Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/07/2023 (5:05 pm) Draft TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 7, 2023 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: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Paul Shea Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, LDC Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good evening, everyone. This is the second or evening session of the December 7, 2023, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. We'll dispense with the Pledge of Allegiance because we already said it earlier today. We will retake the roll, though, just to complete our record. And in the secretary's absence, I will call the roll. Ms. Lockhart? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary Shea? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. Mr. Schumacher? COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we have a quorum of six. Thank you. And we will at this point go right to our items to be called for our evening session, and we have three LDCAs, and I'll call them by number, and then we'll hear from staff, unless there's anything further that I need to cover before we do that. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. Okay. ***So the first item is PL20220005067. This is an LDCA to correct certain scrivener's errors, also some nomenclature changes and changes in cross-references. Matters purely legislative in nature, so no need for swearing any witnesses or ex parte disclosure. And with that, the Chair recognizes Ms. Fewell. MS. FEWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening. My name is Marissa Fewell, Planner III with the Zoning division. I'd like to present to you today the proposed amendment for scrivener's errors. This amendment corrects errors and updates various citations and references throughout the Land Development Code. The amendment was presented to the DSAC subcommittee on October 17th and to the full DSAC on November 1st where it was given a recommendation of approval. Today we are also requesting a recommendation of approval. Thank you. I'm available for any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Excellent presentation. I have absolutely no questions. I went over the proposal carefully, as I'm sure everyone else did, and it all seems to be in order. No one is signaling at this time. Anyone wish to be heard from the dais? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not -- and are there any registered speakers? MS. PADRON: We have no registered speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Padron. With that, then, we will close the public speaking segment of this hearing, and we will take up the matter of deliberation and call for a motion at the appropriate time. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Make a motion to accept as presented. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Fewell. And you might as well just stay up here, okay. ***The next matter to be heard is PL20230013966. This is a Land Development Code amendment pertaining to wireless communications facilities. Again, this is legislative; no need for ex parte or swearing in. Ms. Fewell, you're on. MS. FEWELL: Hello again. For the record, Marissa Fewell, Planner III with the Zoning division. This next item before you is a proposed amendment for regulations to wireless communication facilities. Bear with me. Sorry. There we go. In 1992, the first regulations for communication towers were adopted by the Board. Earlier this year, in January, the Board directed staff to develop amendments to the current LDC regulations in order to promote a stronger and safer wireless communication network throughout the county. Staff contracted with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage to assist with developing these updated provisions, and today we have Margaret Emblidge, planning director at ABB, here today to assist with any questions. Since receiving the Board direction in January, staff and the consultant have reviewed current regulations and best practices statewide and have also engaged with industry experts including a wireless service provider and a tower company. This research helped staff make a determination that the existing provisions in the LDC are outdated compared to current industry practices. This amendment modernizes the text and seeks to simplify the application and review process. Much of the current LDC provisions are proposed to be removed, revised, or replaced with new text. Elements of existing regulations that are carried forward in the proposed draft include design requirements for building or rooftop-mounted facilities; regulations for wildlife and habitat loss considerations; regulations for facilities located in the Estates; lighting, landscaping, and screening requirements; requirements for inspections of towers; and, of course, for proposed facilities to meet SDP and building permit requirements. Also, corresponding cross-references are also added throughout the LDC in order to maintain consistency. Moving on to some of those substantive changes in the amendments, so the first one is updating the nomenclature of "communication towers" to "wireless communication facilities" in order to include all facility types. Second, we are providing definitions and establishing regulations for the various types of wireless communication facilities. We are also updating the zoning district use lists and creating a table to clearly show what facility type is permitted in each zoning district. We are modifying shared tower requirements that now includes an increased height incentive for collocation of multiple providers on one location, but the draft is still requiring applicants to provide justification for a proposed facility that is not being collocated, similar to what they had to do before. We are modifying separation requirements to abutting properties in order to reflect improvements that have been made with tower industry design standards for towers. We are now requiring an emergency backup generator at facility sites to ensure the continuance of public safety through any loss of power events. Another change is to allow applicants that require a deviation from a development standard that are currently or preparing to go through a conditional-use process to also be able to request the deviation through that conditional use instead of requiring them to do a conditional use and a variance application. And, lastly, we are reorganizing and reformatting the section to allow for easier reading and interpretation of the regulations. This amendment was presented to the DSAC subcommittee on October 17th and the full DSAC on November 1st where it was given a recommendation of approval both times. Today we're asking for a recommendation of approval with two requested changes. The first is to carry forward regulation G15 from the current Section 5.05.09. This regulation can be found on Page 74 of your packet. The existing regulation requires an inspection report to be submitted to the county. The existing regulations that require the inspection to happen, we already pulled those forward into this draft before you now, but now we're asking to also include the requirement of the inspections report to be submitted. The second requested change is to carry forward G24 from the existing section. This can be found on Page 75 of your packet. And this existing regulation requires applications for any tower that's over 150 feet for that application to be submitted to the Collier Mosquito Control District as well. So we would like to bring that forward. So with those two changes, we are requesting a recommendation of approval. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one at this point is signaling. I have a few questions or comments, mostly just to make a record. I know what the answers are. But let me run through these. First of all, in the staff report -- and this is on Page 23 of 193 -- it says that you encourage collocation but, really, you require collocation based upon heights, correct? It's more than encourage. MS. FEWELL: Yes, that is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so from that statement, let me -- let me take it one step further. Why wouldn't we require collocation at all heights? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. There are certain limitations in terms of the height of the tower in terms of the capacity that it can accommodate. So what we've proposed was that for 100 feet, you're required to have a minimum of one carrier; and if you're at 130 feet, you're required to have two carriers; if you're 185 feet, it's three carriers; and at 250 feet, which is the highest permitted use within the ag zoning district, requires for four individual carriers. And one of the things I'd like to point out, the old code had five pages of shared-use provisions in terms of requiring collocation opportunities within -- within telecommunication towers. That was at a time and a place when Verizon -- Verizon wasn't even around at the time, actually, but it was, like, Nextel and AT&T. They built towers. That doesn't happen anymore. Tower companies build towers. Tower companies are vertical real estate providers. They build the towers. The user -- the end users, the carriers, locate upon those facilities. So as a vertical real estate company, the towers are always looking to maximize the maximum amount on the carrier. So I always looked at the shared-use requirements as unnecessary and outdated. We wanted to maintain the component that we still are requiring shared use based upon the various heights, but the marketplace -- similar to the discussion that Mr. Schumacher was having related to apartment complexes and how they fill those, their job is to maximum the number of carriers that that tower can support. That's how they make revenue. So the market forces ensure that we have shared-use -- shared-use components within every tower that's constructed, but we also have the regulatory component that requires it as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. My -- maybe I didn't frame my question exactly right. You've got -- you've got a requirement of only one carrier up to 100 feet. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So give me -- tell me why we wouldn't want to require two carriers at, say, 90 feet. Is it a technological reason? Does it cause deterioration of the signals somehow? What is the -- what's the reason? MR. BOSI: I don't believe that there's a reason other than the average -- the average height of a tower within a suburban type of environment, such as Collier County, they're looking to go a little bit higher to be able to provide for the reach that the signal and the search -- the search areas provide for. So at 100 feet, anything below that 100 feet within this current -- within our current lower density style of development, it's not very effective. So we chose that one carrier at 100 feet, and it's as just an area that recognizes that -- the configuration of land uses within Collier County. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. If a -- if two -- if there were to be collocation of, let's say, two carriers at 90 feet, we wouldn't object to that, would we? MR. BOSI: Oh, no, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, Eric Johnson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: It's a minimum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: It's not compelling them to only have one; based on capacity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. All right. Let me see what else I have here. While I'm looking through this, I'll try to talk and look at the same time. My main consideration -- and I think it should be ours as the Planning Commission on an issue like this since at least in my case I have next to no expertise -- fair to say no expertise at all in communication towers other than what little I've learned sitting up here. So we rely on staff, and I'm very glad that staff obtained a third-party independent with ABB looking primarily, from my perspective at least, safety. Safety's a key. And safety's a two-edged sword, because as we all know -- and Mr. Bosi used the number, it was 90 or 95 percent of people, I guess in Collier County, rely on their cell phones to call 911. They don't have hard wire. So, obviously, having robust cell phone coverage in the county itself is a safety issue. Now, on the other hand, we want to be sure that the towers themselves are structurally as robust as they can be against -- against winds in excess of 100 -- 140 miles an hour. And I understand the concept of how they -- how they internally collide -- not collide but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Collapse. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Collapse, that's the word, thank you. And that is -- it's obviously a good thing, but you reach a certain -- certain wind velocity that even when the -- when gravity is going to pull them to collapse in a certain way, the wind could force them in another direction. And is -- Ms. Brundage [sic], are you going to be coming up and testifying, or only if we ask you to? MS. EMBLIDGE: Only if you ask. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm asking you to. Go ahead. MS. EMBLIDGE: If I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come to the mic. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. Margaret Emblidge with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Emblidge, I'm sorry. MS. EMBLIDGE: That's okay. And I think the best person to answer that are the Verizon representatives that we have here today, and -- because I don't have the answer to that on what would happen in that instance. I mean, we created new setbacks. Instead of having them be completely the -- the setback being reflective of the height, we're looking more at a 50 percent, and that's just because of the technology of the cell towers. But I can't answer your question. So if it would be appropriate, could we ask the Verizon experts to answer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, eventually, we may, but tell me what the scope of your engagement was, then. Did it include safety? MS. EMBLIDGE: It included -- not specifically. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No? MS. EMBLIDGE: No. It included helping with research and putting together revising the Land Development Code language. And if you want Michael to -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Margaret, her primary task at the very beginning was researching other jurisdictions in Florida to see how their code arrangement was. This is how this process worked. We were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to work with Verizon and the industry experts to develop a more robust wireless communication facility. We got a draft version of an updated code from Verizon. We took that draft version. We compared it against various Florida localities towards what their current standards were, found areas of agreement, bounced ideas off of Verizon. We also bounced ideas off of SBA, which is the tower provider, to find the right medium of trying to balance community protection as well as the built environment protection. And the way that the processes worked, we have reduced some of the separation requirements because within our code we had two and a half times the height of a tower to have to be separated from, say, Estates-zoned lots. Well, every time -- and we made modifications earlier to the telecommunication towers to allow for more towers in the Estates, recognizing there was lots of dead zones, but every one of those conditional uses had to have a separation requirement. So we've now recognized that tower technology has advanced towards where towers collapse upon themselves. Normally it's half the height of the tower or less is where their fall zones are. So in certain locations we have only half the height of the tower as a separation requirement. When it's adjacent to residential or Estates-zoned properties, we would require 100 percent separation of the height of the tower knowing that the fall zone is half of that. So we allow for more regulatory flexibility, more opportunities for towers to be sat without a compromise of public safety in terms of how those will perform when there is individual failures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was just going to say, all these towers have to go through the permitting process. They're engineered. A registered professional engineer has to sign off on the structural integrity so that the fall zones and the structural aspects of it -- our building inspectors -- or our plan reviewers only validate that they've been signed off by a professional engineer. It's that professional engineer who works for the tower company who signs off. Their career's on the line. But the fact is, they're all engineered. The fall zones are all calculated, and so from a structural standpoint, they're just not haphazardly constructed. They're -- I mean, they're engineered -- designed and engineered, and there's -- the fall zones are calculated and accounted for. Mike covered that pretty well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Just a quick question. I'm seeing in every section of this that it will say wireless communication facilities subject to LDC section so on and so forth. Where can't you put a wireless communication tower? MR. BOSI: There are -- I don't believe we've excluded any areas where a telecommunication tower could not be sat. If you're within a residentially zoned district, you can only propose a stealth tower, and it has to go through a conditional-use process. So it's not allowed by right. By right is your industrial zoning district, your public zoning district, your commercial zoning districts, your agricultural zoning districts. But when you get to residential by right, your RMF-12 and your RMF-16, your multifamily where you have taller structures, we do allow -- we allow rooftop locations to be able to provide the opportunities. We do allow towers as a conditional use, as I said, through stealth, through -- in residential. So we haven't excluded any area from the county that could -- a tower could be sat, but we do have -- we recognize the sensitivity of residential areas and, therefore, we require a conditional-use process to be able to satisfied before a tower can move forward. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So follow up on that, like you said, with the Estates where there's multiple brownouts and dead zones. The tower setback is reduced to 55 -- 50 percent of the height of the tower, correct? MR. BOSI: No, it's -- the separation requirement in the Estates is 100 percent of the height tower. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Hundred percent of the height tower. So if it's 100 feet, you've got to have 100 feet between you and everything else around you? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So what would stop somebody from putting that up in their backyard? MR. BOSI: I mean, Code Enforcement, I mean, unless they went through the -- COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's what I'm saying. They'd come in and do the application and say, I have this setback. Could they then do that in the Estates section? MR. BOSI: If they -- it's -- it has to be on a collector or arterial road. That's what our code says. If you're on a collector or arterial road and you're in the Estates zoning district, you can have a wireless tower, but it's through the conditional-use process. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Perfect. MR. BOSI: It's not through a permitted right. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: And then on Page 55 of your packet, it shows the different types of towers, the monopole, lattice, or guide, and it clearly shows that in the RSF-1 through the RMF-16 zoning districts that they're just simply not permitted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. There's someone from Verizon here who is -- would you mind coming up to the mic, sir? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is an alternate tower allowed? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: As a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you -- MS. SMITH: I just have a couple of remarks I was going to make, if that's okay. I'm Julie Smith. I'm vice president of external affairs for Verizon. I'm here with my colleague and experts who will gladly answer all of your questions. Jonathan Montenegro, Verizon senior manager for network real estate for the state of Florida, along with our outside counsel from Shutts & Bowen, James Johnston. Together we spent this year working closely with county staff regarding this update to the Land Development Code, and I would like to thank the commissioners and the staff for their interest on this important issue. We certainly appreciate the county staff for working so hard on this critical update. On behalf of Verizon, we believe that this code update will allow for a more predictable, streamlined, faster process to enable the wireless industry to deploy more critical communications infrastructure to benefit the residents, visitors, businesses and, most importantly, your first responders in Collier County. We've heard the challenge -- how challenging the coverage is in certain parts of the county, and we believe this code will enable providers to have a smoother path forward to resolve those issues while also providing the county with the necessary zoning review process and protections that I know you care about. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any technical questions you-all may have related to these updates from our point of view. And like I said, I've got my experts here, so feel free to fire away at Jonathan or James. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, what I am concerned about and what I want an increase in my level of comfort from where -- based upon almost no expertise at all, I want to walk out of this room this evening thinking that I did my diligence on behalf of the county with respect to safety, and I want to hear that not -- not just from county staff, although their input's very important, but I want to hear from engineering type people who can assure us -- and why don't you come on up, now, sir. Identify yourself and tell us briefly your qualifications. MR. MONTENEGRO: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jonathan Montenegro. I am the senior real estate manager for the state of Florida for Verizon Wireless. My job is basically to oversee all of the leasing, all of the engineering, all of the zoning, and all of the permitting for any new installations for Verizon as well as modifications to existing locations such as technology upgrades and things along those lines. I've been in the role for about four years, and I oversee a team of about 10 people in probably four or five different structural, engineering, A&E type firms that I work with on a day-to-day basis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you an engineer? MR. MONTENEGRO: I am an engineer. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I also have a master's in engineering management. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what I was getting at. All right. So can you provide us some assurances that these new regulations will not compromise safety of the people in Collier County? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes, sir. As Mr. Schmitt alluded to, every single thing that we do has to go through a building permit. So what we're addressing here is just the zoning piece of where can we put towers, but we have stringent requirements within Verizon to ensure that even if we're not the ones building the towers, that the tower providers are meeting the Category 5 hurricane-rated type safety code as well as whatever local code we're abiding by. We have professional engineers that put structural -- structural drawings, structural analysis drawings, and full-blown analysis to submit as part of zoning and the building permit packages, and that's all stamped and agreed on both from Verizon, from the vendor, and from the tower company. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In your expert opinion, if we were to approve these new regulations, would we be compromising or weakening in any respect the safety standards for the people of Collier County? MR. MONTENEGRO: Not at all, sir. I think you would be increasing it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you very much. We've got two commissioners. Stay up here in case they want to ask you questions. The first one's Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if this question is directed to the county or to our experts from Verizon. But as we all know, living in almost any part of Florida, but of course Southwest Florida here, we are susceptible to brownouts, blackouts, power loss for an hour to 10, 12, 15 days. I heard in the previous presentation that one of the requirements was backup generators. This may be too technical for this meeting, but is there a requirement for how many days those -- I'm assuming it's a diesel generator that's supplying power to the transmitters -- how many days that generator is able to operate at, you know, like, a four-day minimum of supplied diesel? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's an excellent question. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: His hand's up. MR. MONTENEGRO: Yeah, I could answer that. I could answer that. So as part of one of my roles at Verizon, I am also the lead hurricane expert, subject-matter expert. I dealt with Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Michael, and my role has been to essentially ensure that we keep service or we provide service where there is a lack of -- thereof. So to answer your question, from a generator perspective, our generators can run for days, weeks, months on end. We just have to keep refueling it. So depending on the environmental restrictions around the area, we could have with a diesel generator, we could have a natural gas generator, or we can have a propane generator, and it is up to Verizon and the other carriers to ensure that there is a refueling plan that happens during those events to ensure that the sites run. Typical generator capacity, we run for -- we could run for up to a week without having to refuel, and that's usually our standard within Verizon that we have. So that could vary by carrier. But that does not mean that we can't continuously run the generators as long as we have the fueling plans and a battery backup within the actual facility in case a generator fails to give us enough time to roll even a tertiary backup which would be another generator that we would plug in directly. And it's a smaller size generator, but it could serve the same purpose. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. If I understood correctly, you're hoping most generators have fuel capacity for one week as sort of on the minimum -- MR. MONTENEGRO: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- to get us going. And hopefully by then, we have transportation available to bring in diesel, reconnect natural gas or LP if required. MR. MONTENEGRO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. That's great information to know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And that was an excellent question, too. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. On the Chairman's safety issue -- so I've heard the phrase "collapse upon itself." And I'm not an engineer, so you'll have -- to paraphrase Denzel Washington, you'll have to explain it to me like I'm a fourth grader. But I'm assuming that if it falls within less than 50 percent of its height, it probably snaps off but holds on, falls. Is that right, or just explain -- because it can't just -- well, from my perspective, it can't collapse upon itself. MR. MONTENEGRO: Correct. Yeah. So I am not a tower expert, so I'll answer the question to the best of my ability. But in my experience, when we've seen towers fall, it is exactly that type of scenario where it's maybe four or five different sections that kind of fall upon each other kind of in a ladder type deal, domino effect, but from the ground down. That's usually for a monopole, so that's basically just a metal pole that's, you know, 100 feet, 150 feet, whatever that case may be. For a lattice tower, when we talk about something buckling, usually the towers -- if there is a big issue, they'll kind of tip over from the top. So you'll see kind of like a candy cane type deal, right, where the top kind of just falls over a little bit, and then we have had cases where towers have fallen and they just kind of collapse upon themselves because those are lattice towers that they have enough members within the actual build that they start collapsing and fall within themselves. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What about during a hurricane? MR. MONTENEGRO: That's when things like that happen. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Same thing? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French. MR. FRENCH: Thanks, Commissioners. For the record, Jamie French, the department head for Growth Management and Community Development. So Chapter 31 of your Florida Building Code is your life-safety code. And under Florida Statute 49 and 553, that determination shall be made by a licensed Florida Building Code official. There are specific guidelines that are identified in Chapter 31 with regards to tower construction to include dead load -- dead load weights, wind zones, as well as types of construction and how they're constructed. They are reviewed by the fire department for the fire agency of that district as well as by our Florida building staff, our Florida -- licensed Florida Building Code staff. Typically what happens, this is done by private provider. These are very specialized engineers. And I can tell you it depends on the engineer you talk to. We've got towers in our community that are not designed to fall, and the engineer signed and sealed it. That's the way it's built. And then we've got some that are built, and it really depends on the height of the tower on what wind loads it can sustain, and it talks about the dead load of how much equipment. So it really is dependent upon how that tower is constructed, and it may be unique to the topography. It may be unique to the -- to the -- we don't really have seismic activity. But, clearly, when you look at the compaction of soils and what's available -- and it may just very well be that there's not just a lot of need for a tower in some areas that are of significant height. So it's a very complicated science behind this. I appreciate what Verizon's saying. We totally agree with them. And we deal with -- we work with probably about a half a dozen, maybe a dozen of these tower engineers. They are very specialized. There's not a whole lot of them in the state of Florida, and that's all they focus on is on the life safety. But your Florida Statute directs local government as well as state government, Chapter 31 of the Florida Building Code, which is recognized by Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So in each and every case that a tower is erected, one of these tower experts is going to have to sign off on it? MR. FRENCH: Absolutely, yeah. And we don't inspect these, by the way. So we're not -- you won't find any local authority having jurisdiction that's going to have the qualifications of these tower engineers. So they use -- much like the Florida law talks about when you get into certain heights of building, you would acquire a threshold engineer, and it's a requirement by statute. These are very specialized inspectors and very specialized design professionals. And, heck, Mr. Schmitt and I have -- Commissioner Schmitt and I have worked on this for many years, and so we recognize the specialty of the science that they perform. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MONTENEGRO: And if I could -- if I may, I just want to add one more comment to my previous statement. I definitely agree with everything Mr. French is saying, but also I want to point out the rarity of something like this happening. In my 12 years I've been at Verizon in dealing with these types of events, I've seen four towers fall out of 3,500 that Verizon is on. That's not accounting for all the towers that are built across the whole state. So it's a very, very rare thing to happen, and I just want to make sure that you understood that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What areas are we looking to get these towers into? What I'm trying to get to is I'm trying to avoid where we've got just towers going up where they're not needed. How do we -- how do we regulate that? MR. BOSI: In the code, 5.05.09, which is the tower code, we have a specific section that deals with the burden of proof that is a new tower builder. If they are to build a tower and they're suggesting they cannot locate on any towers that are within their search area, there's criteria that they have to satisfy to show us why they can't locate on any existing infrastructure that's within there, and it's only after the satisfaction of that criteria would they be able to gain approval for a new tower location. So the proliferation of towers is something we carried forward within this code to make sure that we aren't going to have a proliferation of unnecessary towers; that the towers that do go up will be needed to serve the purposes of the industry but not in excess of that. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. FRENCH: But also, more specifically, sir, is the determination of the location of the tower -- and I'll allow Verizon to correct me if I'm wrong -- this is determined by their RF engineer. So that's -- they decide where they need the tower, and they serve for an area within a certain geographical boundary that's going to be able to, let's say, create that redundancy or complete that circuitry that's necessary to provide the service. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The 185 feet max height with three providers, and then we've got agricultural, which was 250; am I correct on that? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. So in those agricultural areas, as we've seen with Big Cypress that's coming in, which used to be agriculture and now it's now turned into residential, those -- if somebody erects a tower in that ag setting and then that property is then later on down the road turned over, we're not going to ask for a smaller tower. So would they just be kind of grandfathered in per se in that type of situation? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. In that scenario, I would think Collier Enterprises or Barron Collier would make an arrangement with that tower company and say, replace a wireless 200 -- or a guy 250-foot tower that takes up a tremendous amount of space, if it's in close proximity or the proximity of where they're going to build their SRA and provide the SRA to have the -- and most SRAs do allow for towers within the nonresidential sections to be developed, and probably in a monopole or a more -- or a self-support style just so it's less obtrusive within the development that they're proposing. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. My last question is going to be for Verizon. I'm sure you've probably looked at the map and see areas where there's a deficiency for service, especially out in the Estates. Those structures that would go up, being either towers -- or would they look something like there's a -- there's a -- there's a cell phone tower in Golden Gate City that looks like a tree, but it's, like, 150 feet tall. It doesn't match anything around it. Is that something kind of like what you would be foreseeing out there? MR. MONTENEGRO: Usually for those types of tower is because the jurisdiction is mandating us to do something like that. That monopine that we call -- COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. MR. MONTENEGRO: -- we don't like it -- COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. MR. MONTENEGRO: -- but we abide by the zoning laws and what we're told to essentially put up. But what I see happening, especially in places like the Estates and things along those lines, is either your typical monopole type towers, no pines around. It's just your typical monopole with three or four sectors, so three or four phases to each array. And I think to kind of visualize this a little bit because -- I know the Chair was mentioning this about, you know, the collocations, every -- every carrier requires about 10 to 15 feet of what we call a RAD center. And so when you take up those first 15 feet, the next one has to come on, the next one has to come on. So if you have a fully loaded tower, you can expect three arrays of a monopine to be filled up, essentially. When you talk lattice towers, they have different sizes of it, so you have different mounts and things along those lines. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. Mr. Cook [sic], did you pick that tree? Is that your design out there? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's Mr. French. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm just kidding. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Jamie. I got -- it's late in the day. MR. FRENCH: That's okay. I think a Norfolk pine that's 300 -- or 150 feet, why wouldn't it stand out? COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It just stands out. It does. But thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It looks wonderful. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, there's one across from -- on Airport. MR. FRENCH: I drive by it. I drive by it every day on my way to and from work. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: There's one on Airport South across from Grey Oaks, too, in that neighborhood. We have two. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling at this time, and my issues have been fully satisfied. So thanks to all for that. Anything further from staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any registered speakers? MS. PADRON: Mr. Chairman, we do not have any registered speakers at this time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone who's in the room, hasn't registered, nonetheless, wishes to be heard in this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, we'll close the public comment segment of this hearing. And at this point -- go ahead, Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, just -- Eric Johnson. I just wanted to make sure that in your recommendation, if it wasn't clear, that it will be clear, that we're asking you to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed with the retention of those two code citations that you have on the screen in front of you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. When we come to a motion, we'll need to include that. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, the Chair would entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve as proposed subject also to the recommendations that are on the screen as shown. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much, all. ***And that takes us to the third and final LDCA that we have before us. This is PL20220006373. This is a Land Development Code amendment pertaining to mobile food dispensing vehicles and food truck parks. It's legislative, so no need for witness swearing or disclosures. And with that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: Happy holidays, Commissioners. Richard Henderlong, Planner III with the Zoning division, Growth Management Community Services Development Review department. This particular amendment is a Board of Zoning Appeals directed amendment that is going to introduce to you a new LDC Section 5.05.16 to allow mobile food dispensing vehicles and food truck parks either by right or a conditional use. Also a companion administrative code for the land development amendment is required to establish a new section, Chapter 4, Subsection R, for the new regulations. I'll give you a brief overview with a presentation. The first slide -- the second slide will cover the Board direction history. The next slide will go into staff's research and findings of other community standards, followed by slides that detail the actual LDC amendment, and then Slide 6 that lists the proposed designs for the food truck park. The last slide will address a text change that has been added at the request of Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, which we received an email on Tuesday, and I'll talk about that towards the end. And in that context, Captain Mike Cruz is here representing the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, who's here in attendance as well. So with that, on October 12th, 2021, the Board of Zoning Appeal prohibited -- passed a motion to prohibit food truck park applications that are permanently located and associated with outdoor entertainment activity such as a bar, dance, pavilion, music, and outdoor seating. They directed staff to bring back the amendment and allow for a conditional use of multiple food trucks that would be within a base zoning district, and the key here is on a specific parcel of land, and also not to require a zoning verification letter or comparable use. This would help streamline it. Further, the direction was to study the effect on neighboring properties related to noise, glare, odor, traffic, buffer, and setback requirements, and also to identify any similar characteristics that may be used with other permitted uses in the base zoning districts and other best-management practices. The findings that we undertook was to research 20 total communities; 15 were within the Florida, five were within -- 20 Florida communities. Five were counties, and out of that 20, five were other states. Out of that, the common code standards we found that are applicable were definitions, the type of zoning districts, either by right, special exception, or conditional use, and the typical zoning districts we found were always in commercial, business, and industrial. Also, there needed to be a minimum parcel or a lot area and a dedicated number of mobile food dispensing vehicles in conjunction with parking spaces on private property, generator noise and odor, and stabilized surfaces and a maximum number of food trucks that would be allowed. The mobile food dispensing setback distances were also considered, and they related to the base zoning district, the property aligns residential uses or dwelling units, fire hydrants, and school streets and other mobile food trucks. So that is in your design standards. Access to the restrooms and outdoor seating was also a consideration. Time periods and duration for hours to business operations, we're limiting them to transient sale hours that -- based upon the number of days per week and/or the calendar year. I'll get into that specific later. Also, they were daily removal offsite unless it is a self-sufficient mobile food dispensing vehicle or have an on-site direct hookup to utilities and sanitary waste facilities. Also, we found that the majority of the communities prohibit alcohol