Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/07/2024 DraftNovember 7, 2024 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 7, 2024 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Joe Schmitt (remote) Acting Chairman/Vice Chairman: Chuck Schumacher Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, (CCPS) ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I Oscar Alonso, Specialist III November 7, 2024 Page 2 MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning. Welcome, everybody. First order is stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Do we have Chairman Schmitt on the phone? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Hey. Good morning, all. Sorry I can't be with you, but I can see you-all, and I think this will be rather easy, but you've got to vote to allow me to participate by audio and video. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That is going to be my next is to ask for a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Roll call. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Roll call. Chairman Schmitt is on the phone. Vice Chair Schumacher? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? November 7, 2024 Page 3 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Am I saying that right, sir? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Colucci or Colucci, whatever you like. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And, Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All present, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. Starting with that, I wanted to give a couple minutes for our new commissioners, one to say thank you for participating and volunteering your time. It's going to be a lot of time. I know that they sell it to you as it's not. But I would also like to extend an opportunity for you just to introduce yourself if you'd like. Commissioner McLeod, may I start with you? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Sure. Okay. So I am a third-generation Floridian. I was raised in Southwest Florida. I've lived in the City of Naples for over 30 years. I've served on several government boards. I was on the Naples City Council. I served on the Tourist Development Council. I am currently on the Big Cypress Basin board. Now the Planning Commission. Happy to be here. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. Excellent. Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Do I push a button to talk? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. Go ahead. November 7, 2024 Page 4 COMMISSIONER SHEA: It picks you up automatically. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I'm Charles Colucci. Everybody calls me Chap, like Chapstick, C-h-a-p. I represent District 2. I live in Sterling Oaks, which is about as far north as you can go and still be in Collier County. I'm originally from New Jersey. I spent my working career in Minneapolis. I have a bachelor's degree from Cornell University and a master's degree from Northwestern. I moved to Florida full-time about 12 years ago. Obviously, one of the reasons being I spent 30-plus years in Minneapolis. So you can understand why I came down here. I have been the president of the Sterling Oaks community association. We have 750 doors there. I volunteered to do this because I like to believe I'm fairly smart and fair, and I needed something to do. So it sounds like I'll have plenty to do. So it's nice to be here. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Well, thank you both again for volunteering for this. Mr. Bosi, addenda to the agenda, or Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. At the last Board of -- oh, addenda to the agenda, we don't have any for today's meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. BOSI: We do have -- we do have a question as to whether the Planning Commission is going to be available for the December 19th meeting. It's, obviously, six days away from Christmas so we didn't want to assume that everyone was going to be available. Wanted to canvass the Board to see if there was going to be -- if we were going to be able to have a quorum. We do have two petitions that are wanting to go on, but if there -- if we can't get a quorum, obviously, we just -- we will just November 7, 2024 Page 5 move those to the first meeting in January. But one of the things that we wanted to do was try to find if we were going to have a meeting on the December 19th Planning Commission date. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Does anybody foresee not being available on the 19th of December? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will be available as well, so... MR. BOSI: So it sounds like we can move forward with the 19th and schedule those petitions as requested. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes. MR. BOSI: Awesome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: The next item, approval of minutes. We had the October 17th, 2024. If there's no altercations -- alterations or changes, I'll take a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So moved. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Bellows, BCC recap. MR. BELLOWS: At the last Board of County Commissioners meeting, they heard the Mattson PUD and companion Growth Management Plan amendment. That was approved 4-1 with November 7, 2024 Page 6 Commissioner Saunders opposing. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike has a -- MR. BOSI: And, Chair, just wanted to -- a public announcement. Originally -- and just for the Planning Commission's awareness, originally the Fiddler's Creek petition -- you remember the Fiddler's Creek petition. That was three individual days of testimony that the Planning Commission got to hear on it, that was originally scheduled for the November 12th meeting. Last week we had a request from Commissioner LoCastro to push that to the December 12th -- or 10th meeting. The applicant agreed to that -- to that change. We're trying to notice the -- we've updated the legal notice within the Collier County Clerk's website, and we're trying to just promote -- spread the word for folks that had originally planned on attending that November 12th meeting for the hearing. But it is now being moved to the December 10th meeting, just so the Planning Commission is aware of -- because of the time and effort and energy that you guys spent on that item. I know you guys are looking forward to what the conclusion of that will be. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Chairman's report. Chairman Schmitt, did you have anything for your side, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing. Mike already covered that. I was going to make sure everybody knew about that change that was prompted by Commissioner LoCastro. And, Mike, if you would only make sure that the applicants -- and I'm sure they will, in the staff follow-up, but change the signs that are posted around Fiddler's Creek as well. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did not notice that they had November 7, 2024 Page 7 been changed. Thank you. MR. BOSI: You're welcome. And we -- Nancy Gundlach, the project manager assigned to the petition within my office, has reached out to the planning firm and requested that change. We will -- if you have indicated that it has not been updated yet, we will resend that request to the applicant's team to stress that we need to have -- the sign updated with the correct dates. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I trust -- I trust that most of the folks who were involved and the neighboring community have already been notified because they've been in contact with Commissioner LoCastro. And the Commissioner and I have spoken about that project, so that was at his request to allow him more time to meet with the residents of the neighboring communities. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Consent agenda -- I'm sorry. I jumped ahead there on that one. No consent? Thank you. ***All right. Public hearings. Starting out with PL20220005822, Barefoot Williams Commercial District, which will be heard with its companion item, PL20220005137. Starting with ex parte disclosures with Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. I visited the site, I met with staff on the details, and I spoke with Jacob Winge, past president of the East Naples Civic Association. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Commissioner Petscher. Mike. CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: No. I met with -- with Bob Mulhere and went over the agenda item, and that's all I have. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and a conversation with Bob Mulhere and his team. I'm sorry. Ellen, right? There she is. Thanks. MS. SUMMERS: I'm hiding. November 7, 2024 Page 8 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I just read everything. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials, then. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I spoke with -- I spoke with the petitioner, Bob Mulhere and Clay Brooker and his team as well, so -- and staff material. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. And I had a conversation with Bob yesterday and staff materials. So that being said... THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Almost. MR. BROOKER: Well, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair. My name is Clay Brooker with the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo, 821 Fifth Avenue South. Special welcome to the new planning commissioners. I represent 11760 property, LLC, the owner of the property at issue with respect to the two companion applications before you today, a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment and a rezone. With me today are planners Ellen Summers and Bob Mulhere November 7, 2024 Page 9 with the Bowman Firm, formerly known as Hole Montez, and representative of the property owner, Mr. Rick Scali. I'd like to make some brief introductory comments and then turn it over to Ms. Summers to present the details of the applications. Well, I had neglected to mention Mr. Norm Trebilcock. He's our traffic engineer as well. He's here in attendance. Here is the subject property. It's just shy of two acres located on the East Trail just east of the Barefoot Williams Road intersection. If you're familiar with this area, this is directly across U.S. 41 from the Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Community Park. Mr. Scali is the owner and operator of several automated car wash facilities around the nation, and he focused on this subject property for a potential car wash due to the fact that it's sandwiched between an existing RaceTrac gas station and now the newly or recently approved Home Depot to the east. Moreover, the front of the property -- and you'll see this in more detail with the site plan that will be shown by Ms. Summers in a