Loading...
Agenda 12/09/2014 Item # 11F 12/9/2014 11 .F. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to accept the Staff interpretation of Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.05.05.B. regarding the manner in which the distance between automobile service stations are determined. (Companion to agenda item 8a,ASW-PL201400000797) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) accept the Staff interpretation of the Land Development Code (LDC) regarding the manner in which the distance between automobile service stations are determined. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 18, 2014 the Board directed the Planning Manager to bring to the Board at the December 9, 2014 Public Hearing an interpretation on how the 500-foot separation requirement between service stations is measured. Land Development Code section 1.06.01.A., states, "The County Manager or designee shall have the authority to make all interpretations of the text of this LDC,... " LDC section 5.05.05 — Automobile Service Stations (Exhibit "A") states, "A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that automobile service stations do not adversely impact adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. The high levels of traffic, glare, and intensity of use associated with service stations, particularly those open 24 hours, may be incompatible with surrounding uses, especially residential uses. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the public, the following regulations shall apply to the location, layout, drainage, operation, landscaping, parking, and permitted sales and service activities of automobile service stations." Further 5.05.05.B provides, "Site design requirements... Separation from adjacent automobile service stations (500 ft.) (based on distance between nearest points). " It is staff's interpretation that this separation requirement is to be measured from the nearest points of the parcel lines of the service stations in question. This interpretation has been the historic application for determining the distance between service stations. Exhibit "B" of this executive summary provides for three past Automobile Service Station Distance Waiver (ASW) petitions approved by the Board, and from the accompanying illustrations of each Resolution, the parcel line measurements have been utilized to determine the distance between the service stations in question. It is staff's interpretation that this approach is the intended manner in which distance between service stations is to be determined. Additionally, review of the transcript of the June 10, 1998 meeting of the Board (Exhibit "C"), when the automobile service station distance requirement was being discussed for adoption, provides insight to the reasoning for adoption of the regulation. During the discussion of the distance requirement Commissioner Mac'Kie states, "I wasn't so much looking for the ability to have an exception to the five hundred feet as I was worried that the 500 feet is not enough to avoid the gasoline alley that we are worried about" Further, the term gasoline alley is utilized by Commissioner Hancock later in the discussion. From review of the transcripts it becomes Packet Page-631- 12/9/2014 11 .F. clear that the intent of the separation requirement was to ensure that service stations were appropriately spaced to avoid the potential consequences of locating intense trip generating land uses within close proximity to each other. The distance calculation utilizing the nearest points of the subject parcel lines provides for the greatest potential separation requirement for implementing the policy, and therefore it is staff's interpretation that the parcel line to parcel line measurement is the intended application of the service station separation requirement. As noted, this interpretation is authorized by LDC section 1.06.01.A. and is utilized to comply with the Board's direction to bring the interpretation to the December 9, 2014 Public Hearing. If an Official Interpretation is requested by the Board, following the requirements of the administrative code, that official interpretation would be required to be advertised in the Naples Daily News, as well as providing for a thirty day appeal period, before the official interpretation is final. The time frame associated with an Official Interpretation could not be satisfied before the December 9, 2014 Public Hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no Fiscal Impact associated with the recommendation of this Executive Summary. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: There is no GMP impact for this item. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally sufficient, and requires majority vote for approval. —JK RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Board to accept the interpretation as presented within this executive summary. PREPARED BY: Michael Bosi,AICP, Director, Department of Planning& Zoning Growth Management Division Attachments: Exhibit "A" LDC Section 5.05.05 Exhibit"B" prior Service Station Distance Waiver petitions Exhibit "C" Transcript of the June 10, 1998 Board meeting Packet Page -632- 12/9/2014 11 .F. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 11.C. Item Summary: <EM>This item to be heard immediately following Item l 1E.&nbsp; </EM>This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to accept the Staff interpretation of Land Development Code(LDC) Section 5.05.05.B. regarding the manner in which the distance between automobile service stations are determined (This item is a companion to item 8A,ASW- PL201400000797). (Mike Bosi, Zoning Director) Meeting Date: 12/9/2014 Prepared By Name: bosimichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Approved By Name: scottstone Title:Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 11/21/2014 1 1:37:55 AM Name:NickCasalanguida Title: Administrator-Growth Management Div, Business Management&Budget Office Date: 11/23/2014 09:52.:12 PM Name: puigj Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 11/24/2014 08:42:08 AM Name: klatzkowjeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 11/24/2014 09:04:46 AM Name: markisackson Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget Date: 11/24/2014 09:45:57 AM Packet Page -633- 12/9/2014 11.F. Name: EdFinn Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering&Construction Management Date: 11/25/2014 10:58:34 AM Name: ochs_l Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 11/30/2014 08:04:18 PM Packet Page-634- 12/9/2014 11 .F. Exhibit "A" 5.05.05-Automobile Service Stations A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that automobile service stations do not adversely impact adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. The high levels of traffic, glare, and intensity of use associated with service stations, particularly those open 24 hours, may be incompatible with surrounding uses, especially residential uses. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the public, the following regulations shall apply to the location, layout, drainage, operation, landscaping, parking, and permitted sales and service activities of automobile service stations. B. Site design requirements. 1. Table of site design requirements: 1 Site Standards Minimum lot area (sq.ft.) '30,000 Minimum lot width (ft.) 1 150 Minimum lot depth (ft.) 180 Separation from adjacent automobile service stations (ft.) (based on distance between 500 nearest points) Minimum setbacks, all structures: Front yard 1 50 Side yard 40 Rear yard ;40 2. Waiver of separation requirements. a. The BZA may, by resolution, grant a waiver of part or all of the minimum separation requirements set forth herein 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, structures, or other features which offset or limit the necessity for such minimum distance Page 1 Packet Page-635- 12/9/2014 11.F. requirements. The BZA's decision to waive part or all of the distance requirements shall be based upon the following factors: i. Whether the nature and type of natural or manmade boundary, structure, or other feature lying between the proposed establishment and an existing automobile service station is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed service station. Such boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not limited to, lakes, marshes, nondevelopable wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a 4 lane arterial or collector right-of-way. ii. Whether the automobile service station is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles during regular, daytime business hours, or, if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the station sells food, gasoline, and other convenience items during daytime, nighttime, or on a 24 hour basis. iii. Whether the service station 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. b. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for an automobile service station waiver request. The request for an automobile service station 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 automobile service station in the desired location. 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 automobile service station with the surrounding area and the goals and objectives of the GMP. C. Building architecture and signage requirements. 1. Building architecture shall meet the requirements of section 5.05.08 2. Signage for automobile service stations. The following are the only signs allowed in automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas pumps. a. Window, Wall, and other signs: As allowed in Section 5.06.00 of this Code. b. All canopies may have an illuminated corporate logo with a maximum area of 12 square feet shall be allowed on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway. Otherwise, accent lighting, back lighting and accent striping are prohibited on canopy structures. c. One ground sign shall be permitted for each site and shall be placed within a 200 square foot landscaped area. Height is limited so that the top edge of the sign face is less than eight feet above grade. Maximum permitted area 60 square feet. d. Signage is prohibited above gas pumps. D. The following landscape requirements are in addition to the requirements of section 4.06.00 Landscaping and Buffering. 1. Right-of-way buffer landscaping: a. Landscaping adjacent to rights-of-way external to the development project shall be located within a landscape buffer easement which is a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in width. Water management swales shall not be located within these buffer areas; however, water management facilities such as underground piping shall be permitted. Page 2 Packet Page -636- 12/9/2014 11 .F. b. An undulating berm with a maximum slope of 3:1 shall be constructed along the entire length of the landscape buffer. The berm shall be constructed and maintained at a minimum average height of three (3) feet. The berm shall be planted with ground cover (other than grass), shrubs, hedges, trees, and palms. c. The required trees and palms shall be clustered in double rows with a minimum of three (3) trees per cluster. Canopy trees shall be planted a maximum of twenty (20) feet on center within a cluster. The use of palms within the right-of-way buffer shall be limited to landscaped areas adjacent to vehicular access points. Palms shall be planted in staggered heights, a minimum of three (3) palms per cluster, spaced at a maximum of eight (8)feet on center, with a minimum of a four(4)foot difference in height between each tree. Exceptions will be made for Roystonea spp. and Phoenix spp. (not including roebelenii) which may be planted one (1) palm per cluster. A maximum distance of twenty- five (25) feet between all types of tree clusters shall be maintained (See Illustration 1 below). d. All of the trees shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet in height at the time of installation. Trees shall have a minimum of a three and one-half(3' ) inch caliper at twelve (12) inches above the ground and a six (6) foot spread. At installation, shrubs shall be a minimum of ten (10) gallon, five (5) feet in height, with a three (3) foot spread, planted four (4) feet on center. 