons per week. This is not
consistent with the average of 10.44 gallons of fuel per week used by the RaceTrac Team
(2012 NACS Fuels Report). In the 2013 NACS report, average gallons consumed per
year was 453 gallons, which computes to approximately 8.7 gallons per week. Based on
data available, there appears to be more recent studies available for the average weekly
volume of gas that could have been used for this market study. The table below
demonstrates the impact on demand when changes are made to the average gallons
consumed:
Traffic Count Average gallons per week Total Demand per year
35,500 2012 NACS 10.44 19,272,240
35,500 2013 NACS 8.7 16,060,200
35,500 2015 NACS 7.4 13,660,400
Basing a computation for fuel dispensing on a facility (outlet) basis may not be a
sufficiently accurate multiplier for this analysis. The various convenience stores
RaceTrac noted have different quantities of fuel islands, thus different dispensing
Page 23 of 37
opportunities. With fuel supply calculated by dispensers, the deficit is impacted as
shown in the table below.
For the dispenser volumes, RaceTrac used an average number of dispensers for their
market area, which may not be as accurate as an actual count of dispensers. The
“RaceTrac supply” in the above table is by gallons per week per store and not by the
number of dispensers. If the actual number of dispensers at the proposed RaceTrac was
used, the RaceTrac supply would be higher thus changing the remaining deficit values.
Based on the above, the market study as supplied does not provide enough
information to confirm the need for sixteen more fueling positions in the area chosen by
RaceTrac.
I. That the facility proposed was not contemplated by the original zoning.
a. See Exhibit T 1969 thru 2006 zoning maps
b. See Exhibit U Early zoning codes
c. See Exhibit G Plat Book 1 Page 32
d. See Exhibit V Gas Station size by year
e. See Exhibit W Zoning Reevaluation Ord 92-43
f. See Exhibit X 2016 Zoning Map
g. See Exhibit Y Compatibility Exception staff report
h. See Exhibit BB ASW LDC amendment
i. See Exhibit EE LDC 2.03.03 Commercial Zoning
j. See Exhibit GG BCC minutes 6-10-1998
k. See Exhibit II CCPC minutes 5-13-1998
l. See Exhibit YY Gateway MXD Stds
m. See Exhibit ZZ Gateway Uses
RaceTrac’s properties were created by plat in 1925. The plat created a forty-five (45) lot
subdivision with the largest lot approximately 8400 square feet; fifteen (15) lots had frontage on
the Tamiami Trail. Zoning regulations first began in the 1950’s and the earliest maps available
indicate that this property was zoned for a use that allowed an automobile service station from
1968. In 1968 the zoning for this property was Commercial C-2, in the late 70’s to early 80’s the
zoning was changed to GRC and in 1982, the zoning became Commercial C-4. The C-4
designation remains to this day with additional refinement representing the Bayshore-Gateway
Overlay in 2005. The property is now designated as C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The Bayshore-
Gateway Overlay continued to recognize the ability for this property to retain the service station
use subject to the LDC ASW section 5.05.05.
Zoning designations from 1968 to present that have been found with their accompanying
maps indicate the various zoning districts that allowed automobile service stations at this
location. The earliest referenced zoning regulations appear in 1951 and while service stations
were allowed in some of those early zoning districts, corresponding zoning maps have not been
Supply Calculation Supply Demand Supply Deficit RaceTrac supply Remaining
Deficit
Per Convenience Store 13,670,793 19,272,240 5,601,447 4,556,931 1,044,516
Per fuel Dispenser 15,404,861 19,272,240 3,867,379 4,556,931 (689,552) [surplus]
Average of both 14,537,827 19,272,240 4,734,413 4,556,931 177,482
Page 24 of 37
located prior to 1968. Minimum lot size for a service station in 1951 was 5000 square feet. In
the 1968 code, no minimum lot size was required for service stations; in 1974 the minimum lot
size was established in a special section of the code specifically for service stations, that lot size
was 18,000 square feet; in 1982 the C-4 district was applied to this property and even though the
minimum C-4 lot was 10,000 square feet, the minimum service station lot remained at 18,000
square feet until the 1990’s when a 30,000 square foot threshold was established.