moment -- the front of the property abutting U.S. 41 is burdened with a 70-foot-wide vehicular easement that provides additional access to both the RaceTrac gas station and a Home Depot site. So traffic heading east on the east -- on the East Trail towards Marco can turn right into the subject property and then go to RaceTrac or Home Depot on either side. From a market perspective, these circumstances constrain or restrict the realistic development options or opportunities for this site; however, a car wash makes perfect sense. As Ms. Summers will detail for you in a moment, the existing zoning for the site is C-3, the commercial intermediate district. The C-3 district does not permit car washes, but the C-4 general commercial zoning district does. So generally speaking, the two companion applications before November 7, 2024 Page 10 you today seek the necessary approvals from a development entitlement perspective to allow a car wash on the property. Please keep in mind that these applications have been intentionally limited to the very minimum necessary to allow a car wash. In other words, we are not requesting approval for the full gamut of C-4 permitted uses on the property. Rather, the applications, if granted, will continue to allow all of the C-3 uses currently permitted today with the addition of just one C-4 use, a car wash. These applications were filed over two years ago, back in 2022. It's taken quite a bit of time to get to this point, but we have been working closely with staff to hone the site plan and develop the conditions of approval. Two neighborhood information meetings have been held, one in July of 2023 and a second just last month. Both NIMs were sparsely attended, two or three people at each, and we are not aware of any objections to these applications. In addition to the NIMs, we voluntarily reached out and met in person with the neighbors behind the subject property and the East Naples Civic and Commerce Association. It is our understanding that neither of those groups objects to these applications. The neighbors behind the subject property expressed satisfaction with the proposed sound attenuation wall, which you'll hear about in a minute and, frankly, were most concerned whether we would disrupt their horseshoe courts immediately behind the immediate subject property, and we will not. With regard to the East Naples Civic and Commerce Association, that group was intimately involved with the East Naples Community Development plan, and the proposal before you today voluntarily implements many of the concepts of that plan even though it has not yet been formally codified into the Land Development Code for the county. November 7, 2024 Page 11 We appreciate staff's recommendation of approval for both of the companion items, and we respectfully request your recommendation of approval as well. I'll now turn it over to Ms. Summers. MS. SUMMERS: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Ellen Summers. I'm a certified land-use planner with Bowman. All right. So our subject site is currently located within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and as Clay stated, we're currently zoned C-3, and adjacent to this site we have -- which is now a Commercial Planned Unit Development to the east, which was just recently approved for the Home Depot. Just west or northwest of the site, again, where that RaceTrac is located, that's the existing C-3 zoning district, and to the rear of the property we have the RT district which has been developed with the Hitching Post development. Again, as Clay has mentioned, one of the neighborhoods we have really worked with extensively throughout this process. And, again, as Clay has mentioned, we do -- as you can see on the aerial here, we do have an existing driveway that's been in favor for RaceTrac. So we had some existing encumbrances of the site that we had to kind of work around to fit the -- excuse me -- the car wash and any potential future development area. Barefoot Williams Commercial Subdistrict, at a high level. It establishes development standards for the car wash. It limits the maximum intensity of the site to 11,000 square feet, of which the car wash shall not exceed 5,000 square feet, and we also include some extensive site design conditions, which I'll go into detail a little bit further here. And, again, that rezone request, we're rezoning to the C-4 zoning district to permit the car wash and only C-3 -- the remaining C-4 zoning permitted uses, and the conditions of approval with those November 7, 2024 Page 12 site design standards, I'll go into a little bit more detail here as well. Before I go into those site design standards, I just want to give you all a little bit of background. As Clay has mentioned, we have worked really hard to address the East Naples Community Development Plan, and for those of you that are not aware of what this plan encompasses, back in 2017, the Board of County Commissioners directed county staff to engage the East Naples community to kind of come up with a planning process to identify some desired uses and to come up with some incentives to incorporate those uses within this area. Following that process, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare a community development plan for the East Naples community. I believe consultants were involved, and there was a huge public planning process. And in 2020, the East Naples Community Development Plan