2. Landscaping adjacent to all other property lines: a. Side property boundaries (other than those adjacent to rights-of-way) shall be planted with single row hedges consistent with the minimum requirements of section 4.06.00, Landscaping and Buffering. b. Rear property boundaries (other than those adjacent to road rights-of-way) shall be planted with a single row hedge. The hedge shall be a minimum height of four (4) feet at planting, planted at three (3) feet on center, and shall be maintained at a height of five (5) feet. c. Curbing shall be installed and constructed, consistent with minimum code requirements, between all paved areas and landscape areas. Page 3 Packet Page-637- 12/9/2014 11 .F. FE FE Page 4 Packet Page-638- 12/9/2014 11 .F. ILLUSTRATION 'I it,k� .� �-�I • .F h%`2 � -°�° .' ca�°.&."- "Oa%i 1`;`e Fib j��.��s�p`o° +@��L p.I °1 ' TREE ITYP.) .4.a • h I`ka^FA .4."- r�‘01 C i .I BUILDING 'Leo' � � ,? ' k}+ y ,: .r 1 • r : W 4 ti' • f� ' ,. �I, kOarvi, . r.°A° • ,t r• IMMIl■r�l� r■ENNM ilci�ii`i z *A \ E , PALM ITYP.) v?,,-;1 i °)9 25'WIDE PY CANO .�a 3 BUFFER ,'�,^I :::,5 3:1 BERM 10 3'HT. 'V'1'I DOUBLE ROW 20'MAX 10' MIN ' : DISTANCE BETWEEN TREES t FROM / '� ,!y��MR- PAVEMENT nit T 7 DISTANCE ��� L •:::: BETWEEN CLUSTERS r �} 10' MAX IJ�},' SPACING ' :.::Vs:' �),,rTA BETWEEN � 1111 - • � I } r- PALMS `K ,. BUFFER ■1 � � t 4 + ��(WWI 20 R.O.W. SHRUB & MAX GROUND SPACING COVER BETWEEN EDGE TREES MIN. 3 PALMS PER CLUSTER AT PAVEMENT ENTRANCES AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION R.O.W. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS MLR PREPARED BY OFFICE OF GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE:5/2004 FIE:LDC-2009-2.OWG Illustration 1.Auto Service Station R.O.W. Landscape Requirements E. Automobile service station sites shall be separated from adjacent residentially zoned or residentially developed properties by an architecturally designed 6 foot high masonry wall or fence utilizing materials similar in color, module, and texture to those utilized for the building. Landscaping shall be planted on the residential side of the fence or wall. F. Lighting. 1. All lighting facilities shall be directed away from adjoining properties. 2. On-site luminaries shall be of low level, indirect diffuse type, and shall not exceed a height of greater than twenty(20)feet above finished grade. 3. Lighting located underneath a canopy shall be of low level, indirect diffuse type designed to provide light only to the pump island areas located underneath said canopy. G. All restrooms shall be located inside or to the side or rear of the building. Page 5 Packet Page-639- 12/9/2014 11.F. H. As required by section 5.03.04, a six (6) foot high enclosed trash area to be integrated with the design of the service station shall be provided. I. Storage tanks shall be located below grade. J. There shall be no outside displays of products, stacking of tires, or other merchandise. K. No automobile service station shall have an entrance or exit for vehicles within 200 feet along the same side of a street as a school, public playground, child care center, church, hospital, public library, or any institution for dependents or for children, except where such property is in another block. L. Color accent banding on gasoline canopy structures and all other structures is prohibited. Canopies shall be of one (1) color, consistent with the predominant color of the principal structure, if applicable. The color of all structures on-site shall be of soft earth tones or pastels. M. Each automobile service station shall provide the necessary infrastructure and pre-wiring in order to provide the capabilities for generator service in case of emergencies. N. In addition to the retail dispensing of automobile fuels and oil, only the following services may be rendered and sales made, except as indicated: 1. Sales and servicing of spark plugs, batteries, distributors, and distributor parts. 2. Sales, mounting, balancing, and repair of tires and wheel alignments, but not recapping of tires. 3. Sales and replacement of water hoses, fan belts, brake fluid, light bulbs, fuses, floor mats, wiper blades, grease retainers, wheel bearings, shock absorbers, mirrors, exhaust systems, and the like. 4. Provision of water, antifreeze, flushing of the cooling system, air conditioning recharge, and the like. 5. Providing and repairing fuel pumps and lines. 6. Minor motor adjustments not involving removal of the head or crankcase. 7. Greasing and lubrication. 8. 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. 9. Provision of road maps and other information. 10. No mechanical work shall be allowed outside of the enclosed areas. 11. Oil drainage pits or appliances for such purpose or repair purposes shall be located within a wholly enclosed building. 12. Uses permissible at an automobile service station do not include major mechanical and body work, straightening of frames or body parts, steam cleaning, painting, welding, storage of automobiles (except as expressly permitted in subsection 13. below), commercial garage as an accessory use, or other work involving undue noise, glare, fumes, smoke, or other characteristics to an extent greater than normally found in such stations. An automobile service station is not a facility for the sale of automobile vehicles, a repair garage, a body shop, or a truck stop. 13. The temporary storage of vehicles shall be permitted if the vehicles are to be serviced at the service station or if the vehicles have been towed by the service station and are being held for servicing, for an insurance company, or for salvage. Any such vehicle(s), other than those vehicles serviced daily, shall be stored within an area surrounded by an opaque fence not less than six (6)feet high. Said vehicles shall not be stored longer than sixty(60) days. 14. Washing and polishing of automobiles and sale of automobile washing and polishing materials, but this only allows auto detailing as an accessory use. This provision does not allow Page 6 Packet Page-640- 12/9/2014 11 .F. carwashes except in those zoning districts where a carwash is a permitted use, and where such carwashes shall be subject to criteria specified in the zoning district. O. Exceptions: 1. The site design standards set forth in 5.05.05 B.1. (table) shall not apply to, nor render non- conforming, any existing automobile service station or any automobile service station within a PUD in which a specific architectural rendering and site plan was approved as part of a rezoning action prior to July 5, 1998. 2. The site design standards set forth in 5.05.05 F.—M. or any other applicable development standard shall apply to existing automobile service stations pursuant to the provisions of 9.03.00 Nonconformities, and all other applicable sections of the Land Development Code. (Ord. No. 09-43, § 3.A: Ord. No. 10-23; § 3.JJ; Ord. No. 13-56, § 3.S) Page 7 Packet Page -641- 12/9/2014 11.F. Exhibit B ' Prior approved Automobile Service Station Distance Waiver petitions: ASW-2000-1, ASW-99-1, ASW-98-1 . .. ........................................ Packet Page -642- 12/9/2014 11 .F. 17F RESOLUTION NO.2000- 277 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER ASW-2000-01 FOR A 300-FOOT WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS FOR PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public;and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ord. No. 91-102)which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances;and WHEREAS,Subsection 2.6.25.4.of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County empowers the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear requests to waive the minimum required separation of 500 feet between automobile service stations;and WHEREAS, Subsection 2.6.28.4.of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County further provides the criteria by which said evaluation to waive all or pan of the minimum distance requirement shall be made;and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals,being the duly elected constituted board of the area hereby affected,has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided,and has considered the advisability of granting a waiver of 300 feet from the 500-foot separation requirement between service stations with the resulting separation between service stations of 200 feet for a service station located on the property hereinafter described,and has found as amatter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 16.28.4. of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County;and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given an opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County,Florida,that: Petition ASW-2004-01 represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., on behalf of 7- Eleven,Inc.,with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 2,Capri Commercial Center,in Section 3,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida -1- Packet Page -643- 12/9/2014 11 .F. 17F be and the same hereby is approved for a waiver of 300 feet from the minimum separation requirement for service stations of 500 feet between the above described property and the lot on which the nearest service station establishment is located,with a resulting required minimum separation requirement of 200 feet,subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site shall comply with Section 2.6.28 of the Land Development Code. BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number ASW-2000-01 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion,second and majority vote. Done this 4.7 day of ,,2000. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZO . 'PEALS DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK COLL t • •UNTY,FLORIDA ii" J.C tt 7 A 74 CHAIRMAN Attest as to Chairman's signature only. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: (024 1 YYi �u.e- Marjori M.Student Assistant County Attorney G/admiNASW-2(100-04/RG/u -2- Packet Page -644- 12/9/2014 11 .F. --;-..'-1:'''''t'i'r4-1-1'2A-+"11,-,. :"..,, ,,T-,t ' -„,,A a;7 , < 4. a i as tw:t 2 fi O l `I K ,f -4,_•- ,t . :t'}.. , H Av Est .+ �x t, G ._i` . ...., .07,,,,_.,......‘, lv,_,,, .,...... ;:,...;.._ ., ,D . . :.,.. ., :,..,.,,..4,...;t,,,,..,,.":;..,,,,,iO4..,..f.,(,:i.,..,. ,,„4i.i.._ „44.,,,,,,,:,, ,,,,,,,,..,13; ,�� .,.'it.,--'I � @ f iUdu ZL' �. I .- . ' " ,may °o 41 i .. '..* ��pp�� y` :/:.'-'1: �,. .if A 6 c C 'Sx 'R ,R.i,; �y - f Y �W` �J 18�' a � `, 7. ,M U➢ Q w w z:„3to f ^'� �o_ N "W 1.-'''l Y *a� �.j V �� � � -�` � 8` � �� t"- �r* maw y�. �,.,.�„„ # k" ��i � 9` of ,�'�'4 9t ;.44, ! } - c F'A yk • m�#�w "T<WyF' is '.41f'N s f e .t e -.' tt s^ ,Y ":', e-a Y ,� $' f. , r,.....,,,,„,„°543x_ ,l6 ?, —4,. 6, .7, >� ^ ^q b+.