According to the tax assessor records, in reviewing six (6) existing RaceTrac sites in Collier
County, the smallest is approximately 1.54 acres (67,082 square feet). In 1992 during the
County’s zoning re-evaluation efforts, fifteen (15) of the platted lots involved in this RaceTrac
site were required to combine for purposes of access to US 41. This re-evaluation program was
applied over a variety of concerns, including concerns over strip or isolated zoning and the
amount of commercial zoning versus future needs. On the following zoning map, the red
diamonds designated with “1” are those required by the re-evaluation ordinance to be planned for
development under one SDP for lots 20-30 and a SDP for lots 31-34, with any access to U.S. 41
for either SDP subject to approval by County Transportation and the FDOT. These conditions
were imposed through an approval of a compatibility exception to the Growth Management Plan.
The platted lots individually would not be able to support a service station without
combining, such as proposed by the ASW application. Based on the FDEP’s inventory of
service stations in Collier County, 1964 was the first time a station of twelve (12) pumps
was installed and that number of pumps remained as the maximum number installed in
Collier County until 1986.
The following chart reflects data from several state agencies collected by county
staff:
Page 25 of 37
Zoning of the RaceTrac property provided for gas station use since at least 1968.
Because of the small size of the lots, the early zoning, and the recorded date (1925) of the
plat the intended use likely did not contemplate a service station as large as proposed by
RaceTrac.
J. That the granting of this distance waiver will have multiple adverse impacts on
adjacent residential land uses without additional conditions.
a. See Exhibit Z LDC 2014 Section 5.05.05
b. See Exhibit AA Ordinance 2015-46
c. See Exhibit CC BCC minutes 7-7-2015
d. See Exhibit DD LDC 2016 Section 5.05.05
e. See Exhibit SS Agenda 6-10-98
With BCC direction county staff initiated an additional waiver process for automobile
service stations in 1998. Based on a review of meeting minutes, this process came about
due to a proliferation of service stations requests at the Pine Ridge Road and I-75
interchange activity center. Staff drafted language to minimize the highly visible activity
level impact of automobile service stations on adjacent land uses, especially residential.
These regulations were to address location, layout, operation, drainage, landscaping,
parking and permitted sales and service activities.
Impacts were addressed and modified in 2015 by the BCC in adoption of new
standards intended to apply to service stations with less than sixteen (16) fueling
positions and within 250 feet of residential property. The new standards were created to
mitigate compatibility issues involving service stations in close proximity to residential
properties. This ASW was submitted as a result of an SDP prior to the date of this
change in the LDC, and is subject to the LDC at the time of first SDP submittal. Both
code versions provide similar ASW review criteria including the ability for the BCC to
add conditions.
Page 26 of 37
The adverse impacts associated with this service station use include:
a. Twenty-four (24) hour operations
b. Increased traffic
c. Increased outdoor sound
d. Increased artificial light
Additional conditions could be applied to both site plans to mitigate some of the
compatibility issues to the abutting and adjacent neighborhoods. Conditions that could
be considered include the following:
a. Reduce the number of fueling positions to a maximum of twelve (12).
b. Require intersection improvements to Palm Street and US 41 to include
dual left lanes, a dedicated through lane and a dedicated right lane.
c. Include mitigation standards required by Ordinance 2015-46 for facilities
with fuel pumps within 250 feet of residential.
d. Enhance the wall requirement of Ordinance 2015-46 with a twelve (12)
foot masonry wall with same architectural features as the primary
building, on a minimum three (3) foot berm. Landscaping on both sides of
the wall as required by Ordinance 2015-46 with tree height of fourteen
(14) feet at planting measured from the bottom of the wall.
e. No vehicular traffic behind the building adjacent to residential.
f. The dumpster and loading area will be no closer to the southern property
line than the building.
g. Building setback to residential a minimum of 107 feet and parking setback
a minimum of forty (40) feet.
h. No customer entrances on the south side of the building.
i. Light fixtures will meet the International Dark-Sky Association’s standard
for outdoor lighting and including parking lot lighting to be no higher than
fifteen (15) feet.
j. Outdoor amplified sound is limited to the pump area unless required for
safety reasons. Non-safety amplified sound only audible at the fueling
position and only allowed from 7 AM to 7 PM.
k. Access to Frederick Street is prohibited.
l. Provide thirty (30) foot additional right-of-way along eastern property
boundary with Palm Street.