was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. Now, within that plan, it was prioritized that the staff come up with a development -- or to develop a zoning overlay along the U.S. 41 east corridor where our site is located. And that overlay known as the U.S. 41 East -- I'm sorry -- U.S. 41 East Zoning Overlay, U.S. 41 EZO, was drafted by staff in 2023, and it began the review process through the Development Services Advisory Committee; however, in July of 2021, Senate Bill 250 became effective. And this bill, as amended, it provided that local governments in Collier County and other counties that were impacted by Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole, that they shall not propose or adopt more burdensome or restrictive amendments to its Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Code regulations until October of 2026. So that kind of put the LDC amendment process on pause; however, those amendments have already been drafted, and it was very important for us to incorporate some of those standards within November 7, 2024 Page 13 the proposed rezone and as well as within the Growth Management Plan amendment. And so I'll kind of identify as I go through the conditions of approval which -- some of those attributes came from those draft amendments. You'll forgive me, I can't -- I'm not really sure how to zoom here on the site plan. But again, this is our conceptual site plan. To the top of the page is U.S. 41, and as you can see there, we have that existing ingress/egress easement. It occupies just about 75 feet of the front of the property, which really kind of limits, you know, exactly how you can maneuver the site, but it works out great for us to have that access between RaceTrac and then the future development of Home Depot. We have provided some extensive buffers. We have a 15-foot Type B buffer directly adjacent to 41 before you have that assess driveway, and then we also have an additional 10-foot Type D buffer, which will be on the south side of that access drive. We have a seven and a half [sic] Type A buffer that's going to be located along the sides of the property. And in the rear, we are providing -- excuse me -- a minimum 20-foot Type D buffer. And as you can see on that plan -- I'll go into a little bit more further detail -- we have a sound attenuation wall that's going to be located directly behind the car wash, and that sound attenuation wall will be a -- it's required to be a minimum of two feet above the height of the opening of the car wash, and that will follow the length of the car wash portion of the development, and then we will kind of tier that down to a minimum of six feet through the remainder of the property. So to go over some of the conditions that we have included, these are conditions that are included within the Growth Management Plan amendment as well as an exhibit to the rezone petition. So we are restricting the maximum building height. The zoned building height will be limited to 35 feet and an actual building November 7, 2024 Page 14 height of 42 feet. And just of note, the C-3 zoning district, which is the existing zoning district, only permits a zoned building height of 50 feet. So we have limited that quite a bit from what's currently allowed. Parking lots, the vehicular use areas and any service function areas, they shall be located to the sides or the rear of the property -- or, I'm sorry, to the rear of the building so that they're not forward of the primary facade. And we do require that there is -- or it does allow for a maximum of only one doubled-loaded drive aisle of parking in the front yard. And this is a condition that's been provided as part of the draft U.S. 41 EZO standard. For drive-throughs, we are only permitting a maximum of 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure, and we are also requiring that the vehicular stacking lanes and drive-through lanes shall not be located closer to U.S. 41 than the principal building. And, again, this is another draft U.S. 41 EZO standard. Specific to a car wash, again, we have limited it to one facility not to exceed 5,000 square feet. We have incorporated hours of operation so the car wash cannot operate between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. And the minimum side yard, we're adjacent to a commercially zoned property. A car wash may have a 10-foot side-yard setback. Vacuuming facilities may not be located in any required yard or forward of the primary facade. And again, we have shown that through our concept site plan that's also included within the rezone ordinance. Vehicular stacking lanes and drive-through lanes shall not be located closer to the U.S. 41 right-of-way than the principal building. And again, this is another draft U.S. 41 EZO standard. Again, I briefly mentioned the sound attenuation wall. And the sound attenuation wall was determined to be necessary based on a November 7, 2024 Page 15 sound study which was provided to ensure compliance with the Collier County noise ordinance. The Collier County noise ordinance establishes maximum permissible sound levels for sound propagating to receiving properties, so those would be properties that are adjacent to our subject site. So in this study, it indicated that a sound attenuation wall would be necessary, and it shall be a minimum height of two feet higher than the entrance of the car wash tunnel but not exceed 12 height [sic] above grade, and that sound wall may be provided 25 feet from the