` .R a •„ . ,„ , 3 \s,,it, .r” of f`, tt`, � ,,. = F. k: • ,� f C < , a<µ- - i Packet Page -6.45- 12/9/2014 11.F. 17/ RESOLUTION NO.2000- 51. RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER ASW-99-1 FOR A 300 FOOT WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS FOR PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS,the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125,Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public;and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ord. No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances;and WHEREAS,Subsection 2.6.28.4. of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County empowers the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear requests to waive the minimum required separation of 500 feet between automobile service stations;and WHEREAS,Subsection 2.6.28.4. of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County further provides the criteria by which said evaluation to waive all or part of the minimum distance requirement shall be made;and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted board of the area hereby affected,has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of granting the waiver of the 300 foot waiver from the 500 foot separation requirement between service stations for a service station located on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning .................. all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.28.4. of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County;and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given an opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County,Florida,that: The Petition ASW-99-1 represented by MDM Services, Inc., on behalf of Sam's Club with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit"A" -1- Packet Page -646- 12/9/2014 11 .F. 171 ¶ be and the same hereby is approved for a waiver of 300 feet from the minimum separation requirement for service stations of 500 feet between the above described property and the lot on which the nearest service station establishment is located, with a resulting required minimum separation requirement of 200 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site shall comply with Section 2.6.28 of the Land Development Code. BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number ASW-98-1 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion,second and majority vote. Done this ova day of Q.tbf\.t42./4.'t ,2000. 4TI b`ST .. • BOARD. (I ONING APPEALS DWIGHT E.BRO4,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TIM THY P..,0 ANTINE,CHAIRMAN -:.Attest as A� 5a1t^�:t is r sittriaturt APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ICI— _ M • ORIE M.STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY G:I imm/ASW-99 OIICHhe ... ........................................... . -2- Packet Page-647- --- 12/9/2014 11.F. 9414481106 11102 '99 11:25 4O.771 08/08 Mph! OE^•VICES p 171 (r N) NETLS a 30Al=S DESCRIPTION (ke regeeeted by Client): R portion of the Vest Nelf of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 Last, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described ss follows: Coe..ece at the Northwest corner of said Section 25; thence N.64'56'45'L., 100.01 feet along the North boundary of said Section 251 thence 5.00446'00"L., 150.01 feet, parsllet with the pest boundary of said Section 25, to the intersection of a Collier County right-of-way, as shown in Road Plat took I. page 37 of the Public Records of Said County, with the south right-of-way lint of County load No. C-146 (Ieeokalee Rood), es recorded is Official Record book 1545, page 445 of the Public Records of said County. and the POINT OF SECINNZNG; thence [.84•56'45"t.. 562.19 feet stung acid South right-of-way Line to the East boundary of the Vest Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 251 thence ' S.0O'52'15'E., 1179.12 feet along said Lest boundary to the South honadary of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section I5; thence S.119•56'16"V., 564.33 feet along said South boundary to the East right-of-wcy lies of the Collier County right-of-way shown is said Road Plat Book 2, page 37; thesce 11.00°46100"V., 1179.87 fast slang said Last right-of- say line to the POINT OF =INNING. Containing 15.255 scree. sore or less. AGENDA ITEM Na - FEB 2 71300 Pg.Li Packet Page-648- 12/9/2014 11 .F. • ,041 ___. -rdt.01 171 . t ,.4 • •.......... %war I Ke ii yfriiiiiitgiT;Iliter i • . 0 i i . i 1 1 - i • , 1 11111 111, 1 \ i • gli M A ! 1 1 ainti qi V 1 4,10 411 — — • ii Iii ''. ;T; ,. • CI " T.• •11.). -I 1 1 CD "— 2.-- . .. c7:-: - -7 ° ' • .. . = .. . cs 1 i It • ' :-.74-7 t c=! i ! Q i — -- '- - -. T i i., – •— - , – –,– — –4-- . . . 1 7"4 ..--"-- """4"..= C Ti■I'"*.4.-". '..77-77'. t..".-'-- 7,...1 1 i •■. I SEM . =1 I i 1 • i - 1 111;21 11-21 i c:= i .!rir. .r•-■• . r"li ...... .. ••• ••: , : • L. , . '1 Vh.--," ..7. • ■ 1 ••■•■•■••■•■•,............■•••■■••■ C-046 (11‘11,11OKALEE_InVial AGF-NDA ITEM 12 ° 11 1 _ r . I ••Q I X i Ai . , idr FEj 2 1 2000 hi Pli• 14/ TO'A SZ:EC 666 — - 20/ o 922"ON 1.47:LL 66, 01121, 90L Liat9 076 S3DIAIGS WOW Packet Page -649- x�..- . 12/9/2014 11 .F. CO ' 1,1I ki, - 1.: 1, :. , .. .. r, .. a ',....,, . p- -.-,. K $ N M m imp CD •,, s . . ,� 4lf u ; C.....,ti a .a .. Y , 0 ctfp) A"' '-‘-'" -.:,.":::.,,o,,,,,!, li 1. ��s +- +��% RAC"4.�O.,v; s » r w.�� � -"�I", , *b J.. . , E ° .Q. J `' .,� �— O[1 [-1 a fn • a.. 1,a4t 4 ems .`� ..,tl` 251 i 1":,f-• �. — .r _ � _. #fix, .» iO.. E 0 x°. f M F ' . I 'i 10� ��,. �xSyt yty_ � _ • ten-.. � .P€ p� f Oil ,A 4:1,�' �� :W >.,I f �' I I t-a�+'t "'%i It �j£J , ,,,,;$', 4 t ,, !� ?'.� :',„,,;°-.'".-:,"":mow t _ l �, .. '' Al t _, q ' ,. Naa ppI1-i.-- taoaa,Ir �i _ wa. r'',e°ra.:>#a. n�x.,.nasw. �+' "'*�",s ,. .» 1`a`�`.i �.as..a .°. .,y.F �s u ---.5„,-,-..-..,....• ' rce.,, i, -,. ,ii. .-it,, . ..„..:,‘„,,i) -I .."' ..:„4:::.<' -,..,G,J; 2. .....1...•_;.---::----1_,,,,p‘,-, .:-..,F.,..,:i4:.,,,,,,i,-':'.:.‘:;,..77. ,., ,.,,,14;.:1::,-,,,,_:, :',,,,,,,it.:1-: _',,:, „,,i F [it 1 s ", f9 C Y P__s,.s.-W4A Y,©mo w ;,` i't !4 sY& A.tc Tc w e ,.it 4 ,� "., FL-. ' fi E a7; X56 ti "4'''.... -�.. '�i:' ili Via. �I° g� ': t ,.; ..k.,.—,- _ ty 4 4,r:f 9 - ee 4r �� A °`� b fP ? ,:*.,1•.,-,-,,,, M¢d 1L �`Y�p 3 °.. i �34�� I3M A 1 �T :IN z� �.1n�' af 4 .{i� $.a.#t�g Y ; ' � i:.. '7 -4-v:-. ` t `x r O �� i'''''i..!'' � �� � a � SCI = � i ^.-� a �a i 1 ri 'yp. ;.;:, :+ 1°"IAt'.i�9' "r. ^r O � 2 'i. r `,#,,,, -.,„: 8 l' -.., -1 )'. v.7:147g'`'` " _ '''' - ' —aks •*--'de'3—'14'4— Packet Page -550- 12/9/2014 11 .F. • 17 • RESOLUTION NO. 98-- d 99 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER ASW-98-1 FOR A 400 FOOT WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS FOR PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the Scate of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Ficrida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land DevelocoenC Code (Ord. No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among • which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, Subsection 2.6.23. 4. of the Land Development Code for he unincorporated area of Collier County empowers the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear requests to waive the minimum required separation of 500 feet between automobile service stations; and WHEREAS, Subsection 2 .6.23. 4. of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County further provides the criteria by which said evaluation to waive all or part of the minimum distance requirement shali be made; and WHEREAS 'the Board-of Zoning Appeals, being the duly el _ A elected constituted board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of granting the waiver of the 500 foot separation requirement between service stations for a service station located on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.23.4. of the Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given an opportunity to • be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled and the Board raving considered all matters presented; __.-..... . ... Packet Page-651- ® 12/9/2014 11 .F. 17r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida, that: The Petition ASW-9E)-1 represented by Blair A. Foley, P.E., of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Anthony Voigt, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: A portion of Lots 1 through 10 and Lots 36 through 42, Royal • Palm Terrace Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 35, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. • be and the same hereby is approved for a waiver of 400 feet from the minir._m separation requirement for service stations of 50D fees: between 7.:,e above described property and the lot on which the nearest service station establishment is located, with a resulting required minimum separation requirement of 100 feet, subject to the following conditions: Leo poem of the site shall comply with Section 2.6.23 of the Land Development Code. BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number • AS'N-98-1 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this -�-� — day of - �.�^� � 199B. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APi7EALS =XiI.+S'f E. EROC?;, LLEP...°, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA • ` is \, • f. f-.•�� BARBARA B ERR',. CHA'. .......... 'APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICENC'i: MITRJOftIE M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY • • -2- Packet Page -652- 12/9/2014 11 .F. n °: , ,. � yam_1...\I : c:-II .. ‘. N ,#a .., e -ITZw:-'-''-'-, $ _ awl, N 44 U 44 J N H ir 141:.':'4 s � dl V ` 00 - H maJputl !r 9_w a:,.—,; �.::...„ ."...,..,..„: r �� �EI � - � N '_ 4`'.,.„, 4_.:,, . ,.-- t> .:,„. ',' G am' :rn,. '" Y.:' .e 4'w 0 � N' ��?- 4 > +" _ -,,, - .:.. , .nl. .,:: rt.'� dye '`'� s S• is episdeg w ''n .mot .*„ vY' �" 4x,.1t r ,. G. -c.„,44,-„.. 4,:ltilk ,,..„. --,„ a 3- r2 - -- ;... -, o„,.i.A4f7-,-g.-.. - ' 0 {y °,*.,-,,,": W ,qv 7:-,' kti TLimpimikei,- � ;•' � tea- � � �� .,"� -,s ® r 2ZO.f: o b❑ ume�MOp4-s.m _ .ter o,� m• ..7., ° �tl fp a��TO y s 1 g *`"`x --...,$.,';',.4.. .._. K I t t' z` a ' ,?C .ash x s �c " ( `t Ail .,. �°e+ '.1 " ^5,. ''.. x`r'C.) ,''� `��, - , ' .. u+* ►:u,. • k' 'ear 4z, r�t . 6tm ` F roK �* rz1 i saf es �� . �• . # °;+, r • } 'Q-' -� 4 i:� r 7 if d e , n ;# :. '� , tom:. - s ,, '-z� r .b �.- x; K fr 7°,, 't -'�,»' .nkw �. vy r s 7.04 : :'7'' '.",;1'1",U",44*4'i.. 1-'''':*A4‘ Packet Page 653- 12/9/2014 11.F. Exhibit C Transcript of the June 10, 1998 meeting of the Board .. .. . .. ....... .... . Packet Page -654- 12/9/2014 11 .F. TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 10, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:10 p.m. in a LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Packet Page-655- 12/9/2014 11.F. Item #2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE .91 l02� THE: COLTTER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT.CODE = SECOND PUBL°IC'"HEARI G TO BE HELD$ON' JUNE 24, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Land Development Code hearing for Wednesday, June 10th. I'd like to remind all of you, there will be no action taken at this meeting today. The second hearing will be held on June 24th at 5: 05. Today, we'll be going over the different changes in anything that we may be doing in the future. So, if you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison . CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ron Nino, for the record. I have the privilege of presenting the Land Development Code amendments for this first of two annual cycles that we do in any calendar year. You will be -- you're meeting tonight, and you will, again, be meeting on June the 24th for, hopefully, what will be the final meeting to address these proposed Land Development Code amendments. With your indulgence, I'd like to start with the first and take them in chronological order in which they appear in your agenda. However, before that, I'd like to hand out the review comments of the Development Services Advisory Committee. Their meeting came after our preparation of your agenda package. Subsequently, we have to complement by handout this evening. The first item that -- the first amendment that is proposed is an amendment to the RIM-6 multi-family zoning district, and as a matter of fact, you may recall on a couple cf occasions when we had to come before you to rezone land in the RMF-6 zoning district because people wanted to build single family housing, and single family housing was very inadequately dealt with under the current RMF-6 zoning district. It would have required a minimum frontage of 100 feet and a one acre lot size, and I recall -- I think you even suggested that, staff, you ought to think about changing that section in the Land Development Code. We think these standards are comparable with the standards that would be applicable to the respective housing structure types. Namely, if it's single family, we've introduced the RMF-6 standard which is a 50 foot lot and similarly, for a two-story -- two family and multi-family structure. Importantly, lest you -- we be concerned that this would affect some nonconforming lots, there is a provision in here that says any plat of record irrespective of its size may be utilized for a single family house. That matter was reviewed by the planning commission and the Development Services Advisory Council, and they did not express any objection to that amendment. The second amendment, Pages 6 and 7, have to do with introducing a requirement for a minimum space between commercial structures when they are clustered on one parcel of land. It's hard to believe that such a standard did not exist, but the fact remains that there was no standard as there is for multi-family housing and the business park district, and this requirement would institute the same technique that is applicable to the spacing requirement for multi-family structures, Packet Page -656- 12/9/2014 11 .F. project placed their dumpster immediately next to single family that's only ten feet on the other side of the fence, and we didn't seem to have locational criteria when that occurred to review the off-site impacts of the dumpster location, and so -- MR. MULHERE: It seems like that -- we can review that as part of -- it should be reviewed as part of the site development plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask for our next LDC amendment cycle that we look at whether or not that proximity to residential is part of the review process? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to drag this out today, but I wanted to mention that as a concern and understand how it's addressed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, you're absolutely right, but I'll tell you, a wall or a wood fence doesn't necessarily take care of it because whatever is on the other side can be pretty putrid. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in this example, that dumpster -- instead of locating next to the units of the people who are buying in there, they threw it next to the houses of the people across the fence for obvious reasons, and I don't think that's fair, and I don't think it should happen, but we need to have a way in the review process, a mechanism for you to look at that and determine whether what they are doing is offensive to neighboring properties, and that's all I'm asking, that we find a way to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great idea. MR. NINO: So noted. Just for the record, I handed out some modifications to that provision primarily dealing with access and noting after the first sentence that that should read, when directly accessing a public street for that eight by fifty and indicating a sketch diagram of what that looks like, and we will take up the matter of locational criteria for your next review. The next item deals with a revision, wholesale revision of the automobile service station section. Most notably -- I'm just going to touch on the highlights, and Susan Murray has a presentation, which I think will be very interesting in addressing what would be the impact, in particular, the spacing requirement. We had recommended a spacing requirement of 500 feet airline miles, airline distance, and both the planning commission and the DSAC recommended or thought that that 500 separation should be linear restricted to one side of the street. The copy that you have does reflect the DSAC and CCPC recommendation. We wanted you to know how it started out originally, however. The -- there are substantially enhanced landscaping requirements here, and I would like Susan Murrayto discuss the detail effect of the 500 as it applies to the interstate:' MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray with current planning staff. First, I just want to preface my presentation briefly, just to let you know, and I'm sure you noted that we did strike out the entire section as it currently exists. However, in generating the replacement code, basically what we did was we rewrote the existing code enhancing some of the existing requirements and adding others, and this new version, while similar in some respects in content and structure, does depart in some instances from the existing code, and I'll be pointing those out to you as we go along. We did revise the purpose and intent of the amendment as written, basically recognizing that automobile service stations have become a Packet Page -657- 12/9/2014 11.F. 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 the use of buffers and separation of land uses. So with that said, I'd like to go ahead and touch on the areas of the code which have been enhanced, and then I'll go on further and explain the areas that we added to the code. The first area I want to touch on is on Page 59. It's under Subsection 8, the landscaping section. What we did was we added some additional requirements for right-of-way buffer landscaping. Specifically, the code now as it's drafted requires a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer easement in which water management swales would not be permitted to be located. However, you could have water management as underground piping. Within that 25 foot wide landscaped buffer, you would be required to construct an undulating berm with a maximum slope of three to one. It would be required to be constructed along the entire length of the buffer at an average height of three feet, and that undulating berm would be required to be planted with ground cover other than grass, shrubs, trees and palms. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Ms. Murray, what is an undulating berm? I think I know what a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Curvy. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, a curvy berm. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bumpy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Varying in height and line. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I was thinking it was some type of a moving berm, and I was thinking, I don't think I'm familiar with this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: New from Universal Studios, the undulating berm. MR. NINO: Its moguls. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's moguls, okay, I understand that. COMMISSIONER MAAC'KIE: Moguls, now you're talking our language. MS. MURRAY: The plantings on this berm would be required to be clustered in double rows with a minimum of three trees per cluster. We are proposing to limit the use of palms to areas within the landscaped areas adjacent to vehicular access points, and we've also established some minimum spacing criteria fcr the trees planted within these clusters and then minimum spacing criteria between the clusters. We are increasing the required height of the trees to be -- 100 percent cf the trees at planting shall be a minimum height of 14 feet at the time of =.installation, and we've also proposed some enhancements to increase the shrub size at the time of planting. We also proposed landscaping adjacent to other property lines. We enhanced the -- basically, the plant standards adjacent to these other property lines. What we've attempted to do, and I 'll refer you to the illustration that's shown here, is -- and this example shows a corner piece of property, but if you look to the left side of your page, you will notice that what we are trying to do is create an instant buffer rather than the soldier effect that we tend to see on our right-of-way landscape buffers. We are trying to create an instant buffer so we are not waiting years and years and years to get this kind of landscape buffer. I'll also refer you to Page 43 real quickly because we amended Table 2.4 in the landscaping requirements, and if you look at the Packet Page -658- 3t 12/9/2014 11 .F. bottom of that table under Number 14, you'll see that we specifically referenced automobile service stations as a specific use and then required very specific buffers depending on the type of use that they are adjacent to. The second part of the code that we enhanced had to do with architectural standards, and that would be starting on Page 61, specifically with regard to signage, and that would be -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, let's talk signage, shall we? MS. MURRAY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've always been an advocate of eliminating whole signs pretty much altogether. I think you saw when we looked at the -- or if you've seen the Amereda Hess presentation for what they're proposing, they went to a ground sign -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looks good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yep. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and it just looks 100 percent better. My question is, and Mr. Weigel, I 'll ask it of you first, gas stations are becoming a different use. When I first moved to Collier County, it was called SuperAmerica on Pine Ridge. I thought that thing was a truck stop. I had never seen a gas station that big that didn't have 18 wheelers parked out in front of it, but that size is becoming the standard for a number of pumps, and if you go to the new stations, and, again, I was just up in Lee County, and I drove by a 7-Eleven, and it had as many pumps -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shocking, ain't it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as SuperAmerica, and so it was just -- it was amazing to me, but they are becoming different. They are changing. They have Blimpie inside now and sub shops and all kinds of stuff. So, for us to say that the signage requirement, due to the mix of uses and the cluttering of the signs, since it's no longer just Exxon. It's Exxon, Blimpie, Dunkin Donuts, Taco Bell, whatever. Because of that, is there any problem saying that gas stations are required to have ground signs and no pole signs will be allowed? Am I singling it out unfairly if I state that that -- the mix of uses is causing us to avoid sign clutter that way? MR. WEIGEL: I have assistance coming up, but I_ tend to agree. with the ability to provide some limitation along that line, quite frankly, myself. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: You can place restrictions on sign sizes, you know, as long as its reasonable and the type of structure and so forth without running into any first amendment problems unless, of course, you made it so small that nobody would be able to read it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if I just said it had to be a ground sign in gas stations, it couldn't be a pole sign, am I running -- in your opinion? MS. STUDENT: No, I don't believe you are. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I like that idea. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, 12-B, we can scratch out the first four words. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman, I just want to point out that that was our original -- staff's original recommendation was to eliminate pole signs and only allow ground signs. The Collier County Planning Commission, however, drafted a lot of this language, and we just went ahead and incorporated it, and that's kind of how it ended up in the form that it did, but that was our original recommendation for your Packet Page -659- 12/9/2014 11.F. information. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, in architectural standards, I wanted to go the whole way with them at that point, and we didn't, and that was kind of a -- we acquiesced somewhat to, you know, the fact that there are a lot of pole signs out there, and that it's better than what not, but I just think the gas stations in particular are becoming so varied in what's on that site that those signs are just getting uglier and uglier because, you know, of the varied uses that are all attached to the same sign just doesn't look good, and so anything we can do to minimize that by elevation I think is warranted, and for that reason, I'd like to see us make that change, and I want to compliment you on building colors and color banding on canopy structures. The Union 76 canopy next to the Circle K on 41 and Wiggins Pass Road wins the ugly award of the year, and we need to make sure that kind of coordination or lack of coordination doesn't happen anymore. So, thank you for that work on that. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. Let me just go ahead real quickly through the signage. Basically, what we are also prohibiting is accent lighting and back lighting on canopy structures. We touched on the pole signs. It's limited here to 60 square feet in area, 15 feet in height placed within a 200 square foot landscaped area. Illuminated signage, logos, advertising and information would be prohibited above gas pumps. The number of on premises directional signs would be limited to two signs per entry and exit, and signage identifying water, air and vacuum apparatus would be limited to a total of four square feet in area. Commissioner Hancock touched on the building colors and canopy banding, so I won't talk about that. We did amend the section on canopy setbacks to be more restrictive, requiring them to be consistent with the setback requirements of all buildings on-site, and we did briefly touch on lighting; basically, directing lighting away from adjoining properties, encouraging low level indirect diffuse lighting, limiting it to.20 feet above finished arade. which is consistent with the and design standards, and encouraging canopy -- under canopy lighting of a low level diffuse type, basically just lighting the area under the canopy rather than the entire site. That really was about it for the major enhancements of the code. What I 'd like to do is kind of switch gears and talk a little bit about what we actually added to the code. Specifically, the separation requirements which are on Page 58 at the bottom of your page, Number 4, and I'd like to preface that by saying staff did do quite a bit of research on these type of separation and other requirements of communities within the State of Florida and in the United States and found that quite a few communities do heavily restrict the locational standards of automobile service stations, either be it through the use of separation requirements. One community actually required every automobile service station to be developed through a conditional use process. Others were very site specific. They had to be located at specific intersections of specific roads, and others required separation distances anywhere from 300 to a thousand feet. We looked at that. We looked at our current code separation requirements, because we do have some language in there regarding uses involving intoxicating Packet Page -660- 'a2 12/9/2014 11 .F. beverages, and we have a 500 foot separation requirement between those types of uses. So, we did try to stay consistent with that. We did look at the layout primarily of activity centers to see how this 500 foot separation requirement would impact that, and I've provided some maps, and we can talk about those a little bit later, but as Mr. Nino pointed out, the language in your packet basically reflects the • language that the planning commission and the Development Services Advisory Committee recommended, and I will say that the planning commission basically felt that the language as it was currently drafted would allow automobile service stations to be located across the street from one another, thus would reduce perhaps some traffic turning movements with folks wanting to make U-turns to get to gasoline service stations that were located on the other side of the road, that it would reduce traffic perhaps into neighborhoods with folks driving down the road looking specifically for a gasoline station on that side of the road, and basically, make it more convenient for the motoring public. Staff felt like the 500 separation -- the 500 foot separation distance language that they had drafted basically accomplishes a true separation significantly reducing the intensity of the land uses, and that it was similar and consistent with the other separation requirements we had in the code as it presently exists. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we talk about that issue in particular, the separation? MS. MURRAY: If I may, I kind of wanted to go over the waiver requirements, because that kind of ties in, if you don't mind -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Please. MS. MURRAY: -- so you'll have a clear picture of the whole -- how the whole process works. If you turn to Page 63, what we did was we added a mechanism which would allow the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals by resolution to grant a waiver of part or all of the separation requirements set forth in this subsection. Basically, this waiver section establishes criteria to which an applicant would have to demonstrate to the board that they meet. The submittal requirements for such a waiver request would require the applicant to submit, along with a very specific site plan, a written..market .study analysis which justifies the need for an additional service station in the desired location. So, that -- that is available to folks that want to pursue it. Lastly, what I wanted to go over before we touch on the maps and any other questions you have is another section which may be a little confusing but which would allow exceptions to some of the specific locational and site standards including the 500 foot separation requirement, and that would be found on the top of page 62 under exceptions. Number one, and the easiest way to kind of do this is to go back to 58 but keep your finger on 62, and I'm just going to go ahead and read it. The locational and site standards in accordance with Subsection 2.6.28.1(1) through (5) , specifically in that subsection, shall not apply to nor render nonconforming any existing automobile service station or any automobile service station located in a planned unit development in which a specific architectural rendering or a site plan was approved for an auto service station prior to the effective date of this amendment. One through five basically references frontage requirements, site depth requirements, minimum lot or parcel area, the separation requirement and the yard setback requirements. Packet Page -661- 12/9/2014 11 .F. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We only approved one gas station with an architectural rendering attached to it. So, this really affects that site and that site only to your knowledge? MS. MURRAY: That's to my knowledge, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may want to say with a specific architectural rendering and site plan that was approved, because it had both. I don't want to allow someone who had a site plan approved but not an architectural rendering to utilize this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good catch. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the word or says one or the other. And says both, and that particular project had both. We beat the heck out of them, and they produced an architectural plan, and they shouldn't be penalized for it. So, I agree with that, but I think the word or after rendering should be changed to and and the appropriate verbiage changes to make that -- whether it be first or third person or whatever the heck you English teachers know about them. MR. MULHERE: I just would put a caveat out, they do not have a CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. They do not -- that particular service station, I do not believe, has an approved final site development plan. I think though your point is well taken, and perhaps if we were to say an architectural rendering and an approved-- and a site plan approved as part of the rezone, then that covers it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine. MR. MULHERE: Then that covers it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because that's the only one that that occurred on, and I think it's unfair to cause them to, you know, go through all that again, but anyone who just got zoning and they may have a site plan that was part of their zoning but did not submit an architectural rendering will not qualify under this; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question about the distance is whether or not the 500 feet -- I wasn't so much looking for the abil ty.to have an exception to 500 feet as`I was worried that 500 feet is not enough tb "avoid `the.gasoline alley that we -are worried?about, and I• guess you're going to cover that when we look at the maps? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I just have -- continuing on with the exceptions, under Number 2, I would note then that existing automobile service stations may otherwise be rendered nonconforming by the provisions of the subsection, Sections 6 through 17, which would reference such things as landscaping, parking, architectural standards, signage, et cetera, and this, again, excepts automobile service stations within a FUD as described above, and these stations would be required to comply with the applicable sections of Division 1. 8, nonconformity. So, in other words, if they fell within that definition of a nonconformity cr a nonconforming site, they would be required to bring those sites up to code. So those, basically, are the two ways out of meeting a 500 feet requirement. That's really about all I have as far as the code goes. We did -- I did hand out color maps to you just to give you a clear understanding of how the 500 foot separation requirement would apply. In both cases, in staff's recommended language and the planning commission's recommended language, if you look at them, they are numbered one through 4A and B. Packet Page -662- - c 12/9/2014 11 .F. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It basically covers almost all the parcels that are remaining. I mean -- MS. MURRAY: Pretty much. That's why we chose these -- all the A's reference staff's proposed language, and all the B's reference the planning commission's language, and you'll see that the dotted red lines around the red colored buildings actually represent the 500 foot spacing requirement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're saying it would have to be outside of those lines then? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That would be the nearest station then would be outside of that? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. We also tried to reference, looking at map 1A, the yellow areas you will notice are PUDs approved for gasoline service stations, just to give you an idea, for example, on the Pine Ridge 1-75 activity center how the language would impact the development at that area. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The B's were planning commission, did you say? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir, the B's are planning commission. MR. MULHERE: Again, the difference between the two is that the staff methodology would, as Mr. Nino indicated, use sort of an airline miles measurement, actually, or circumference around the existing gas station 500 feet. The planning commission recommendation would use a linear measurement and only apply it to one side of the street. So, that's the difference between the two. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask a question. On your airline measurement, it said in there that you can't cross a four lane divided road with that airline measurement, that you have to go linear. What do you mean by that exactly? MS. MURRAY: I equate it to -- staff's recommendation is like putting a dome over existing gasoline service stations. No matter what falls underneath that dome, you cannot build a gasoline service station underneath. There should be one under there, and that's it. The planning commission's recommendations actually cut that dome off when you intersect -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That wasn't my question. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question was concerning the language back in the -- do I have it here? No, I don't have it in front of me, but it was -- it said you can't use airline measurement to cross a four lane divided arterial or a collector road, but you then go linear 500 feet. What do you mean linear 500 feet? Do you mean go down 500 feet down the road and then at a right angle across the road? MS. MURRAY: I think if I'm understanding your question, it would stop at the road and then follow the road out to where it meets the 500 feet out from side property boundaries -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: -- forming a square, if you will, if you look at your map. MR. MULHERE: But -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it would then cross the street at a right angle, perpendicular across the street for 500 feet across the street; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Only -- the only way this separation would go across roadways, arterial or collector roadways, is under the staff's Packet Page -663- mu 12/9/2014 11.F. recommendation. Under the other recommendation, it would not go across the roadway. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, I understand that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just trying to get a handle on your 500 feet linear measurement. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That would be measured from the -- from the existing gas station in a direction, say, north and south or east and west 500 feet in either direction but not crossing -- not at all crossing the street on which the gas station is located, the arterial or collector. MS. MURRAY: Then it would intersect -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, it could be straight across the street? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But then your map 1A doesn't reflect that at all. MS. MURRAY: One A is an exhibit of staff's proposed language which would not -- well -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Your A's don't reflect that. MS. MURRAY: Our A would reflect crossing of the road and that's staff's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MS. MURRAY: -- proposed language. One B -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is how does it cross the road? You know, let's take the -- what's the Super America called now? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shell. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what it is, Shell ETD? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, ETDs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's take Shell ETD's site. If I draw a line 500 feet in any distance from that property, you can't locate a gas station within -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Under the staff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- under the staff proposal -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- regardless of the roadway? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do I have a box instead of a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A radius. COIISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, a radius of some kind? I'm just -- MS. MURRAY: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does it match? MS. MURRAY: Basically for illustration purposes for today's presentation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the Clesen PUD where the red dotted line corner meets on the Clesen PUD is more than 500 feet away because it's diagonal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, the map just doesn't match the wording. The illustration covers more property than the 500 foot radius; is that what we are saying? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I'm asking because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what it looks like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the verbiage to me says you go to the Packet Page -664- a`I 12/9/2014 11 .F. corner point and draw a radius of 500. You do that on each corner point, and then you connect them, and what you actually have is a box with rounded corners, so to speak. • MR. MULHERE: It would actually be a circle, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of a circle because it's a square parcel. So, you know, I'm just -- if that's clear and everybody says that's the way we'll do it -- MR. MULHERE: That is the methodology -- that is the methodology that we use currently in measuring the separation for alcohol -- for intoxicated -- for establishments primarily engaged in the sale of intoxicating beverages, and that's the same language that we are intending to use for this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make sure 1A or whatever exhibit we use is revised to show that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK -- because this does not depict the actual distance that would be in play. MS. MURRAY: I will say for the record, this really isn't an exhibit, per se, that's going to be included. It was basically for illustration purposes and -- MR. MULHERE: We'll correct that before the next meeting. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, no problem. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't want someone using this against us or invalidating what we're doing with this saying it doesn't match. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Norris, on 1B, to get back to your question, you see the way the linear measurement, it could cross the side street but not the arterial or collector on which it is located. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that is the staff's recommendation? MR. MULHERE: No, that is the planning commission recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, and your staff recommendation will cross the street? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That clears it up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is certainly the one I prefer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the staff better, but I even wonder when I look at these maps if this is enough to prohibit gasoline alleys which is what started the discussion. It means that they will be more spread cut, but it doesn't limit the number of gas stations permitted at a particular intersection or something like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's done by zoning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but it will. I mean, just the mere fact -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the one that worries me is the last page, you know, where there aren't any, example number four -- who would do such a thing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean leave it on or call? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean leave it on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a little sign out here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We're up on Pine Ridge Road and 1-75, that interchange. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last one is Immokalee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The last one is Immokalee. Packet Page -665- r 12/9/2014 11.F. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, where -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I-75 and Immokalee Road? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I-75 and Immokalee, that's just one example, if there's not -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There will be no more than four. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There will be no more than four because the first one -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because once one goes in, it will actually occupy that quadrant plus a portion of the parcels across the street. There may be no more than two depending on their location based on this intersection. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See, right now -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The max. There would be four no matter what? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, and that would require -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right now, Pam, there's one going to go in -- would it be Lot 1 or would it be that -- isn't that Lot 1 that they've got the Shell oil station in the Strand? Isn't that it? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, that one is going to block out Stiles and a good portion of Donovan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, it depends on their location, but in a nutshell, at that intersection, you would have no more than four, and in all probability, two to three max. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The rest of that, Carlton Lakes, that's all residential. COMMISSIONER HACKIE: Yeah, and that does -- once you start the dominoes, they fall in a way that ycu're going to end with only four at a major intersection. CO.NIlMISSIONER HANCOCK: Had this been in place at Pine Ridce and 1-75 -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we wouldn't have the ETD and the Chevron right practically next to each other with a restaurant in between, which is part of the gasoline alley -complaint that we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as we continue to limit our commercial zoning in an appropriate manner, we are not going to have a recurrence down the road. MR.. MULHERE: I also wanted to just add that we locked at -- we looked at as an option a maximum limitation within an activity center, hut it appeared that the locational restrictions in combination with the enhanced architectural and site standards was a better methodology to use, and we knew that it was tested, because there were a lot of communities that used the same methodology out there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. With that explanation, I understand. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you concur with my statement about that intersection, that that's the sufficient limiting factor, that no more than four -- MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and all probability, three. MS. MURRAY: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two or three. Packet Page -666- 12/9/2014 11 .F. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make sure I'm right. You folks are the experts. Oh, we need to clarify that sign language because -- the suggestion -- are you swearing at me in sign language, Pam? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's her chance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because the 60 square feet, I don't think, is a problem, but, see, what we have to do is we have to cap the height of a ground sign, but I have a feeling Mr. Davis is here to talk to us about that. COhMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Talk to us, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: As well as other people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. When you get called, Mike. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have other speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Davis is the first speaker and then Todd Pressman. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Mike Davis with Signcraft, Incorporated for the record. Obviously, I'm here -- you and I will probably have a similar conversation about ground and pole signs as we did with the architectural standards. I 'd like to point out that when you talk about the changes that you're proposing for gas stations, you're talking about gas stations looking completely different than they look now with the site standards that are being proposed, and I guess that goes to hopefully support my case about overkill. With the -- when it comes to signage and also the visual part to the station, I certainly agree the deletion of color banding on the canopy is a great idea. They should be one color. What I don't see in here and I would suggest to be added is that also apply to the building. If it's good for the canopy, I think it should be good for the building structure, also. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consistent with the predominant color of the principal structure if applicable. Maybe the applicable part is the problem. MR. DAVIS: Yeah, I just didn't see where it specifically prohibited it on the building -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point. MR. DAVIS: -- as it did on the canopy. Along with that, the accent lighting and back lighting of the canopy is prohibited, great idea. The illuminated signage, logos, advertising, et cetera above the pumps, wonderful idea. Limiting the directional signs to two per entrance or exit is a good idea. The Land Development Code currently doesn't have a limitation on that. So limiting it to two, which, obviously, with entry and exit makes sense. The four square feet for the various service station amenities makes sense. The one thing that I didn't hear proposed was currently in the Land Development Code elsewhere, specifically for service stations, there's a ten square foot adder for pricing signs, which, if that's left in, would -- we are not talking about a 60 foot square sign. We are talking about a 70 square foot sign. So, I would suggest that that be eliminated. That brings us to the pole sign/ground sign issue, and as you pointed out, Commissioner Hancock, with the change that ended up in the architectural standards where, at out-parcels, at shopping centers, ground -- the pole signs were required to be reduced from 20 Packet Page -667- uv 12/9/2014 11 .F. feet to 15 feet, from 100 square feet to 60 square feet, required to have all the other amenities, the pole covering and what not. The few that we've seen constructed certainly look far better than what we had before, and I think serve -- serve the station that they identify quite well. The part that may be missed here is when it talks about the pole sign being limited to 15 feet in height. It says, as measured from the grade of the parking lot. That's a big change from the way it currently is to the crown of the road. The point here is it makes more sense if you visually drive by a service station, the elevation of the parking lot and for whatever -- whatever you have coming up there in the way of elevation be measured from it makes all the sense in the world. I'm concerned with all these additional landscaped requirements for these service stations that a ground sign at eight feet above the parking lot elevation may not be enough. I think if it is, in fact, a 15 foot pole sign, the elevation of the parking lot works fine, and I think probably that's something we need to look at in the future how we measure all signage, because it just seems to make sense in scale as you come down a road to work off something that's in your line of vision. If, in fact, the board's desire is to change it to the ground signs, then I would suggest you take out the part about measured from the grade of the parking lot so that ground signs can be treated as they are elsewhere in the community where they are measured to the crown of the road, which, to be real honest with you, is going to get them up to 12 or 13 feet visually. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point, Mike. MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Todd Pressman and then Bruce Anderson. MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you. My name is Todd Pressman for the record. I wanted to speak just very quickly on one particular item which staff did not touch base on, which is referring to car wash uses and the regulation of those hours, and I haven't heard any discussion with regard to that. I do want to make you aware that there is a car wash constituency out there. It is a use that is in demand. It's a use that I'm sure some of the commissioners use, and it's a popular use at these type of sites. What becomes a difficulty is the shortage of hours in the evening. The restriction runs from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. , and I would suggest to you that perhaps rather than a broad stroke to address what, obviously, you feel was a potential or potentially -- not potential, but is an issue is when you look at zoning criteria where these places can go, when you look at the type of buffering, when you look at the type of regulations that are already in place, the evening hours are not as obtrusive as you may believe. Certainly, as you get later into the evening, that certainly may change, but the first priority that we would -- that I would ask you to look at would be lessening these evening hours. Those are coming home hours. Those are hours people are coming back to their homes, and that becomes a period of time when that use starts to get more attention, and then, of course, dwindles during the evening, but in regard to a priority, we would ask you to look at that. I would also make you aware that the new second generation or Packet Page-668- c7 E 12/9/2014 11 .F. third generation of car washes are designed much quieter than the real big mechanical steam throwing, rumbling car washes that we're used to. Most of them are going to touch free, and those have significantly less noise impact, and they are designed that way, but also just by the virtue of their function, they are much less loud in that respect as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, do we really have a problem existing right now? I'm wondering what the motivation is to his question. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the motivation was that oftentimes these service stations, particularly the last two or three that we've dealt with, are in very close proximity to residential zoning, but having said that, the Development Service Advisory Committee concurred with Mr. Pressman, I believe it was -- MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: -- that they didn't feel, at least in their opinion, that the hours of operation for a, sort of an accessory car wash should be limited. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's still light out at 8:30. You know, if we're going to limit them, seven seems kind of strange if it's still light out at 8:30, but, you know -- if we're going to limit them, 9:00 or 10:00 at night is reasonable. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds reasonable to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that limiting them really is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Necessary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- necessary. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about -- what about 10:00 p.m. when property or car washes are adjacent to residential zoning? I mean, if that's the issue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have the noise ordinance, guys. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and that's really what popped into mind is if it's violating a noise ordinance, we have a way to address that. I don't know what other uses would be offensive. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, 55 decimals at two in the morning wake some people up, and that wouldn't violate -- well, actually 55 would. Fifty-four wouldn't violate the noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty-four isn't going to wake them up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I don't want to regulate something that we aren't having a problem with, so -- I can go either way on that. That's fine. I would like -- we heard Mr. Davis speak. I would like staff to take a look at -- if we go to ground signs, maybe we can do it from crown of road instead of -- MR. MULHERE: We made a note. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does everyone agree with that? That makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's your point of reference as you're driving along. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your base of reference, I should say. MR. NINO: Fine. With your indulgence, move on to the next -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so we are clear -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have another speaker? Packet Page-669- 3a 12/9/2014 11 .F. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we are in general agreement on the not regulating? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll say. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I believe we want to lift the regulation on the car wash. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not replace it. MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you for your attention, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome. Thank you. We have another speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Ellie Krier. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All. right. We'll let Ms. Krier speak to us. MS. KRIER: Ellie Krier with the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm your wild card tonight, because I'm not going to talk about signs. I would like to talk about something that I had hoped would be in this cycle, and that would be asking new gas stations to have generator capability; not own the generators, but be wired for them. Thanks to the good graces of Councilwoman McKinzie (phonetic) , she has gotten concessions through a couple of rezones in this city for some of those gas stations. As of last year when Mr. Pineau did a survey of your gas stations, there is one generator at one gas station in Immokalee. You have no ability to get the gas out of the ground after a storm. It's just a thought. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we require that? MR. MULHERE: I think that's an accurate statement from emergency management perspective. There are very limited service stations that have generator capabilities. I think it's just a question of whether or not you want to require that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or at least provide the infrastructure so the generator can be hooked up. MS. KRIER: We're not asking -- I'm not considering asking them to own the generator. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. KRIER: The generators are provided through many venues immediately after a storm. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good idea. MS. KRIER: If at a bare minimum, require it in the interstate activity areas where you're going to have your traffic coming in, needing to leave and regas their cars. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like it. MS. KRIER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we look into that, please? MR. MULHERE: We will prepare some language and bring it back to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great idea. Thank you. MR. PRESSMAN: Allow me to add a quick comment to that. Mr. Hancock brought up a good point. I 'll just indicate to you that generators don't mean you're going to have gas. What means you're going to have gas is where the storm comes in, if you're going to be a distribution route, if you're going to be able to get gas out of there at all and where the trucks are, and that all changes per each individual emergency, and Mr. Hancock was correct when you -- I would suggest to you in the greatest -- with the greatest liberty that the best defense is to have stores that are prepared for or wired for the Packet Page -670- '33 12/9/2014 11 .F. generator, because they bring the generators in and go to those different sites where there is distribution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if that's not a terribly expensive thing, Mr. Mulhere, we might want to do that -- why wouldn't we want to do that every place; not just at the interstates, but if it's -- MR. MULHERE: We'll provide some language, and you take a look at it. COMMISSIONER MORRIS: That's just a matter of cross breakers is all that is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Category two storm, the interstate is the first place you'll be getting gas anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That' s true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Moving on, we have an amendment to the communication tower section of the Land Development Code to provide setback situations for towers of less than 75 feet when located in a commercial industrial zoning district and adjacent to residential zoning districts. We also have the ability here to deal with towers in excess of 260 feet in the agricultural area on sites less than 20 acres I believe under a conditional use provision by the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. MR. NINO: The next amendment deals with exemptions from the platting and subdivision regulations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those look just great to me. MR. NINO: Being here all this time, I think Tom won't speak to them unless you have any questions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about, Tom, if we just liked what you did -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is that all right? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's great. Thank you. MR. NINO: However, there is a modification with respect to the time in which it takes effect. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good, because that's the only thing I had a real issue with, Tom, is that you fix that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, you would have done it already. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're too reliable, Mr. Kuck. MR. NINO: Should do it by June the 1st. MR. MULHERE: I just want to add that the board directed many of these changes as a result of the ability for property owners to come in and subdivide into the mini farm type scenarios without any oversight from the board, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a great -- MR. NINO: That takes us to Page 73. On Page 73, this amendment gives the county the ability to require a developer of a lot on a public street that doesn't have a sidewalk to install a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Done. MR. NINO: Heretofore, we were not able to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. MR. NINO: The next item deals with -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pickworth's client. MR. NINO: The next item deals with the removal of protected vegetation. Would you like to -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Actually, it's the next one that I'm dealing with, but I can speak to this issue. Packet Page -671--� 12/9/2014 11 .F. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are going to tell someone who is removing non-native vegetation, they have to replace it one for one? MR. MULHERE: It previously -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What am I missing there? That — I mean, we tell them they have to remove it, and then we tell them they have to replace it with native vegetation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just please remove it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's overly cumbersome. MR. MULHERE: It previously was more cumbersome than that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we ought to remove this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometimes what you don't know is a good thing around here. That -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do too. If we're going to require them to remove, that's fine, but I don't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that mean if they have six Melaleuca on-site, and they remove them -- this is not exotics. It's non- native. MR. MULHERE: Right, it's non-native. The situation here was one of -- previously, they were required to replant to the same size and caliber of the existing vegetation, which, obviously, was very costly. What we are trying to do is encourage people to remove the non-native vegetation by requiring them to replace those trees on a one-to-one basis but only to the minimum size required by code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we just let them remove them? Why do we -- what's wrong with just letting them remove non-native vegetation? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they remove them, can they replace them in the landscape buffer or do they have to replace them in place or - MR. MULHERE: No, they don't have to replace them in place; anywhere on the site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds remarkably like an anti-republican more government thing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Really. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I'd like to see it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It really does. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me point out, everybody has seen how Melaleuca fields expand, and they get on about one foot centers. If you're going to take all of those Melaleucas out -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it doesn't involve exotics. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is not exotics. MR. MULHERE: I think I can give you an example that -- there are examples where non -- today, non-native -- what is required or specified as non-native today were used as required landscaping 10 or 15 years ago, and if you allow someone to take up those trees and not replace them, you will not have the type of landscape buffer that this county is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Used to. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, technically, a non-native tree are the poinsettia trees. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why would we encourage them to take those out? MR. MULHERE: Sometimes -- we get a lot of requests to take out certain non-native trees that people feel have become a nuisance. They're dropping things on cars or something like that, and they want Packet Page -672- 12/9/2014 11 .F. to take them out and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And all this is saying is replace them with about the same size unless it's not available, and then -- MR. MULHERE: Right. Not even the same size that's existing, but the size that's required by code, minimum size that's required by code. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a little more reasonable than what I -- how I originally read it, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I was confusing non-native and exotic -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Me too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- when I first opened it up. MR. NINO: The next item deals with administrative exceptions for agricultural -- agricultural areas for native vegetation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with Mr. Pickworth on this language. Is this what the planning commission approved and said was -- they wanted to move ahead on? MR. MULHERE: Yes, the planning commission recommended approval -- there have been some minor changes from what the planning commission saw, and I'll explain those to you. We simply clarified to a greater extent in the first part of that paragraph exactly what is meant by bona fide agricultural uses. Bona fide agricultural uses are exempt from the native preservation requirements, and we narrowed the focus on that to specify, as you'll see in there, crop raising, dairy farming, horticulture, at cetera, et cetera. The second part of that amendment is the portion of the amendment that the EAB had some concern with but which the planning commission recommended approval of staff's language on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: EAB as a whole? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, the majority of the LAB did not like this second -- MR. MULHERE: Correct, and I can tell you that their concern over it was that they felt that a process that required some higher level of review other than administrative is the appropriate process for that. The staff's position was -- and I just want to give you a brief history of it. This issue came up as a result of looking at the only existing cemetery in Collier County, which is running out of space and which you want to continue to bury, obviously, deceased individuals. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We hope. Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We were getting a little worried there. MR. MULHERE: But they are constrained by the preservation requirements, and I thought, gee, maybe that's an essential service. Well, it's not an essential service, and it's privately -- it's a commercial enterprise, in fact, but it is one that I believe, not a pun intended, but somewhat passive in nature, and it seemed to me that it would be appropriate that we restrict to some extent where we could the preservation -- that we alleviate them from the preservation requirements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Preserving the trees, oh, yeah. MR. MULHERE: And beyond that, I thought there might be some essential services within the agricultural district -- this is limited only to the agricultural district -- where administratively we might review, and if they could provide a bona fide public use associated with that essential service, and presumably there would be one, they could ask for a reduction in all or in part, and that we would Packet Page -673- 12/9/2014 11 .F. administratively grant that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got no problem with that myself. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I 'm the one who usually agrees with the EAB, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neither do I. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. NINO: Finally, we have some definition assumed revisions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Especially defining a mobile home. MR. NINO: Definition -- the current definition -- there's some concern that the current definition allowed mobile homes in single family zoning districts. This attempt is to clarify that that indeed COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. MR. NINO: -- that's not to be permitted. Ms. Student has -- MS. STUDENT: I just need to make a comment. I believe it's in the section about the sidewalks, and in the last sentence there is the use of the word remonstrance, and what the author really meant was that they could get a waiver from those provisions and there weren't any criteria in them either. So, that's being redrafted and should come back to you at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: Again, we have a definition where it constitutes a construction sign, and we like that definition. COMMISSIONER. HANCOCK: That's pretty straight. MR. NINO: And we have -- we're proposing some additional -- replacing the cross-sectional street requirements to reflect the increased width for sidewalks and sidewalk locations on two sides of the street and bike lane conditions, and you have in your packet all of the replacement that will be replacement street cross sections. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: DSAC reviewed those? MR. NINO: Yes. No objection from CCPC or DSAC, and that ends the number -- that ends the section of proposed amendments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, are there any formalities we need to proceed through at this point or can we just wrap this up? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. Mr. Weigel, is there anything that we need to technically do at this point? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I think it's always appropriate to mention when the next meeting is going to be held notwithstanding it is advertised separately. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next meeting of this board regarding the Land Development Code will be held on June 24th at 5: 05 p.m. If there's nothing further to come before this board, we stand adjourned. +*4.4, There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Packet Page -674-5-1