The recommended conditions are intended to reduce the impacts anticipated from the
proposed development.
K. That the use is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
a. See Exhibit W Ordinance 92-43
Collier County adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January
10th, 1989. On January 10th, 1991 the County established a Zoning Reevaluation
Program “...for all unimproved commercially zoning and non-residential property” and
provides for “…rezoning of inconsistent, unimproved properties to a zoning district
consistent with the Growth Management Plan”. To avoid a change in the zoning
designation, the RaceTrac property maintained the C-4 zoning through two compatibility
exception applications. In 1992 both applications were endorsed by staff, the Planning
Page 27 of 37
Commission and the BCC subject to two conditions involving access and one condition
involving a unified plan as discussed previously in this report.
L. That the project and uses will not adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas and
natural resources.
a. See Exhibit KK SFWMD permit
b. See Exhibit LL Engineering report
The property has been issued a South Florida Water Management (SFWMD)
Environmental Resource Permit No. 11-03569P. This permit acknowledged there were
no wetlands within the project, the project is compliant with state water quality standards
and meets the discharge rates. The permit states the site does not contain significant
habitat for wetland dependent endangered or threatened species or species of special
concern. Modifications to this permit may be necessary depending on actual
development.
Potable water is supplied by the City of Naples and the waste water system is
under the Collier County Public Utilities Department.
HISTORY – Land Development Code
The proposed RaceTrac facility is intended to be built on an aggregation of lots subdivided by
plat in 1925. Lot widths varied from forty (40) feet to sixty (60) feet wide with the majority
being forty (40) feet. Depths vary from approximately 103’ to between 160’ to 120’ deep. The
resulting lot square footage is typically 4800 to 6400 square feet. The plat did not provide an
indication of expected uses; fifteen (15) of the lots provided frontage along Tamiami Trail and
the remaining lots had access to Tamiami Trial via other platted access ways.
It was not until March 6th, 1951, that the Board of County Commissioners (Board or BCC)
directed then County Attorney Smith to draft a county zoning code. By the mid 1950’s the
Board appointed a zoning commission and adopted the county’s first zoning code.
Zoning Regulations from the 1950’s included a definition for “Service Station” defined as:
“SERVICE STATION: A building or lot where gasoline, oil and grease, batteries, tires
and automobile accessories are supplied and dispensed to the motor vehicle trade; and
where battery recharging, tire repair and other similar services are rendered.”
There were eight (8) zoning districts established by this time. Of those, all three (3) of the
commercial districts and the industrial and agricultural districts allowed “filling stations”, which
were synonymous with the “service station” definition.
By 1968 the zoning code definition for service station changed to “Gasoline Service Station”
defined as:
“GASOLINE SERVICE STATION: A structure designed or used for the retail sale or
supply of fuels, lubricants, air, water and other operating commodities for motor vehicles
Page 28 of 37
and including the customary space and facilities for the installation or application of
such commodities on or in such vehicles, but not including space or facilities for the
storage, painting, repair, refinishing, body work or other servicing of motor vehicle or
other accessory uses or structure excepting advertising signs.”
In 1968, gasoline service stations were allowed as a provisional use in C-1, allowed by right in
C-2, C-3, C-4, and I.
Review of the 1976 code provides a revised definition to replace the gasoline service station with
“Automobile Service Stations”:
“Automobile Service Stations: An automobile service station is an establishment whose
principle business is the retail dispensing of automobile fuels and oil.”
The 1976 code also included special standards for automobile service stations with a minimum
lot size being required as 18,000 square feet and pumps allowed no closer than fifty (50) feet to
any property line. Zoning district designations allowed automobile service stations in the
following districts: CC, GRC, CI, and I.
