Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/07/2019 LDC"Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF T}IE COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 7,2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Joe Schmitt Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Jeremy Frantz, Land Development Code Manager Ellen Summers, Senior Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Sally Ashkar, Assistant County Attorney Page I of 19 "Special" CCPCILDC August 7,2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the 5:05 evening meeting, August 7th, for the Collier County Planning Commission. It's for LDC amendments. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: MT. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Schmitt and Dearborn are excused absences, and that will take us into addenda to the agenda. We've only got one item scheduled for tonight, two issues on one item. That's the only thing that will stay on the agenda. And we just want to check with everybody. On August 15th we have a regular meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: The two things that are on it are what was continued from the last meeting, so you should have the packet -- most of the packet already. We also -- I believe it's been added to the agenda just for consent only is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, since that was a meeting that they had already for it. So it will be consent hearing. And with that, we'll move into public hearings. The only advertised public hearing is the Land Development Code amendments for the airplane zoning maps for the Naples Municipal Airport, the Marco Island Executive Airport, the Everglades Airpark, the Immokalee Airport, and the review of the airspace obstructions, and we're also going to be reviewing the pricing signage for facilities with fuel pumps for electronic message boards. And it's legislative, so we'll just move right into the presentation by staff. And there's no members of the public here, so my assumption is everybody in this room is either staff or us, and we should have all read the packet. You can abbreviate your presentation to get right to the issues if you'd like; however you'd like to do it. MS. SUMMERS: For the record, Ellen Summers, senior planner. It's just a few slides just to give an introduction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. SUMMERS: -- if you'd like me to go through that. Back in 2016, Chapter 333 of the Florida statutes was updated, and this amendment to the Florida Statute required local municipalities with existing airport protection regulations to permit the construction ofany airspace obstruction utilizing the established criteria from the Florida statutes, address obstruction marking and lighting standards, and to amend any conflicting zoning regulations that would conflict with Page 2 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 the Florida Statutes. So this LDC amendment provides a new definitions section which cross-references the Florida Statutes. It creates a new process for the review of airspace obstructions. It also eliminates any conflicts with the Florida Statutes. Additionally, that update to the Florida Statute included a few airport land-use compatibility regulations that have also been added to the amendment, and in order to implement the airspace obstruction review, this amendment also implements new zoning maps for that visible depiction of the airspace obstruction standards. Just to give a little overview of what an airspace obstruction is, because we'll be talking about that a lot today, it's any object that exceeds those federal obstruction standards and that could have a potential impact into air navigation, and that can be a structure as well as terrain or a tree. In those federal obstruction standards, they describe five imaginary surfaces which is what we have as far as our different standards go in the LDC amendment, and each of those standards are incorporated into the tables of the LDC as well as the maps within Appendix D of the amendment. These are our five different surfaces we're going to talk about, just to give you a visual. And this is an example of what those maps will look like on staffs GIS so that we have the contours to look at the different height limitations for different areas within the county. And the airspace obstruction review, this will occur at time of the Site Development Plan or building permit review. It requires us to receive a copy of the FAA notice form as well as the FAA's final determination as to whether or not the proposed structure or object will be ahazard or an obstruction. This review also requires coordination with the affected airport authorities as well as the requirement to send all those materials to the FDOT ASO, which they will provide technical guidance to. Brief presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That was perfect. Thank you. With that, then we'll move right into questions. I think the first thing on our -- in order of which you sent them to us is the -- isn't the automotive sign one the first one? Yes, that starts on Page 2. Is that -- MR. FRANTZ: And if we could skip past that, we've got representatives of the Naples Airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem. I just wanted to make -- what page -- what page do we start on then? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Twelve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve. Let's see if -- it's mine 14, but that works. MS. SUMMERS: So on Monday I sent you-all a memorandum that has updated text language, and I would like to go through that if you-all have a copy of it. If not,I have copies available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like a copy. MS. SUMMERS: After the official packets were sent out to you-all, we received some additional comments, and we wanted to incorporate that into the drafts so that we could present this to you-all, and I can go through those changes before we get into any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so you know, our -- the only person up here who has a visual based on these little monitors that are up here is Karen. The rest of us are -- they're turned off for some reason. MS. SUMMERS: They're turned off. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If everybody was sitting to the right, we'd have it made. But everybody to the right doesn't have one. MS. SUMMERS: And I'll just briefly go through the highlighted changes. And starting on Page 2,just a couple of updates in the naming the City of Naples Airport Authority. So we have updated that throughout the amendment, as well as the -- we previously stated the Naples Airport map. It's the Naples Municipal Airport map. On the next page, Page 3, in Section 2.03.07 C.1 .B, we've updated the purpose and intent to also Page 3 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 include to protect the full utility, the public investment of the public-use airports within the county. And in Subsection D, we removed the language that states to provide building height standards, as these height standards could apply to terrain or other objects as well. The next highlighted change occurs on Page 8, and that's Subsection (M)(2). This addition includes the review materials that would be needed for an airspace obstruction review. That includes the copy of the FAA form, a copy of the final FAA determination, as well as a narrative statement identifiing -- or providing a detailed explanation or description of how that proposed obstruction meets the criteria in Subsection (M)(3). We added this for clarity so that there's no confusion. If review is required at time of building permit, they know what other items are to be submitted. Should I continue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You said you wanted -- we'll go back through and ask questions after you brief us on the -- MS. SUMMERS: Yeah. I wanted to make sure you all are aware of the highlighted changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm highlighting as we go. Thank