sales, drive-through sales, restrictions on amplified sound, and outdoor entertainment with an exception for special events. Parking requirements, signs, and lighting are also a consideration. So the amendment establishes, as I said earlier, a new section. We define a mobile food dispensing vehicle per Florida Statutes, and we have another definition for Florida truck park, which is in your backup. We also allow for the placement and operation of the permitting of a mobile food dispensing vehicle or a food truck as an accessory use to a maximum of two when it's permanently located with an existing principal use. We also established that the placement can be no longer than four hours in duration and for a period no greater than 28 days in a calendar year. These are considered as a permit use. Anything after that, there is, but the mobile food dispensing trucks that do not stop for more than four hours are considered transient. And just as a side mention, the State of Florida chapter -- Florida Statute 509 stipulates that we cannot pass regulations that would prohibit the operations of mobile food trucks within a local jurisdiction, and it pre- -- the state also preempts registrations, licensing fees, and -- in that context. So we're not allowed to charge any fees or permits as it relates to mobile food dispensing vehicles other than what's associated with the land use and the conditional use. The other part of the amendment deals with the food truck parks that become a permitted use by right in these following districts: C-3, C-4, C-5, commercial, business parks, industrial, and public use districts. Florida food truck parks also serving -- that are serving alcohol or promoting outdoor entertainment will require conditional-use approval. That is a directive from the Board, just to reiterate. For existing PUD districts such as community facilities, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use, food truck parks will require a comparable-use determination which will be made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I ask questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The four hours, is that the time the truck arrives till the truck leaves, or is that the operational hours? I'm just thinking about the sports park. What if three food trucks go out to the sports park and they're parked for the day? MR. HENDERLONG: Good question, Commissioner, and this is how it works. It's one hour for setup, one hour for breakdown, two hours for serving that particular area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: So that's the four hours, from when they arrive to the point of where they're going to serve their -- the Code Enforcement will be -- just being assured and we allow them on a transient basis to be there for four hours. Then they have to move to another location unless they come in for a special-event or primary-use permit on a permanent basis. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I'm thinking of the sports park. And let's say you have all-day soccer tournaments. MR. HENDERLONG: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can they park there for the day? MR. HENDERLONG: They'll be there as a special event. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Special event? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So they come in for a special-event permit, then? MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. They're allowed, at the sports park, right, for that specific event. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Makes sense. I just -- I just want to make sure I understand the four hours. MR. HENDERLONG: Absolutely. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If they're there all day, then they're not exempt. They would be subject to some -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can't hear -- your microphone's not on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If they're there all day, then they would be subject to some of the requirements for food trucks that are accessory uses to principal uses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Okay. Some of these food trucks, for all intent and purposes, are -- they don't move. And we have some throughout the county that are -- look like a food truck but they're really not. MR. HENDERLONG: I was just corrected by Jaime Cook that the sports park has in its PUD, by right, those mobile food trucks there permanently. So they do not have to come in for a special-event permit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. MR. HENDERLONG: That was done at the time of the conditional-use approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Eric Johnson. Commissioner, we were trying to be mindful of those that are kind of like the ice cream man; not to regulate those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I understand. MR. JOHNSON: The ones that move around, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, we -- I'm just trying to -- I mean, I'm just trying to avoid this proliferation of food trucks on every corner, and that's what this is -- MR. HENDERLONG: We agree. We agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is what it's -- this is what this is trying to prevent. MR. HENDERLONG: It's going to set some very good standards about -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: -- whether they're permanent or transient, and that's the key distinction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, of course, some of this came about because of the results of the food park over in -- MR. HENDERLONG: Celebration Park. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Celebration Park. MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly. And that -- and we'll talk a little bit later about that. But just let me give you pertinent data for the moment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you do, Commissioner Schumacher. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, sir. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm going to stand on this one and ask, does that food truck permit -- that's like at the south park there, does that go for every county park, or is that just -- that's just for there? Okay. Four hours is not enough time. I'll tell you right now, in that regional -- North Collier Regional on Friday nights -- because my son does flag football -- that thing is going from sundown till almost 11 o'clock at night. Saturdays at Veterans Park, when there's baseball they're out there setting up at 7 in the morning, and they don't leave till 4 o'clock in the afternoon. MR. HENDERLONG: And they're allowed to be there for that duration as a result -- as it's tied into -- and I'll show you the temporary permit slide, how that works, that they're in there with a sporting event. They've got a longer duration tied to -- COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What do those folks have to do now; nothing? Do they just pull up and start -- or they have a temporary permit, so that stays in effect? MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. They get an authorization, first of all, from Collier County Parks and Rec, okay. The event is tied in there. They have to file an application as a -- for a temporary use to be out there, and that's what's going on. They cannot go beyond the 28 days, okay, unless they meet -- on the third bullet here, you know, a multiple occupancy park of 10 or more tenants, that extension can be granted to 42 calendar days in the year. Talked with Business Operations this afternoon, and the majority of all the permits are within 14 days, okay. There has been a couple situations where they've come in and gone for the second 14. They've never had a 42-day event permit problem yet emerge, or have to address that, but there is a provision -- say that there's a particular unique event that runs beyond the 28 days and a longer duration -- we haven't experienced that -- the county hasn't experienced that yet -- the Board does have authorization and requirements to have them come back and get Board approval for that. That's buried within our text. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. And then a follow-up is what about in the industrial district where we've got -- MR. HENDERLONG: They're allowed by right. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: They're allowed by right? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Perfect. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. So the third bullet covers that point. It was brought to our attention that -- to make a clarity that if you had -- it's very important to understand it's per location where that permit goes. And what does "per location" mean? It relates to both the folio number and the address of that parcel, so that's how Business Operation is issuing all their permits. There are certain prohibit -- prohibitions that are associated with the amendments. Specifically, placement on a vacant, unimproved lot, except for food truck park, within required setbacks on parking spaces, unless there's excess parking spaces, open space, preserves, landscape buffers, conservation, or drainage easement, public or private road right-of-ways or access easements. Also, prohibition of operating in a manner that would block access walkways, driveways, loading zones, or interfere with vehicle or pedestrian circulation. I'm going to add to that bullet, at the request of Greater Naples Fire Department in consultation with the County Attorney, to talk about fire -- fire lanes, too. It's prohibited to be parked in any of the fire lanes. Lastly, the operating hours have to be connected to -- so you have a principal business here on the one hand. They come in, they want to operate. Those hours cannot exceed the principal business operation for the hours. Think of Texas Tony has an operating restaurant, has a travel -- or a food truck trailer that operates there. They cannot open and sell beyond those business hours. MR. JOHNSON: That's as an accessory use. MR. HENDERLONG: So specifically related to the park design standards, we will require staff -- the county will require an SDP approval and a permanently designated stabilized area for mobile food dispensing vehicle. The research shows that these vehicles vary anywhere from 8 to 10 feet in width, and the extreme trailer is up to about 53 feet in length. So we are not stipulating a pad-specific size and dimension to it, but we agreed there has to be a stabilized area so that we don't have a fire underneath it if it were a grass surface. The next bullet is to talk about the density standard. This standard came about from looking at multiple -- both the densities of the already-approved permits that the county has issued and study of the other communities, and we've come up with a standard. The fire departments are on board with this, too. There should be five designated areas per acre and that each designated area should have an electrical hookup, water and sewer connection, and a connection to a propane tank. It could either be above ground or below ground. But if a central tank is proposed, then it should be buried underground. We're going to ask that, in your motion, you add on the condition that it be buried underground but with breakaway connections, and I'll talk about that a little bit later. The next bullet covers parking spaces, three per mobile food dispensing vehicle, an additional space of one per four outdoor seats, and two bicycle spaces for each mobile food dispensing vehicle. Lastly, light fixtures shall be directed away from neighboring properties or shielded, and we've changed in the text to make sure that it is a full cutoff lens as opposed to shield, which was the recommendation by the DSAC committee and subcommittee, and that there be no nuisance lighting such as flashing or strobing lights. So we're making a -- seeking your recommendation of approval for Petition 20230006373 [sic] with the following change: On Page 11, your -- it should be -- MR. JOHNSON: It's Packet Page 168. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But, Rich, there's requested language by the fire department that wasn't run by legal. We have a handwritten version of what it should look like. Do you want to put that on the visualizer? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, be happy to do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the fire department's representative, Captain Mike, has okayed the language that we wrote in handwriting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's have a look at it. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: On the fly. MR. HENDERLONG: That is Page 11 or your Packet Page 168. It is 5.05.5 [sic] D.3 -- D.3.e, Line 26. We're going to add that the requirements and standards that mobile food cannot operate -- they're prohibited in such a manner as to block accessways, walkways, driveways, loading zones, fire lanes, comma, access roads, or other -- otherwise interfere with the vehicle or pedestrian circulation. The next add-on, okay, is in F1, and that is at the second sentence, each mobile food dispensing vehicle, that should say -- this is an old text. It should say designated area shall provide electrical hookup, water and sewer connections, and connections to propane with breakaway connections. The add-on is "with breakaway connections," and we would ask that that be included in your motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further from staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing from staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any registered speakers? MS. PADRON: We have no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone in the room who hasn't registered wish to speak? Captain, did you want to be heard on any of this? CAPTAIN CRUZ: Captain Michael Cruz, Greater Naples Fire. I completely support everything that's submitted to you, and if you have any questions to the two changes, I'm here to address any of those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Captain. Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not for the captain but, again, for staff. Thank you, Captain. In regards to the -- I'll call it semipermanent food parks, you had Boxi Park, which I've been to and I know -- in Orlando and others, just to make sure, all of those requirements, if you're going to have the parks, if they're -- the trailers are there and they're there in a semipermanent basis, they're treated just like any other mobile park, mobile home; they have to be tied down, anchored, all the other types of things? MR. HENDERLONG: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No? MR. HENDERLONG: No, sir. No, sir. You have -- you have pulled by trailers or motorized mobile food trucks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Those trucks can be moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: They have on the back of them two propane tanks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. Those propane tanks, we have fire -- it requires a 10-foot separation between those vehicles. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: So they can be mobile-able, moved on that site; however, if it becomes a food truck park, meaning that there's going to be five or more, yes, we're going to require that each site have a hookup for electrical and for service and that that propane tank have the proper connections in order to come back and forth. A problem that's in our backup support that the Code Enforcement has identified out at Celebration Place [sic] is that the placement of these tanks are not in a proper place for a service tank to come up and resupply the 100-gallon tank cylinders that are behind them, or some of them take them off and do not properly mount them to the ground. And if they're there on a permanent basis, they have very unique specifications that requires clearances and separations around those tanks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. What about these I'll call them containerized food servicing boxes, or the -- what looks like -- MR. HENDERLONG: Those are shipping containers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Shipping containers. I know exactly what they are. I lived in one for a year. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. Those are there permanently, and those would have to meet -- be treated like a -- similar to, like, a structure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Exactly. They have -- and if there's multiple, they all have to meet the fire codes. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All the requirements, tie-downs. MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I clearly understand that, but that's not in this code. That's in the building code. MR. HENDERLONG: Those are fixed. Those are fixed, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Those are fixed. How about the trucks -- the vehicles that are made to look like they can be moved but they really never move? I know of -- I could name three or four places that we have them. It's a single vehicle sitting in a parking lot or a strip mall or whatever, and it's permanent. Are they -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're not allowed to be permanent as an accessory use. They can have two of them. Think of it like Walmart, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: They want to go up there, or if you were at Home Depot, you'll see some of these mobile food trucks are out there, but they're there for the day, okay. These are not what are called self-sufficient units. They have to report, leave that site, and they're not -- they don't stay overnight. They go back to a commissary to dispose of all their waste, grease, resupply their gas, and then at the same time, get -- wash -- get the unit. But that is a statutory requirement by the Florida Department of Community Services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But what about the one that looks like a mobile trailer but it's not, right at the corner of Estey and -- MR. HENDERLONG: Estey is a unique one. That's -- that was like a food cart -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: -- stand that was approved by conditional-use way back when from your day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I remember that. It was a conditional use. But if that type of thing goes in, they have to meet all the requirements of any -- MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- other structure -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- from a standpoint -- okay. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that goes through the Building Department. Jamie, it goes through the Building Department? Okay. MR. FRENCH: FEMA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your earlier slides, you had made a distinction between a food truck that provides just food or one that provides alcohol and/or possible entertainment. I'm thinking entertainment is some type of a music system to play music. And I know in previous comments or conversations there's always been the concern of how loud is it? Are my neighbors being effective -- or affected. Is there any type of a decibel limit or range that these entertainment programs are required to stay under? MR. HENDERLONG: The answer to your question, it comes under the noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. We have an 80-decibel level, and there's a specific -- just like they did out at Celebration. If the complaints where the noise were too great, they would go out there and cite them for violating that noise. What we did, we wanted to put a more restrictive decibel level for food trucks, okay, as it was -- if it's associated with outdoor entertainment in particular. Think of it this way: I've got an amplified sound. Hello. Bingo, 102. You know, you've got an event going out there, that isn't really what we're trying to regulate. What we're trying to regulate is the outdoor entertainment that aggravates a greater amount of noise. Because of Senate Bill 250 that was passed last year, the county -- local governments are restricted, particularly are Collier County because of the -- being within 100 miles of hurricane landfall of Ivan [sic], we're restricted to passing any excessive burden or proposed -- or adopted Land Development Code that would be a burden on properties at this time, so... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could I clarify? MR. HENDERLONG: This was -- this was discussed -- I'm sorry? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could I clarify, because I think he might have said something earlier that I might have misunderstood because, as he's saying, these standards that are in here are for the uses that are now going to be allowed. That's why you have pages and pages that say these are permitted uses. So those uses that are operating under the new uses will be subject to these rules. So if there's an existing conditional use that's already allowed -- like you said, the new bill that came through says you can't impose anything more restrictive until -- I think it's 2025 now. I think that they changed it from 2024 to 2025. So it would not apply to that existing conditional use. That existing conditional use would be a nonconforming use. MR. HENDERLONG: That's a very good point, very good point. But as it relates to the noise, we -- we're on hold right now is the best way to put it. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I thought there was -- MR. BOSI: They're still subject -- they're still subject to -- MR. HENDERLONG: To our noise ordinance. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, they're still subject to -- MR. BOSI: They're still subject. What -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is that 80 dB till 11 p.m.? MR. BOSI: Yes. What Richard was saying -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Speak one at a time, please. MR. HENDERLONG: Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: What Richard was trying to clarify was that we were going to suggest a more restrictive noise level associated with food truck parks. We could not do that because of Senate Bill 250, so we have to rely upon the existing noise ordinance to provide the protections that we're looking for. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. And is that noise ordinance 80 dB up till 11 p.m.? It doesn't matter. So there's one in place? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, it does, and it varies whether it's on the weekend or weekday. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENDERLONG: They're different hours. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'm just concerned with noise. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Just a quick question. I heard Celebration Food Park referenced a few times, and what issues are occurring out there that is resulting in this type of action being -- coming forth. And what does it do to that business moving forward? Are they going to have to remove some food trucks or -- MR. HENDERLONG: That business is not affected by this rule or regulation. They're grandfathered in. They're accepted, as Heidi pointed out, okay. The issues there were twofold. Number one, when the park went in, was a bar, okay, and then the eight trucks that were there: Insufficient parking spaces, and then it got aggravated to where they had to go buy another .45 acres across the street from Bayshore, and that's not a good situation -- scenario to be walking across a four-lane arterial road to park and then to go to a food truck park along with a bar, and they added outdoor entertainment. That is where all the residential neighborhood residents came up in arms. Our standards are requiring a wall 6-foot tall, 50 feet setback, okay, for a food truck park. So we believe and we're comfortable that this is going to address the majority of those concerns going forward when the next one comes in. COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Perfect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signaling at this time. Anything further from staff? MR. JOHNSON: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, any members of the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Therefore, we will take the matter under advisement and deliberate and vote. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve subject to the two changes that Richard posted up on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the two from the fire district? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were his -- they were in the -- in his proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There are a total of four, aren't there? MR. PERRY: Commissioner, they're one and the same. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. They're one -- MR. HENDERLONG: These are the two. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry. Thank you. Is there a second? COMMIISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Richard, did you go out and see the Boxi Park in Orlando? MR. HENDERLONG: No. I wanted to go up there, and yet I said I'm not going to make that trip, but I did go up -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They should have funded your trip up there. Actually, my son -- my son built that. MR. HENDERLONG: Oh, did he? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, when he was with Tavistock. MR. HENDERLONG: Wow, that's impressive. That was really -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, he was one of the senior -- senior principals involved in it, but -- MR. HENDERLONG: You may appreciate this. When it comes to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me get us adjourned, if I may. I'll see everyone in 2024. We're adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Adjourned. Thank you. MR. HENDERLONG: Merry Christmas. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:16 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.