The definition was again changed in 1982:
“Automobile Service Stations: an establishment whose principle business is the retail
dispensing of automotive fuels and oil and where grease, batteries, tires, and automobile
accessories may be supplied and dispensed.”
In 1982 the code expanded the development standards significantly, leaving the minimum lot
size the same and reducing the setback to pump islands to forty (40) feet with decorative fencing
required against any residential district. Provisions were added to allow automobile service
stations to provide:
“Sales of cold drinks, candies, tobacco, and similar convenience goods for service
station customers, but strictly and only as accessory and incidental to the principal
business operation.”
The 1982 zoning code included twenty (25) zoning districts. Service stations were allowed as
provisional uses in the VR district and as permitted uses in C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and I.
By the 1990’s zoning regulations became known as the Land Development Code (LDC) and in
July 1998 provisions were added to the LDC for regulating distance between service stations:
“2.6.28.1. Locational and site standards. All automobile service stations shall meet the
following criteria:
1. Minimum frontage: An automobile service station shall not be located on
a lot with less than 150 feet of frontage on a vehicular right-of-way.
2. Minimum depth: 180 feet.
Page 29 of 37
3. Minimum lot or parcel area: 30,000 square feet.
4. Separation requirements: There shall be a minimum distance of 500 feet, shortest
airline measurement, between the nearest points on any lot or parcel of land to be
occupied by automobile service stations, and any lot or parcel which is already
occupied by an automobile service station, or for which a building permit has
been issued…”
The 1991 zoning districts that allowed automobile service stations included C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4
and C-5.
In 1998 planning staff member Susan Murry provided the following explanation for changes to
the automobile service stations section of the LDC in a presentation before the BCC:
“We did revise the purpose and intent of the amendment as written, basically recognizing
that automobile service stations have become a multi-purpose use in their function and
nature. They’re generating high levels of traffic and activity. They’ve become a highly
intense use, often on a 24 hour a day basis, and this has prompted a need to protect
surrounding land uses, especially residential land uses, and to attempt to create
regulations which reduce the impacts of the intensity of the use through buffers and
separation of land uses.”
At the Planning Commission (CCPC) meeting that preceded this 1998 BCC meeting, RaceTrac’s
representative provided input to the process and also the following comment when referring to
the changes proposed for the ASW process (emphasis added):
“What they are 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.”
In addition to the service station use, the C-4 uses allowed on the RaceTrac property include all
of the uses of the C-1 thru C-3 districts. In the C-4 district there are 139 uses listed by SIC
(Standard Industrial Classification) reference numbers with many of those being a range of
number references. Additionally, twenty-five (25) or more uses are possible through the
conditional use process. With the exception of conditional uses and fueling facilities, other uses
could proceed with a site plan application and no public process as long as they applied
consistent with the C-4 standards. However, due to the overall size and shape of this property, it
is not expected that all uses could actually be accommodated on this site.
The zoning abutting the southern property line of the overall RaceTrac property is predominantly
RSF-3 (residential single family, three (3) units per acre) with developed residences. Other uses
that are permitted on the RaceTrac site would be required to provide a buffer per the LDC, which
is a fifteen (15) foot wide type B buffer. A type B buffer between commercial and residential
includes a minimum six (6) foot wall.
Page 30 of 37
In 2004 a broad re-write of the LDC occurred and included a new definition for automobile
service stations:
“Automobile service station: any commercial or industrial facility wherein the retail sale
of gasoline is conducted. Where the sale of gasoline is provided only as a "secondary
function," such as a retail establishment (i.e. - grocery store or warehouse) that provides
gasoline for its customers/members as an incidental service, the structures and site
related to the fuel facility will be considered an automobile service station”.