you. MS. SUMMERS: One other addition was on Subsection (MX3Xi), and that's the addition of criteria that states that comments and recommendations from the FDOT ASO, as well as the affected airports, aviation operations, and safety experts. Gives us the ability to have a little bit more input on these proposed obstructions. On the following page, Page 9, we've added additional information regarding the obstruction lighting and marking, just to reference the FAA advisory circular. Additionally, in Subsection 5, we wanted to make it clear that if the FAA has determined a proposed object is a hazard, that it would not be permitted. Same page, Subsection (N)(5), just updating terminology, that the proper term is "runway protection zones." And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Page 10, you've got some standardized changes for municipal and -- MS. SUMMERS: Right. Those continue throughout the entire amendment, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the changes for the whole document? MS. SUMMERS: I'm sorry. On the administrative code section -- CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: -- starting on Page 29, we've just modified that language slightly to indicate that FAA must review these as well, and also a link for applicants, that they can go and see who needs to be -- or when their project needs to be noticed to the FAA. And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we move to -- any Planning Commission members have any questions? Stan, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just one. When I got the packet -- I'm not an expert. I'm not a pilot. I'm only an engineer. I did a Control F search on FAA, figuring they're the experts, and you do have a lot of references, you know, get this, get that, talk to the FAA, whatever. Did you send a copy of this to the FAA and ask them for any comments to make sure that they agree with what we're doing? MS. SUMMERS: No, we did not. Once this is adopted, we are required to send a copy of it to the FDOT ASO, and the changes are -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: FDOT ASO. FDOT safety officer, what? MS. SUMMERS: It's the Airspace Aviation and Spaceports Office. They previously would review these obstructions, but what the state statute changed, they're available for technical guidance, and now it is the municipality's requirement to review them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So none of this ever goes to the FAA? Okay. Page 4 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,20L9 Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Might the state forward it? MS. SUMMERS: That I do not know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I had an informative conversation with Ellen and Jeremy on the phone, so most of my questions were answered. I thought it was interesting, though, in contrast to the typical way things happen in Tallahassee to remove authority and responsibility from counties and municipalities. In this case, there is authority and responsibility being given from the state to the counties and municipalities, and then I realized what's really going on here: This is an unfunded mandate because there's no money going along with the new obligations, I take it, correct? No money coming down to cover us for the additional work that's being laid offon us. MS. SUMMERS: Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My specific questions -- first of all, I'll cover a couple of what might be typos and then some more substantive questions. On Page 14 of 15, which corresponds to Page 3 of this handout, we're talking about the proposed revisions to 2.03.07(C). And C is divided into one subdivision, one, and then that subdivision is presently drafted as divided into 1, 2,3, 4 -- 7, I guess, subsections or subdivisions. And I think, logically, what needs to happen here is that the lowercase letters need to be promoted to Arabic numerals beginning with 2, because these -- the ones, A through F, are really of like kind as No. 1. They're not really, logically, subsets of No. l. They relate equally to Subsection C of the ordinance and don't go through 1, logically, to get to C. Heidi, does that make sense to you? I'm sort of talking lawyer here. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if I'm understanding you correctly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I'm understanding you correctly, your issue is with the lowercase C; that you feel it should be a Roman numeral? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Jeremy, correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire LDC is based on this format. So if you change this section, you won't be following the format of the other sections of the LDC. MR. FRANTZ: I think the way I understood what you asked was to move A through F to now become C.2 through whatever that number would be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, that's what I was asking. MS. SUMMERS: And that may be correct. That may have been a drafting error. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A through F are of equal dignity to No. 1. They shouldn't be set out as subsections of 1. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever your preference. This language is existing text that staffis modifring. So staffjust worked with the format that was already provided. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just trying to make it accurate. MR. FRANTZ: It doesn't strike me as an issue to move those out, to become 2 through -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You don't see a problem with doing that? MR. FRANTZ: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. All right. Then on 4.02.06, this is the same page, A, it says, the definitions shall be applicable to the terms of this section unless the text andL/or context of this section provides otherwise. I'm okay with that word. I mean, the standard language in the esoteric language of the law would have said requires otherwise. But since this is -- well, this is new actually, though. So it would, I think, be more accurate if you change "provides" to "requires." I'm not going to fall on my sword over it the way I would have with the previous one, so... MS. SUMMERS: Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if you guys don't feel you understand it or think it's not necessary, just speak up; otherwise, we'll just assume you're going to make these grammatical changes. Page 5 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah, I mean, I'm not hearing anything that we can't change so far. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then into more substantive things. First of all, the -- Ellen informed me -- Ellen and Jeremy explained to me that there's an interlocal agreement between the City of Naples and the County of Collier with respect to coordinating the regulation of the airport because some of these surfaces spill outside the city limits, I believe, and are in unincorporated Collier. And so there is -- there has been an effort to coordinate the regulations. And I take -- and I see Chris here, of course, and I take that it's been closely coordinated, and the City of Naples and Collier County are satisfied that the interlocal has brought forth a coordinated logical and systematic regulation of this new subject? MR. FRANTZ: We haven't taken on the interlocal as a part of this LDC amendment process, but the County Attorney's Office is working with the Airport Authority to make some changes to the existing interlocal. I can't speak right now to where that is in the process. But as a part of our -- as a part of how we've thought about the actual review, we have worked through the implementation and when would our staff be notifring the affected airport and those kinds of issues. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess what -- I'm not asking it clearly, but my question really is that since a coordinated effort is required in order to accomplish what the federal government is now asking us to do, that -- I'm going to ask the same thing of the airport director, if he doesn't mind answering -- that is Collier County satisfied that the effort has been coordinated, there are no points of stress there or disagreement, and that nothing that we need to worry about with respect to the coordination between city and county? MR. FRANTZ: From the LDC perspective, there's nothing that we're concerned about. We're actually pretly happy that we think we are going to be introducing improvements to the review process for developments that are going to occur within these zones. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chris, were you planning on saying a word? MR. ROZANSKY: I can respond to any questions. I don't have any public comment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, would you respond to mine, if you wouldn't mind. I just want a signal from the city and the county that things are going smoothly with respect to that interlocal agreement since a coordinated effort is required in order to comply with the new requirements. That's all I'm looking for. MR. ROZANSKY: Sure. Chris Rozansky, executive director for the Naples Airport Authority. The interlocal is between the Airport Authority and Collier County that we are working with through the County Attorney's Office. And so our understanding is that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. And we've already submified our comments on that, and the County Attorney's Office and the planning staff have been, you know, very good to work with and responsive to our comments, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So no issues? No conflict? MR. ROZANSKY: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's really all I wanted to hear. MR. ROZANSKY: We agree it's going to result in some improvements actually, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: While you're up there, if I may -- and I'm going to be coming back to Ellen as well. But there is a project afoot in Naples offGoodlette-Frank between the 700 and 900 block that extends east really almost all the way toward the western boundary of the airport. And although I didn't measure it the way Stan could have, it seems as though this Naples Commons project is going to be quite close to one of the runways, and it's -- it is planned. It hasn't been vetted by the city government yet, but the petitioners are asking for six habitable levels over two of parking, which to me says it could be, I don't know, 90 feet, perhaps, something like that in actual height. And so my question is is that -- is this going to be looked at, if it hasn't been looked at already? And how close could, let's say, a 90-foot building be to the end of one of your runways? Page 6 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 MR. ROZANSKY: So about a year ago we completed a process of assisting the city and their planning commission with the update of their airport zoning ordinance. That, too, includes an interlocal agreement. So that outlines the city's requirements where they would need to notifu us to take a look and review it. To my knowledge, we haven't received that official request to review that project yet. So I would need to take a look at its proximity to the end of the nearest runway at the airport and look at the updated maps that we had provided for that ordinance to see exactly how high a building could be established. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's going to come before the Naples Planning Advisory Board on August 23rd, and I plan to be there and will be asking those questions. I know you don't routinely go to those, but -- and I'm not suggesting you would need to, but it might be useful if they know what the parameters would be from the Airport Authority because to me, just looking at that, it seems awfully close. CHAIRMAN STRAN: This wouldn't apply to that project. They're outside of ourjurisdiction, so I'm not sure -- so I think the question is, has Naples -- has the City of Naples adapted these similar standards, and then that would be the issue you're looking for, right? MR. ROZANSKY: We did about ayear ago, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would come -- MR. ROZANSKY: - that would be the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- under the jurisdiction of the City of Naples to get to that. Okay. That's what I was trying to -- okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. And then my last question has to do with the mini-triangle which, again, to me seemed like an awfully high structure. The -- will that be revisited? I know it's been permitted, at least for zoning purposes. MR. ROZANSKY: As far as the Airport Authority is concerned, we reached an amenable agreement. There is a restrictive height covenant that would have to be executed by the new owner of the property if the -- upon closing of that. And as far as we're concerned, you know, we're okay with that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: On Page l2 of your document, the mini-triangle is exempt from the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And is that because of a vested-right issue, or is it because, genuinely, we're not concerned with safety issues? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because the LDC was amended to exempt it when the mini-triangle project went through as a companion item. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I guess if there are any changes to the mini-triangle, that could be revisited in -- if there are changes in height, for instance, or in where the buildings are spotted? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me check the language real quick. MS. SUMMERS: In the mini-triangle PUD they do address that issue with the height, and it also cites an FAA determination. So if they were to change their allowed height in the PUD, they'd have to go through the PUD amendment or insubstantial change process, and that would be addressed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's -- wait a minute. I had one on Page 40. Let me see what this is. Oh, on Page 29 -- and we're in the administrative regulations now. You make reference to a CD-ROM, which is kind of limiting these days. I mean, DVD and thumb drives and the like are more prevalent. But I guess since it was already in there, you probably don't want to plan it, but I thought I'd mention it. MS. SUMMERS: Correct. That's an existing standard. It's in the LDC as well. And we have that in a few other sections of the administrative code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Chris, can we assume from your presence here and just from the Page 7 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 comments you've made that you have been part of this process and you are of aver (sic) of the changes that have been constructed? MR. ROZANSKY: We have, and we've worked extensively with the county staff and the County Attorney's Office, and we are satisfied with what you have here before you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was hoping that one of you could give us, me, a couple of examples of challenges that you've had in the past and how this new language will help address those challenges and make things more -- work more smoothly moving forward. Just one or two. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Wasn't this new language initiated because it's a new requirement of the federal government? It's not ours. So it wasn't a matter of us having a challenge we have to reach with it. It's a matter of the government requires it now and we have to follow suit. Is that -- MR. ROZANSKY: The federal government hasn't changed their standards. The State of Florida did. The prior statute established a variance process and this, in turn, eliminates the variance process and creates a permitting process. That's the thrust of it. So, really, the reviews that took place in the past are very similar. The level of effort is -- I would say is similar, but it provides for a permit instead of a variance. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in laymen terms, why is this -- why is this better? MS. SUMMERS: I don't think it's a better or worse situation. It's just now that we have this requirement to review these airspace obstructions based on that Florida Statute change. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The county's now required to issue a permit whereas before we weren't expressly required to issue a permit. And the way staff structured it is the permit review requirements became a component of the SDP or building permit issuance. So that's how they structured it. And then they worked closely with the City of Naples Airport Authority, with Chris, I think, primarily, to update the maps and to update some of the regulations. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I was responding to a comment, I believe, that this would streamline the process moving forward somewhat. It would be an improved process. So I was just looking to find out what -- you know, in what way? So it's now part of the permitting process and, basically, just should be more streamlined and more efficient than previously? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Maybe you're responding to when I mentioned that we were making some improvements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. FRANTZ: And what I was really referring to there was because we don't currently have a permitting process -- or because we're now adding it into our current review process, we can integrate it with -- we can integrate with the Airplane Authority a lot better because we didn't really have that before. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROZANSKY: And I'll add,I think it's beneficialto petitioners as well because it outlines very clearly the criteria that will be reviewed, and I don't think you had that previously. So it provides clarity, both sides, for petitioners and for the personnel responsible for administering it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I've got a few. So let's start on Page 6, and that's of the document that was passed out, which is the same page number that we had. Let's use Naples Municipal Airport as the example. You have a runway reference, 14-32. What does that mean? I don't care who answers as long as we get the answer. MR. ROZANSKY: Runways are numbered by their magnetic heading, and you drop the zero. So the runway -- it's the same piece of pavement, but when you're taking off or landing to the northwest, you're using runway oriented towards 320 degrees, and it's the same in reverse, 180-degree difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And since this document specifically referenced the runway and Page 8 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 then the height ratio, before we get into that, on Page 18, why wouldn't a member of the public, say from another state who is thinking of investing in land down here and wanting to know how the airport affects that land, how could they find out which runway is 14-32 if it's not labeled on the map that's on Page 18? Is there some way we could get that done so that everything -- members of the public aren't going to be able to follow this, and that's just the first step on that table that I have a concern with. MS. SUMMERS: No, I understand that, but we have included the updated airport zoningmaps, and we were also going to be doing an official zoning atlas update to show the perimeters on these airspace obstruction areas. Now, each of the updated maps -- for instance, for the Naples, those tables are now visually depicted. You have those ratios that are now given a height limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up. Show me where the depiction of 14-32 shows up on that map on Page 18, or whatever map you were wanting to refer me to in the packet you gave us to review. MS. SUMMERS: So if you see here, you have Runway 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me -- I don't know where you're at. Oh. Now, where did you get that map? Because I can't read mine. MS. SUMMERS: This is a separate PDF document. To include it in the LDC amendment text, we had to scale it down. But this is what it would look like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- no. Let's back up a minute. So what the LDC amendment's going to portray is what goes to MUNI code, wouldn't it? MS. SUMMERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And MTINI code's going to produce that map? MS. SUMMERS: MUNI code will be able to provide them a PDF version where you would actually be able to open and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So us -- MS. SUMMERS: -- be a better quality than what's provided in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For us reviewing it tonight, though, we have no way of knowing how you've labeled 14-32, because my screen's not working, so I can't see your blowup, and it's a little too small. Maybe I'm too old, but I can't -- do you have 14-32 -- okay, there you go. So the labels are there, and they will be available, if someone were to go online, to blow it up so they can read it? MS. SUMMERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Awe, good. Then that takes us to the next concerning element, and that's the ratio of 34-1. Can someone explain to me what that means? 34-1 what, and how would we apply it? And let's use the Naples Airport. And Ned brought up a really good project. Let's talk about the Goodlette project. It's going to be right over 14-32. So if they were going to go to X amount of height, how do you decipher that from the ratio of 34-1? What does that mean? MR. ROZANSKY: For -- so that means for every 34 feet horizontally you go one foot vertical. It's a step. Thirty-four feet horizontally, one step vertically. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starting from the center of the runway? MR. ROZANSKY: I believe it's starting from the end of the runway pavement, or it might be from 200 feet off the end of the runway pavement. I can't remember precisely. That would be identified in the definitions sections. MS. SUMMERS: It's -- the language here states that it would be at the runway end height at the inner edge -- the inner edge of the runway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone would then have to have a scaled drawing if they were just doing their due diligence before they put a lot of money and engineering into a piece of property to determine if they could put a building of 100 feet within a cerlain distance of that airport, and they'd have Page 9 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 to know where that point started and how the scale works to wherever far out it goes? Is that -- MR. ROZANSKY: A very precise response to that. In the administrative code, it's one of the recommendations we provided on Page 29, No. 26 where it refers to the website, that web address, oeaaa.faa.gotloeeaaa. It's a very useful tool for anyone. It's a public website. You can go in, type in the coordinates and the elevation, and it will give you an almost immediate response about the next -- whether it's penetrating and whether you need to go -- move forward in the obstruction review process by filing to the FAA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And while we're on Page29, the sentence that's highlighted in yellow says the following: An airspace obstruction review is required for any proposed obstruction that exceeds the criteria established in the LDC 4.02.04.6 (sic). Now, in net -- after that it says, and shall be reviewed by the FAA in the form or manner described in 14-77. By "exceeding" here you mean it makes it more hazardous; is that right? Because we usually state minimums in our code, and if you exceed -- you're always encouraged to exceed the minimums. In this case I think you've stated a maximum, but I think that needs to be clarified, because this appears on some of the typical language in the draft. And I was going to get to that. On Page 9 you use the same thing in this new language you introduced tonight. You use the word "exceed." And we try to tell people always the standards in the LDC are minimums. They're -- we