rear property line along the entire width of the car wash facility, and that includes the drive aisles that serve the car wash. For our landscaping, we have provided, again, that 15-foot Type B front yard landscape buffer easement, and that's going to be enhanced based on the U.S. 41 EZO standards. So we are requiring that the planting of canopy shade trees be spaced 25 feet on center with trees having a minimum average mature canopy spread of 20 feet and an 8-foot vertical clearance. And, again, that's going to be for pedestrian orientation. We are also required or including to require plantings only to be native vegetation, grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatments in accordance with the LDC. And, again, in the rear we have also provided an enhanced landscape buffer in addition to that wall, the sound attenuation wall, and the 6-foot wall that will be on the remainder of the property, and that 20-foot Type B rear yard landscape buffer easement shall be enhanced with a minimum of five canopy trees per 100 linear feet. And again, another -- this wasn't exact language, but this is something that we had worked with the staff, and this is a standard that has been modeled off the draft U.S. 41 EZO. I do have Norm here if there's any specific questions. But November 7, 2024 Page 16 based on Norm's report, the proposed project is not a significant or adverse traffic generator on the roadway network specifically to this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development, and then we have also included the maximum total daily trip generation for the development to not exceed 127 two-way p.m. peak-hour net new trips. So again, that is something that is a condition that is going to be included within the Growth Management Plan amendment as well as the conditions of approval for the rezone. Again, as Clay has stated, we did have two neighborhood information meetings. One held in July of 2023. The second was very recent, October of 2024. We had, you know, maybe two members of public at each of these meetings, either in attendance or via Zoom. Did not really receive any comments or concerns at those times. And then at this time, staff has recommended approval for both of these land-use items, and we ask the same. And that concludes our presentation. Happy to answer any questions you-all may have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. Commissioner Sparrazza, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. Hello, Ellen. MS. SUMMERS: Hi. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Quick question: The remainder of that lot is continued to be restricted to C-3? MS. SUMMERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have more of a question for Mike. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead. November 7, 2024 Page 17 COMMISSIONER SHEA: It seems like we'd be better off just taking -- leaving it C-3 and giving him a conditional use for -- rather than moving the whole property to a C-4 and trying to limit everything. I guess I don't understand why we don't do it the other way. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Within the C-3 zoning district, a car wash is not a permitted. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's only a conditional. MR. BOSI: It's only a permitted use as accessory to an existing gas station. This is -- as a stand-alone, it is not either a conditional -- it's not a permitted nor a conditional use within C-3, so therefore, we couldn't provide for -- per the code. Therefore, it requires that they rezone -- or that they designate it within the Growth Management Plan as eligible for C-4 zoning opportunities. They are only taking the one land use, that being the car wash. But that's why they had to go through the Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we give them a C-4, limiting it to basically C-3 plus the car wash, in the future, if they sell it, they have to come back here if they want to do anything different in terms of C-4? MR. BOSI: If they wanted to choose any of the other existing C-4 uses that are permitted by right, they would need to -- they would need to amend the subdistrict as well as the PUD to allow for that to happen. So in that response -- and it kind of leads me to -- I'm not sure if you guys have other -- you guys may have other questions, so I'll leave the staff's overview of how we reviewed it and why we've arrived upon our recommendation. But I'll leave till -- yield to that portion of the process. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. November 7, 2024 Page 18 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Vice Chair, I do have a question, if I could -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Since Mike is talking, Chuck. Thanks. Mike, this petition -- and I talked to Bob Mulhere about this, and Ellen as well, and Clay. This petition certainly was in play long before the commercial PUD to the east was approved. Now that the -- and I know there's a lot of angst about small-scale amendments, specifically, of course, along the 41 corridor. But with the commercial PUD now to the east, under today's rulings, they could come in and ask for a C-4 for the entire site; is that correct? MR. BOSI: That is correct. When this was originally submitted, the Home Depot had not been approved, and the zoning designation for the Home Depot prior to the -- its rezoning would not have supported the applicant to utilize the provision in