The intent of this re-write was not to substantively change the intention of the prior version of
the code, but to provide a more user friendly and sensible format. Due to concerns of unintended
consequences, there was a provisions added that allowed for reliance on the prior version where
items were inadvertently changed. The following language was added to the 2004 ordinance:
“SECTION FIVE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance
conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or of any other statute, code, local
resolution, regulation or other applicable federal, state, or local law, the more stringent
standard, limitation, or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict,
except that in the event that any provisions of the adopted, re-codified LDC should result
in the unintended consequence of an unresolved conflict with the provisions of the
previously adopted LDC, as amended, the prior provisions will be considered to
apply…”
The re-written section for automobile service stations in 2004 remained mostly intact until 2015,
when new standards were implemented for addressing compatibility issues related to stations
with fewer than sixteen (16) pumping stations and within 250 feet of residential zoning.
In 2015 the following definitions were added (and automobile service station as a definition was
deleted):
“Facility with fuel pumps: Any establishment that sells, distributes, or pumps fuels for
motor vehicles whether or not such facility provides automotive repair services or
includes a convenience store. See fuel pump definition.”
“Fuel pump: Also known as a "fueling position," means any self-service or full-service
device used for the sale of fuel for motor vehicles. A single fuel pump is a fuel pump
that can serve only one vehicle at a time. The number of pumps on a single device is
determined by the maximum number of vehicles that can be serviced at the same time.
For example, a fuel dispensing device that can fuel two vehicles at once is considered
two fuel pumps, and two fuel dispensing devices that can fuel four vehicles at once is
considered four fuel pumps, and so on.”
Page 31 of 37
PART 2 - Vacation of platted rights-of-way
PETITION NO. VAC-PL20150002788 – RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. requests the vacation of the
County and the public interest in an unimproved 30-foot wide public right-of-way described as
“Avenue B” and a portion of an unimproved 30-foot wide public right-of-way described as “First
Street,” according to the Col-Lee-Co Terrace subdivision plat, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 32
of the Public Records of Collier County. The subject property is located on the south side of U.S. 41
between Frederick Street and Palm Street in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida [Companion to Automobile Service Station Distance Waiver ASW-
PL20150002369].
BACKGROUND
This request is for a vacation of road right-of-way pursuant to section 10.02.04.G of the
Land Development Code (LDC).
G. Vacation and annulment of subdivision plats. Vacation and annulment of
a subdivision plat shall be in accordance with F.S. ch. 177.101, as may be amended,
and Collier County Resolution 2006-160, as amended.
The purpose of this vacation request is to remove all of one platted road right-of-way and
a portion of another. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) amended Resolutions 2006-
160 with Resolution 2013-166 on September 10th, 2013. Attached to the amended resolution
are three Policy and Procedure formats for different vacation applications. For this application
the applicant submitted documents listed in Attachment “A” of the Resolution, relating to the
vacation of a public right-of-way. The Attachments describe procedural steps including such
information as providing property title, tax status, legal descriptions and notification of
abutting owners. Requests specific to this form of vacation include, in brief:
“b) A statement explaining the general public benefit received from the proposed
vacation;
c) A copy of the document which granted, conveyed or dedicated the right-of-way to the
County or the public.
g) “Letters of No Objection” from all pertinent utility companies or authorized users of
the easement and/or dedicated public area as determined by Growth Management/Planning
and Regulation Administrator or his designee.
k) If a replacement easement is required by Collier County, the reviewing parties are
under no obligation to accept the offered alternative….”
The applicant provided information for BCC review in response to the submittal
requirements to vacate the two (2) rights-of-way. The rights-of-way (ROW) were dedicated
on the plat for the use and benefit of the public.
Page 32 of 37
The two rights-of-way are each thirty (30) feet wide which is half the standard
minimum width required by Collier County for a local public roadway. County staff has
noted that these rights-of-way have never been improved and the County has performed no
maintenance within the proposed vacated areas.