encourage exceeding those. MR. ROZANSKY: I have an answer for that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm glad you're doing the presentation tonight. MR. ROZANSKY: If you don't mind, Ms. Summers. MS. SUMMERS: Not at all. MR. ROZANSKY: Okay. So it is not uncommon for a project to exceed those standards. That is the threshold where FAA needs to do an evaluation of it and determine whether or not exceeding that standard is ahazard to air navigation. The Gateway Triangle is a perfect example. The surface there -- the controlling surface there is the horizontal surface that, if you recall, was 150 feet above the elevation of the airport. And so that project -- I forget the ultimate altitude, but it did exceed it. But the FAA determined that exceeding it would not be ahazard to air navigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just so we have some kind of link to consistency with our code, could we say something to the effect that the alteration would exceed the maximum obstruction standards or something like that so we know what we're -- how the "exceed" is applied? Because it's now exceeding something that is stated as a maximum where we normally encourage exceeding the minimums. I just don't know how -- that might get confusing to the way it looks at it. Is there a better way to word it? MS. SUMMERS: That's a good question. I think because we're -- the criteria establishes the minimum. If you exceed the minimum, you're within this threshold where we have that additional review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the criteria -- the criteria establishes, doesn't it, the maximum height, not the minimum height. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. MS. SUMMERS: Right. So once you exceed that maximum height, that's when this kicks in. CFL{IRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's what I'm suggesting is that now -- now we have used a standard that's a maximum instead of a minimum. And I'm just wondering if we can make it clearer. If you exceed the maximum obstruction standards contained in that section, then we know the point we're talking about. But if it's -- I'm not -- again, I like Ned's language; I'm not going to die on my sword. I just thought it was a different way of approaching our code that we haven't used before, and we could clarifo it by another word in there. If it's -- you-all don't think it helps, then I'm not going to push it. MS. SUMMERS: I'd have to look into it fuither to see how it would -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 10 of19 "Special" CCPCILDC August 7,2019 MS. SUMMERS: -- work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other question -- and this is one I asked you this morning when we met, and I hope you had time to research it. These ratios are different than the ratios that were there before. For example, for Runway 5, you had a 50-0 and 40-l. I don't know how zero factors in. But a 50-0 and a 40-1, and now it's all 34-1. So let's take the Goodlette project again. So they have a Planned Unit Development and a zoning document that they believe is vested. Well, it actually is vested. It's a -- redone in 2017 . It vested certain parameters. It vested their height and the uses and the quantities and the traffic and other things. So they come in now, and this document changes that vesting -- that vested height to -- because of the ratio dropped from 50 to 34. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's more lenient, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? COMMISSIONER FRY: This is more lenient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to read this thing, but I don't understand it. What is it -- MR. ROZANSKY: I can't speak, sir, to the land-use planning rights that were granted on that project. I will give you an understanding of -- I may offer - try to offer an understanding of why this ratio is being changed. There was a time at the airport many years ago where they were planning for an instrument approach that would allow aircraft to approach the runway in lesser visibility conditions. That is no longer an anticipated development. So we are able to reduce this ratio because it still accommodates the type of operations that we have at the airport today and are now planning for in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But -- that's nice, but that doesn't address the question. The question was, does this create any nonconformities? And I used Naples because we started with it. Karl's right, that's a bad example, but lpok at Marco Island Executive Airport; went from 20-l to 43-1, and we've got high-rises directly to the west of that. Now, that won't affect you because you're the city, but it may affect the county for towers that are already built and are proposed to be built. I think there's only two out of five. So, now, do they lose their vested rights if they still can't fit into that airspace because of this new -- it's almost double on the Marco Island Executive Airport. And do their existing buildings become nonconforming? Because if they're nonconformities they may not be able to build them, which means their mortgage lender and their insurance companies may be concerned should a hurricane hit or something like that. So had anybody looked at any ofthat aspect ofthis? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are these the federal standards that you now put into our code? And maybe that's a combination question for both of you, but -- MR. ROZANSKY: These are all federal standards. It's just a matter of what are you planning for at your own local airport. I wouldn't be -- I don't have the expertise to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the Immokalee Airport's got the same situation. It went from 20-1 to 34-1. So we do have a difference in height allowed. All I'm trying to find out is if we've taken someone's property rights without proper notification or what we would have to do, and does this document end up doing that? I don't know if -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I understand your concern. From what I understand, the proposal before you is we have a statute that says the county has to review for airport obstructions, and those terms are defined by Florida Statute. And the obstructions are determined based on these data here from the federal government. So that's how we got here, correct? MS. SUMMERS: Correct. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I'm not -- especially in today's world, I'm not thinking our federal government's too right on many things they do. But be that as it may. Page 11 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 Are you saying that we can -- we have to force these on the property owners, and they can't -- we'll not be the ones -- we'll not be the ones responsible for their loss of vesting or their rights to build to the heights? It will be somebody else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we can look into building in some sort of a safety clause, a remedy that properly owners have, but I think that this is primarily regulated by the federal government, but now we're required to issue a local permit which, essentially, the local permit establishes that they meet the minimum criteria, because if they exceed the criteri4 then we get probably a letter of -- MS. SUMMERS: Hazard. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- hazard from the FAA, and they don't get a permit issued, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't know if this is consistent with the property rights we've already issued or the ones we have on the books for properties that aren't built yet? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, when I had spoken to Jerry about this earlier, he had said that he understood that the zoning regulations actually provided for a lower height in most of the zoning districts, and so our zoning actually is lower than the FAA requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So, Jeremy, you verified that on a20-1, the buildings that are west of the Marco Island airport won't be affected because even though the 34-1 is almost double, it doesn't matter because we're already conservative in the height that was allowed there? MR. FRANTZ: No, we did not veriflz that. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just thought I'd ask. MR. ROZANSKY: If I may offer one point that I can -- I don't believe those changes as it relates to the county-owned airports are a result of this change in Florida Statute. My understanding is that the Collier County airports have recently completed their own master plan, their own planning study, and that was hinged upon your timing of bringing this LDCA forward. MS. SUMMERS: That's correct. The updates to the airport master plan are not -- that's - for the Collier County's airports, that's handled through the Board of County Commissioners. And so once the Immokalee Regional Airport was -- updated their master plan with their new proposed runways or existing runways, we needed to update this data to accurately reflect their new master plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the source of a34-7, that number being in the document? MS. SUMMERS: It's a federal standard. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a federal standard? MS. SUMMERS: Uh-huh, based on the zone, the approach zone, as well as the runway type. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The 34-1, the source of that is probably some type of aircraft that needs that to land? MR. ROZANSKY: It's not really one specific aircraft. It depends on what category, what class ofaircraft your airport and your runway are intended to serve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. One -- it's the aircraft that needs the most shallow approach? MR. ROZANSKY: That needs the most protection for the type of activity at that particular airport. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. And it's probably the approach instead of the takeoff that matters? MR. ROZANSKY: They're generally lower on landing than they are on takeoff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Jeremy, so I'm a little more comfortable, knowing that probably the highest buildings in the county close to an airport based on the bands that I see. And the bands that I see on the Marco airport, if you look at Page 19 and you look where 951 is versus the airport, those bands go way, way, way past the buildings on the Marco airport. So that means those buildings are within that inner circle. And I can't read it because it's too small. But on those buildings, they're regular residential high-rise, so they're substantially higher. What does -- what does that mean right there? Page 12 of 19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,,2019 MS. SUMMERS: This contour here, that would have -- your obstruction level would be at 154 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if those buildings are over 154 feet, then they basically could be considered nonconforming, because they're sure vested by now, and they have a PUD that is already approved. And I will tell you what those buildings are. MR. ROZANSKY: Chair, if I may and I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MR. ROZANSKY: I didn't mean to comment on the coun[r's airports, but that surface is not changing, that 154. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROZANSKY: That -- we have the same surface at the Naples Municipal Airport. That's 150 feet above the elevation of the runway. On their -- looking at Page 6 in your -- the county's Marco Island Airport and the Immokalee Regional Airport, what's changing, it looks like those are the approach surfaces, and the approach surfaces are directly off the end of the runway on both ends. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the side surfaces for those particular buildings won't be affected by this change. That's all I'm trying to get to the answer. If you can say "yes," that covers it. MS. SUMMERS: Well, if I may ask you a question, Chris. When an airport updates their master plans and it is reviewed by the FAA, if the change in airspace or runway surfaces would create a nonconformity, meaning there's -- an existing building would become ahazard to air navigation, would that be approved for a change in the master plan? MR. ROZANSKY: For an existing building? MS. SUMMERS: Uh-huh. Would they take into consideration the existing? MR. ROZANSKY: And, mind you, I am not familiar with the Collier County Airports master plan or where they're at in the process of it. Once they complete their draft master plan, they have to submit it through that airspace review process. And if that -- the county's consultant for those -- for that project has submitted that for airspace review, you would receive a response from the FAA whether or not there is ahazard to air navigation by any changes that were being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: I don't know if that helps. My thought was if you're changing the master plan and you have existing development, would they approve a change that would then create an airspace hazard or a potential obstruction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'lltellyou what, when we -- at some time between now and next time I get to talk to you and Jeremy, I'll pull the plans up for the towers that are already built at that location and just check that one as an -- now that I -- I couldn't read these maps you sent. Now that I know that outer ring or that inner ring is 154 feet, that's all I needed to know. And I'll see where it would lie, and then if there's an issue, I'll let you know only because that is what I've been trying to understand is how this is going to affect existing properties or future properties. So that would be the only -- and then the last thing I want to bring up -- and I know Ned's got another question -- you had said this makes it a lot clearer for the criteria and understanding of what to do. And if you turn to Page 8 under 2, criteria for review, it says, "The airspace obstruction may not be approved solely on the basis that the FAA determined that the proposed construction or alteration of an obstruction was not an airport hazard." Then it says, "The County Manager or designee will review and consider the following, A: The safety of persons on the ground and in the air," which, first of all, leads me to assume the FAA must not be considering that, but we are considering it. So what are we -- what's our criteria for the safety -- for that standard that isn't in our code so that if someone came in and said, their expert says they've met the safety of persons on the ground and the air, what criteria could we have to tell them, no, you didn't meet this criteria? It's the same issue we've just discovered on the TDM strategies for traffic for transportation impacts, the TDM strategies. There's no measurable quantities. Page 13 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 So the applicants say, well, we're going to do them, but you can't hold us to anything because you don't have any measurable standards. And most of what I'm reading on the criteria review are not measurable: The character, the nature, the safety. But it would be nice if the safety of persons means something rather than a point that's going to be arbitrated or discussed or back and forth. And that's not your problem. It kind of, though, came about because of your comment that now we've got clear criteria. I can tell you I don't think we do. But it's probably better than what we've got already, so -- MR. ROZANSKY: It is subjective. But I'd like to point out that on Page 38 of this memo, it is -- that language is verbatim from the Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've already been told that, yeah, and that means -- MR. ROZANSKY: Except for the last one which we requested be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's supposed to mean, I guess, that the state has very clearly told us what to do and, very clearly, they have not. Bu! okay. I appreciate the comment. So that's all the questions I had, and now Ned's got something he wants to