SUBMITTAL HISTORY
This is a companion item to the Automobile Station Waiver (ASW) discussed in Part I of
this report. On December 9th, 2015, Collier County received an application for vacating one
thirty (30) foot wide undeveloped right-of-way and a portion of another thirty (30) foot wide
undeveloped right-of-way as shown on the Col-Lee-Co Terrace Plat recorded on. The rights-of-
way are platted as Avenue B and First Avenue on Plat Book 1, Page 32. The areas requested to
be vacated are in red lines:
Page 33 of 37
RaceTrac is requesting to vacate the two ROW’s to allow development of Site Plan
“B” to include a fueling facility and convenience store. RaceTrac also submitted a Site Plan “A”
proposing the same uses and not relying on the ROW’s being vacated. Letters of No Objection
for the vacation request have been received from Comcast, Century Link, Collier County
Sheriff’s Office, and the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District. Florida Power and Light indicated
they would remove the existing facilities and relocate their facilities in a new easement at the
applicant’s expense.
FINDINGS
Based upon analysis, testimony and exhibits presented in connection with this matter, the
undersigned Hearing Examiner makes the following findings:
A. That the Hearing Examiner has heard this matter pursuant to the Board of County
Commissioners direction on April 26, 2016.
a. See Exhibit C: BCC minutes dated 4-26-2016
Motion made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Fiala to
forward to the Hearing Examiner. Motion approved unanimously.
B. That letters of no objection have been received from pertinent utility companies and
agencies.
a. See Exhibit TT: Letters of No Objection
b. See Exhibit UU: March 10 and 31 letters from FPL
c. See Exhibit VV Resolution 2013-166
Three utility companies and two public agencies responded to the request for letters
of no objection to the vacations. Comcast, CenturyLink, Collier County Sheriff, and the
Greater Naples Fire Rescue District all responded with no special conditions. On March
10, 2016 Florida Power and Light responded to the vacation request stating they have
existing facilities within the road right-of-way easement and requested funding to remove
those facilities in order to move forward with the vacation. On March 31, 2016,
RaceTrac provided the required payment for FP&L to move forward and FP&L has no
objection to the vacation once their facilities are removed and replacement easements
provided. A utility easement will be retained over the vacation area until all utilities are
removed.
C. That there is public benefit to be received from the proposed vacation as conditioned.
a. See Exhibit VV Resolution 2013-166
The existing platted road rights-of-way are vacant and unimproved. The proposed
vacation would provide a more unified land plan and increase the taxable value of the
property. Most importantly is the benefit that could be obtained to repair an intersection
that will become more unfavorable with any use that could be added to this property.
The alignment of Palm Street, US 41 and Commercial Drive to the north is not
perpendicular to one another as are most intersections. The additional access proposed
via this vacation would assist to make this intersection safer as traffic patterns increase in
Page 34 of 37
the area. This would be accomplished by obtaining thirty (30) feet of additional
easement width (in addition to the compensating right-of-way that is already considered)
along the east side of this property’s boundary at Palm Street. This additional width
would provide enough area for two (2) left stacking lanes, a dedicated through lane and a
dedicated right turn, thus helping to reduce the unfavorable conditions created by
additional traffic generate on the proposed site.
D. That Collier County require a replacement easement as condition of vacation.
a. See Exhibit VV Resolution 2013-166
b. See Exhibit WW Boundary Survey
c. See Exhibit XX Staff Executive Summary VAC
As discussed in detail in Part I of this report, the proposed project will cause adverse
impacts to traffic flow at the Palm Street and US 41 intersection. To reduce these
impacts a reconfiguration of the Palm Street and US 41 intersection should be considered
to provide additional right-of-way in order to obtain additional lanes along Palm Street.
The vacation of the requested rights-of-way releases approximately 16,420 square feet, or
slightly over one-third of an acre of developable property.
The applicant has agreed to provide compensating right-of-way as part of their
review, and for consideration of the vacation, a condition should require an additional
thirty (30) feet along their eastern property boundary at Palm Street. This area is in
addition to the compensating right-of-way and would be approximately 6,768 square feet.
Page 35 of 37
PUBLIC MEETING
A public meeting was held by the Hearing Examiner at the direction of the BCC over two days
on June 23rd and 30th, 2016. Meetings were held in the Board of County Commissioner’s board
room in the evening beginning at approximately 5 PM. There were two agenda items, an
automobile station wavier and a road right-of-way vacation. Both items were discussed
concurrently during the meeting. All registered speakers were not heard the first evening and the
meeting was continued at 8:57 PM. A week later at the continued date, the meeting began at 5
PM. All remaining speakers and concluding remarks were heard and the meeting adjourned at
7:52 PM.
Prior to the first evening, the Hearing Examiner’s office received approximately 200 emails
predominantly in opposition to the application. The first evening’s attendance required the use
of the overflow room to seat additional participants.
Procedural information was available to those in attendance and introductory statements were
made by the Hearing Examiner and the County Attorney. After disclosures, the applicant was
asked to provide a presentation of the issues.
During the first evening there were approximately fourteen (14) members of the public who
spoke over a two (2) hour period, with twelve (12) in opposition and two (2) in favor. The
second evening ten (10) members of the public spoke in opposition. Over both evenings,
twenty-four (24) speakers presented testimony. Two County staff members provided
acknowledgment of their positions of approval in their staff reports for both the ASW and the
vacation.
The public testimony involved issues of compatibility with specific references to concerns over
increased crime, general increased traffic, traffic impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods, noise,
vibration, increase in vagrancy, negative impact on property values, pedestrian and bicyclist
safety, environmental safety issues, concerns over a twenty-four (24) hour operation, water
quality of Henderson Creek, water management, concerns over impacts to the lifestyle in the
area, pollution issues, inconsistency with the criteria in the land development code, the need to
retain the roads seeking to be vacated, and inconsistency with the intent of the area’s
development (see minutes of meeting).
Minutes of both evenings, the agendas with backup and all back up materials can be viewed the
Clerk of Courts website for the Collier County HEX via the following link:
https://www.collierclerk.com/records-search/bmr-records-search . Additionally, these items are
attached as the following exhibits:
1. Exhibit MM 6-23-16 Special HEX Minutes
2. Exhibit NN 6-30-16 Special HEX Minutes
3. Exhibit OO HEX Agenda 6-23-16
4. Exhibit PP HEX Agenda 6-30-16
5. Exhibit QQ HEX Backup 6-23-16
6. Exhibit RR HEX Backup 6-30-16
Page 36 of 37
EXHIBIT LIST
1. Exhibit A Site Plan Option A
2. Exhibit B Site Plan Option B
3. Exhibit C BCC Minutes 4-26-16
4. Exhibit D US 41 Right-of-way Plans
5. Exhibit E Traffic Impact Statement
6. Exhibit F 2015 Aerial
7. Exhibit G Plat Book 1 Page 32
8. Exhibit H Plat Book 2 Page 82
9. Exhibit I Applicants Narrative
10. Exhibit J TIS Comment Response Letter
11. Exhibit K Insufficiency Letter
12. Exhibit L Market Study
13. Exhibit M Palm Street Improvements
14. Exhibit N TIS Memorandum
15. Exhibit O 2015 NACS Fuels Report
16. Exhibit P 2013 NACS Fuels Report
17. Exhibit Q Map of RaceTrac Market Areas
18. Exhibit R FDEP Fuel Facilities
19. Exhibit S 2012 NACS Fuels Report
20. Exhibit T 1969-2006 Zoning Maps
21. Exhibit U Early Zoning Codes
22. Exhibit V Gas Station Size by Year
23. Exhibit W Ordinance 92-43
24. Exhibit X 2016 Zoning Map
25. Exhibit Y Compatibility Exception Staff Report
26. Exhibit Z LDC 2014 Section 5.05.05
27. Exhibit AA Ordinance 2015-46
28. Exhibit BB ASW LDC Amendment
29. Exhibit CC BCC Minutes 7-7-2015
30. Exhibit DD LDC 2016 Section 5.05.05
31. Exhibit EE LDC 2.03.03 Commercial Zoning
32. Exhibit FF LDC 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements
33. Exhibit GG BCC Minutes 6-10-1998
34. Exhibit HH 2014 Market Study
35. Exhibit II CCPC Minutes 5-13-1998
36. Exhibit JJ ASW Submittal
37. Exhibit KK SFWMD Permit
38. Exhibit LL Engineering Report
39. Exhibit MM 6-23-16 Special HEX Minutes