point out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could I borrow your mic for a moment. MS. SUMMERS: Please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chris, I put up there on the visualizer, you'll see a white dot. That is property in the easternmost part of the Naples Commons area where it is proposed that there would be a structure, a building, of about 100 feet in height, six over two, and it measures 1,734 feet to one of your runways. Do you see a problem with that? MR. ROZANSKY: I really have to take a look at our GIS base map on the aerial and cross-reference it to the city ordinance. It's -- I'm -- I can't really opine that, other than to see I do not believe that would penetrate our noise contour, so I don't believe it would be subject to any of the noise-related criteria. But I really would have to take a further look at it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about safety? MR. ROZANSKY: I don't -- you know, it's -- again, I'd have to look at how it sits and contours and the concentric circles and our surfaces off the end of our runway. I'm just not prepared to answer that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fair enough. That's fine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the LDC before you today does not regulate that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think Ned's trying to do the same thing I -- I'm trying to understand how this applies. And we do have projects out there that have existing zoning and heights. And I just want to make sure if we are crossing something up, we know about it. And if it's the only way we can go, fine. I'm just trying to understand it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does the 34-1 ratio apply to that dimension? MR. ROZANSKY: It does. I'd have to look. It's not precisely off the end of the runway. It's set off to the side, so I'd have to take a look and see how far -- how wide that area is. There's also sloping upward. You know, the most practical way to look at these surfaces is to compare the runway to a football field that may be an NFL stadium. They go upward and outward. But if it pleases you, Commissioner Fryer, I'd be happy to follow up with you directly on that matter. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would appreciate that very much. Thank you. That's all I have. MR. ROZANSKY: Happy to. COMMISSIONER FRY: lf it was impacted by that34-1, then it would only allow about a 5 1-foot building. | ,734 is about 5 1 at -- 5 I feet at 34 feet per height. MR. ROZANSKY: Your math is better than mine. It certainly would have to undergo an FAA airspace review. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you can rise one foot for every 34 feet, at 1,734 feet you are at 51 feet in height. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So, Ned, it looks like you can only go with a building at 51 feet, and these are going to be about 100, so... Page 14 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 MR. ROZANSKY: Now, again, that doesn't mean it's ahazard. That means the FAA needs to review it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the FAA review would be a necessary part of the process. Should that happen before the city looks at it or after? MR. ROZANSKY: Well, as I recall, the city ordinance, just like is stated in your proposed ordinance for the county, that the city cannot approve a permit until they have a final FAA determination in hand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thanks. Thank you. MR. ROZANSKY: Cannot process a permit whether they approve or deny; cannot even process it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I think the bottom line is that is a better program, even though it may have its questions, than what we've already got. And so I guess we ought to look at it from that perspective. Because if we're going to get more, we can always implement it and enhance it after we understand it better. But right now, if this is the best we can do to meet the requirements that we now have on us, I think that's how we ought to probably be reviewing it, so... And, Ellen, you did a good job, and I want to -- because it's a complicated issue. MS. SUMMERS: It is. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: And I know I sprung the questions I had on you this morning because it's the soonest we could meet, but that's the only really concern I had about the whole thing. MS. SUMMERS: And, unfortunately, I just don't have a great answer to that question. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And if I could have read those charts, I would have been able to do some of that myself, but I couldn't read them. So if you -- I'll try to get a copy from you that's readable. MS. SUMMERS: For the maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll do my own checking on it, and if there's an issue, I'll let you know before the Board hearing, and you can decide to address it or not. I'm fine that way. The rest of you? COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask just one more question? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: What mechanism is in place to make sure that a building that is -- a developer's applying to build, who is responsible for catching that it needs this review for whether it is an obstruction to the aviation? MS. SUMMERS: It will be Collier County. It will be the Development Review Services Division. We have a couple of safeguards in place that we have implemented on our end of things so that we can catch potential airspace obstructions and forward them to the appropriate parties for review. So we have -- the new updated maps will also be updated into our GIS program. Our CityView software, which tracks all of our planning petitions, Site Development Plans, building permits, will be able to have a spatial query. So when you have a parcel number that comes in for a new development or a building permit, if it falls within that outer rings of the airspace obstruction overlay, there'll be a property alert, there'll be a building permit condition that automatically loads. So we have a couple of automatic safeguards that will be in place. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wow. MS. SUMMERS: It's a very difficult subject, so we wanted to make it as easy as possible for staff to handle. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It is. So I don't have any more questions. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: And there's no audience here. We've got staff presentation, so what's the preference of this board at this point? Anybody have a motion for -- well, do we do them separately or together, Heidi? I guess it doesn't matter? Page 15 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2Ol9 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The airport LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have two LDCs. Do we vote on them separately? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you going to discuss the gas station? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not picking up -- your mic's not working, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would vote on them separately. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Because they were presented in one agenda item; that's why I asked. Okay. So with that, does someone want to make a motion to move this forward to the Board with the suggested changes we had tonight? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll put that in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Any discussion? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. So who got the next hard one? MR. FRANTZ: That's me. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we got new language recommended by the County Attorney's Office's, too. MR. FRANTZ: That's correct, yeah. So this amendment I'm pulling up now you all have actually reviewed before, gave us a recommendation of approval, and we thought, you know, that's not good enough. We'd like that one more time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sounds like us. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: So the change that we were initially bringing back, I'll just try and make that clear, was to allow for these -- what we're now calling field pricing signs to be located on a directory sign through the variance process through a PUD deviation or an SRA deviation, and then we also have some additional changes that were requested by the County Attorney's Office. So I'll have this up on the board, but I also do have some handouts if you all would like those. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only one that has the board in front of them is Karen. So for the sake of some of us with older eyes, I would like a copy. Karl doesn't need one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for clarifring that. MR. FRANTZ: So the various changes that we are requesting and wanted to give you all a chance to see before it goes to the Board are all highlighted in yellow. You'll see starting on that very first page we're updating the reference to Florida Statutes, and that's because we've found that in the last legislative session earlier this year there was a change made to Section 553-79 that renumbered some later sections, including this one. And so this was previously referencing Subsection 20, which has now become Subsection 22. There were no changes to that section. It was just renumbered. So we've made that change throughout the document in our backup materials as well as the LDC text. Page 16 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 Some of the changes requested by the County Attorney's Office was to no longer call them electronic message boards but to call them electronic -- refer to it as electronic fuel pricing. And the idea, as I understand it, is to make sure that's very clear what the LED portion of the signs has allowed for, and that's strictly for the fuel pricing. Didn't want to leave any kind of wiggle room or area -- room for interpretation. That change is made wherever it used to say "electronic message board" now says electronic fuel pricing. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Jeremy, that means they cannot have a flashing advertisement for a gallon of milk at3.99 or anything of that nature. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. Scrolling through the amendment text, these changes were -- they were all referenced previously. There's also another section added by the County Attorney's Office that Heidi may be able to speak to a little bit more but it, essentially, allows for us to work with the proposed development order to ensure that if there's any changes to the statute language, that we can modifu those signs to be compliant. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Before you move on to No. 5, I'd just like to point in the Subsection E that you can see on the screen, there was also the insertion of the word "deviation" after PUD. So it would say or "PUD deviation or SRA deviation." So the issue with No. 5 relates to a statute that provides that the county cannot adopt or enforce regulations that conflicts or impairs or degrades, you know, copyright trademark image related to franchises, and also we can't have any regulation that prevents the fuel price signage from not being visible from arterial roadways. So this Section 5, if we have a situation where a gas station is arguing that their sign is not visible, this section would allow the county to negotiate and settle without having to go through an LDC amendment, PUD amendment, or variance; likewise, if you're dealing with a franchisee, we have a number of -- they also happen to be gas stations. But Citgos, Sunocos that want to exceed our color standards and number of signs, that will allow us to work it out with those entities without having to come back and make them go through a PUD amendment or variance. So that just provides some more flexibility in resolving issues where -- where the entity's representatives will be arguing that there's a preemption. So rather than going to court to resolve it, we'd like to be able to settle it and have the authority to do it through this section, so that's where that comes from. And Mr. Klatzkow was recommending that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that apply to the height of the signs as well? Any -- is that any aspect of the LDC that can be varied based on -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We haven't had an issue of height raised yet, and it's got to be -- as far as that component of the signage, that part has to be an image or branding, a copyright. You know, they have to be trademark. It has to be falling under that type of category, which I would think height would not. However, what could fall under that category that we've discussed with Wawa is the slanting canopies, because right now our code does not allow slanting canopies. But that is an image of the Wawa stores that they have throughout. And what we do is we ask for pictures so they can show us that this is their established branding. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we were notified previous to the initial presentation of this by Wawa by an attorney representing Wawa that they -- I think they needed higher sign heights and other variations. But you're saying the only variation that Wawa needs is a slanting canopy at this point? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we've resolved that issue. That's outside of it. I was just trying to give you an example of some of the issues that have come up. Some of the issues that we've had to deal with are one of them has, like, a little bird as part of their symbol, and they wanted that, so we had to, you know, reach a resolution of that. Right now we're dealing with them saying they -- and this is an issue that we haven't completely resolved, but they want the canopy to have Sunoco or Citgo on all three sides of the canopy that don't face the building, so our code doesn't presently allow that. So we're looking at that as to whether that's Page 17 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 something that we can approve through the preemption under the statute. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this opens up the possibility that there are a lot of different -- there are -- potentially each major brand could have its own special signage, canopies that are -- that you have to yield to in a way. So there could be different looks and feels to the signage and to the appearance of the various brands ofgas stations? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not just gas stations. It just is coming up under the gas station amendment. So the gas station amendment that is before you is primarily relating to making fuel price signs more visible, but we're tacking on this statute -- and I brought copies if you care to read the statute -- as to what the county is not allowed to regulate or enforce. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Does that answer the question? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You answered all -- you got all mine, so I don't have any issues, and nobody else does. So with that, is there a motion to accept the changes suggested tonight on this particular LDC amendment and move it forward? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I'll move to accept. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Jeremy, thank you. You guys did a good job, and -- MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- especially that first one was complicated, so we appreciate it. Is there any public comments? Since nobody from the public is here, good luck with that. Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Ned. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- Karen. All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 18 of19 "Special" CCPC/LDC August 7,2019 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:l I p.m. COLLI ER COUNTY PLANNING COMMI SSION These minutes approved by the Board """1- t1- I? , as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 19 of 19