the Growth Management Plan referred to as the office and infill provisions. And the office and infill provision says that if you have like zoning on either side of a parcel, that parcel can seek the zoning of the two adjoining parcels. So they had -- because of that limitation, they weren't -- they needed to submit a Growth Management Plan amendment. But when the Home Depot was approved this year, rezoned it to C-4, it created that opportunity for the parcel to grab the C-4 that's adjacent to it. They could have withdrawn their petition for the Growth Management Plan, submitted a new application for the zoning side of the shop, but because they were so far down the road -- as they've mentioned, they've been in the works for over two years -- they decided to move forward with the Growth Management Plan. And that's one of the reasons why staff is -- you know, is November 7, 2024 Page 19 supporting the Growth Management Plan amendment even on such a small scale is because they could move forward with this without, but it would -- it would require utilizing the office and infill provision, a new application, and we felt -- and they said, you know, the time issue was something that was critical to them. They wanted to get this through the process. So yes, they could have withdrawn the Growth Management Plan amendment, but that would have required a whole new process, new time and new neighborhood information meetings and things like that. The applicant's chose to move forward with what they had. And that helped -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the bottom -- the bottom line -- and that's a great explanation, because -- and the bottom line, they'd be in the same spot. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Of course, if they withdrew, it would have been next year before this thing would have been before the Planning Commission. But in reality, we're in the same spot. We're allowing a C-4. But I think in this case it's probably more favorable with the -- I'm just -- kind of summation here -- summarizing, it's probably more favorable, because they are -- the small-scale amendment is -- is going to provide more flexibility with the standpoint now because it's going to be -- allow for these additional, I guess, improvements to the property that comply with the East Naples Community Development Plan but also will eliminate -- as just pointed out, the other site will stay C-3. So the real issue here is they could have -- the property would be allowed to go to C-4 today to build the car wash, but with the small -- since, like you said, they were already in well under the process, and it would have meant a withdrawal and a reapplication. I think we're in the -- we're in just as good of a position now as November 7, 2024 Page 20 had they just come in and asked for a C-4. So it's not -- it's not any greater intensity of use is the way I see it. So thanks. I just wanted that clarified. Because that was in the staff report. It was sort of -- that's what I asked Bob about, because it was sort of confusing in the presentation, but I clearly understand how -- how this thing evolved, so thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. Ellen, I know we had a conversation on the phone with you and Bob regarding noise and the suppression with the wall that is going to be built. My concern that we talked about, and wondered if you had any type of response, was that 30-horsepower vacuum unit that's located I'll call it in the middle -- almost dead set in the middle of the property itself, I'm concerned that between 85 and 91, 93 decibels, that that is extremely loud as we know by looking at normal levels of associated decibel levels. Incidentally, I am a sound engineer, so I know a little bit about this, and I didn't mean that sarcastically. My concern is, if that vacuum unit is in the center of the lot, center of the building lot there, whatever goes to the east of the car wash could be very, very close to that extremely loud noise-generating property. And we had talked, just blue skying it, is there a way to put that on the west side of the car wash with possibly a small noise-attenuating wall around it itself? Because the closest thing you have on the west side are people coming to fill up with gasoline that are there for three to five minutes versus somebody that could be in that yet-to-be-proposed building to the east of the car wash that might be there for hours. Wondered if you had and your team had a chance to even review anything like that. November 7, 2024 Page 21 MS. SUMMERS: I will say we -- you know, we did have an acoustics consultant that did the noise study, and for us to kind of really reevaluate that, it would require a whole new -- you know, a whole new noise study to really see how that would impact. What we do know is that when we did the noise study, the intention was to adhere to the noise ordinance which really is kind of a protection for those abutting parcels, not necessarily just the other half of our development. So with that, the sound wall, it is intended to benefit that residential community to the rear. I think when we -- we had a brief conversation with our sound consultant earlier this week regarding that comment, and his concern was that if we did place that closer to the building, that there may be some more additional radiating sound that bounces off the building; that it may have a more adverse impact than initially reviewed for when he contemplated that location. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. That would be a reverberation effect from the hardened surface of the wall. Okay. If you've gone through that, at least my request was granted by chatting with your sound consultant, and just cautious with whatever goes to the east side of it. There does not seem to be any type of a sound deadening structure material around that vacuum item. I have a feeling it's going to be extremely loud for people driving by that to get to whatever that building is. MS. SUMMERS: And I certainly understand your concern. And I will say, you know, the primary intention use for this site is the car wash. That will certainly be developed first and foremost. And whatever we do decide or whatever the property owner does decide to develop on that portion of the property, I mean, they will certainly have to understand it or be aware of what the noise concerns may be for the remainder of the site. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. November 7, 2024 Page 22 MS. SUMMERS: But I do appreciate and understand as well. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. And the vacuum unit is not for the hand-held units. It's for within the proper car wash structure itself, and it's not the dryer unit, is it? MS. SUMMERS: I'm sorry. Say that -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: The vacuum unit is in addition to the drying unit. MS. SUMMERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So they both could be on at one time. MS. SUMMERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. SCALI: One's inside the building; one's outside the building. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. But they're both near the exits. MR. SCALI: Correct. MS. SUMMERS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Your witness. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. Are -- can't you put some kind of sound attenuating enclosure around it? MS. SUMMERS: Potentially. I don't -- we haven't really kind of specced that out based on the landscape island or, you know, where -- you know, how we would be able to develop a wall large enough for it. It's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you can do an enclosure pre -- you don't have to have it exposed and then rely on a wall over here to attenuate the sound. You could put something around it. It's a little more expensive, but not a lot. MS. SUMMERS: I guess based on the way it functions, that November 7, 2024 Page 23 exhaust, it has to be open. So I think it would -- having a sound attenuation wall surrounding it would impact the function of the producer, if that's what I'm hearing correctly. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know about that. MR. BROOKER: All of these concerns are legitimate, and the property owner -- well, the idea was to push all noise-making elements of the car wash as far close to 41 and away from the residentials as we could. All of the concerns that are being raised now were concerns of ours and have been concerns of ours for some time. It is going to potentially impact what goes on the east side of the property. And it's at that point in time we will see what other perhaps potential attenuation methods can be employed to shield or mitigate the noise or the impact to the other side of our property. But the important thing is we have a sound study that looked at just exactly where these sound-producing elements are and as shown on the site plan, with nothing more, and it complies with the noise control ordinance. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So my question, I guess, to Mike is, there are county codes that limit the noise at the property line, and it would be a code enforcement issue if they exceeded those ordinances? MR. BOSI: Yes, it would be, and it would apply to -- you know, to all -- to all properties, the noise ordinance. Remember, this is going to -- this is going to be a list of uses that are in a C-1 through C-3 category, so this isn't a residential category you're concerned about. You're concerned about what the noise is going to have upon a commercial business. I would say -- what I would say is most gas stations that I've been to, each one of them always have vacuums. So I'm not sure if it's -- if there is a uniqueness about this property or uniqueness about having the vacuum at that location that's going to prohibit. I think November 7, 2024 Page 24 what it may do is prohibit the opportunity for outdoor dining, but you've got a whole list of C-1 through C-3 which are neighborhood and community serving that they have a menu to choose from. It's -- and I think as Clay has mentioned, they've designed the site to be -- to be noise compliant in a -- and sensitive to the residential development that sits to their -- the south of the property. Less concerned with what potentially is going to go on their property occupying to the east. And if that vacuum is creating such a noise that prohibits certain type of C-1 through C-3 uses, those are the opportunity cost of developing a car wash at that location. And that's a decision that's made from a private developer within the private rights that are associated with it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: This is a self-serve car wash, and there's a few of those in Collier County, a lot of those in Collier County. My question is, does anyone have any experience with noise compliance from the myriad of self-serve car washes we have now? Has this been an issue? MR. BOSI: Staff would indicate that we haven't looked into any code enforcement violations, but we do not know -- I mean, Code Enforcement Board is part of Growth Management. It has been not something that has been an issue of concern from their -- from our code enforcement officers or from the Planning Department of noise that generates from car washes or gas stations. We recognize that they create more noise than some other commercial uses, so we're sensitive to those other adjoining residential properties, but those influences and the noise towards other commercial properties haven't -- hasn't really been something that has rose to our individual radar. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Thank you. November 7, 2024 Page 25 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any other questions? CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I had a couple questions. After -- say it's approved, when is this buildout supposed to be completed? MR. SCALI: We still have to do all the drawings still. So, I mean, if we do get approval, I will -- MS. SUMMERS: So once this – once this goes through the approval, assuming it's approved at the Board of County Commissioners, we'll still have to go through the site development planning process. That's an administrative process with the Growth Management department. So it really kind of varies on that process and when that SDP gets approved. But I would say hopefully within a year or so of approval. CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: And my other question, am I reading this wrong, Mike? The second part of the future development order, it's proposed wanting to go to C-4, and -- MR. BOSI: The subdistrict will allow for the development of one C-4 use, and that's the car wash. All the other uses will be constrained to the C-1 through C-3, which are neighborhood and community serving. So the undeveloped land will have the option to pick from C-1 through C-3. They will not have any opportunities to choose from the C-4 zoning district. CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So the future development area, that's going to be C-1 through C-3? MR. BOSI: C-1 through C-3. CMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. That was my only question. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Staff; staff report. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Michele Mosca provided for -- the lead on the Growth November 7, 2024 Page 26 Management Plan, and Laura DeJohn and Ray Bellows provided the lead on the rezoning staff report. Both of them worked in coordination with the applicant. I would say that this has been one of the -- and it has taken a little bit of time, but this applicant has been very willing to incorporate the standards of the East Naples Development Plan in the EZO that we've obviously cannot adopt until at least October 1st of 2026 based upon the state statutes of not allowing for us to add any additional restrictions or regulations to our Land Development Code. And I think that has a lot to do with why you see only staff, the applicant, and the Planning Commission in this room. I think because they have attended to the noise issues, to the site design issues, to the placement of the building, the arrangements that are suggested within the East Naples Development Plan. And because of -- because of those improvements, I think we have a project that really does fit the bill for this land-use condition. Traditionally, the East Naples Development Plan looks at a car wash as more unfavorably, but this location next to a gas station, next to a C-4 Home Depot with the amount of activity, we think this is a really good fit. It complements the gas station the west. RaceTracs in Southwest Florida really do not have car washes. Normally times -- people -- you know, there are -- there is synergy between gas stations and car washes in locations. So we think that there's a lot of positives with the inclusion of some of the design standards. We think from a land-use perspective there's synergy amongst the two uses. As we said, they could have done this without a Growth Management Plan, but they wanted to get to the finish line so it gets us to where they could have gone even without a GMP. So for all of those reasons, staff is supporting, and we -- you know, we can answer any questions -- other questions that you may November 7, 2024 Page 27 have. But we did appreciate the applicant and the owners' willingness to incorporate a lot of the design standards that aren't regulatory yet, just suggestions, but have been deemed as important to the community. So for all those reasons, staff is supporting it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any questions for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No? Thank you, Ms. Summers, for a great presentation. Great overview. I'll open it up -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, I have just one question -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- one question for Mike. Thank you. Mike -- and just to reiterate, you've received -- there's virtually been no complaints from the community to the -- to the south. I guess, as Clay brought up, they're going to protect their horseshoe pits or horseshoe place over there and probably -- you know, this lot has been vacant for years, and probably the biggest detrimental effect will be the fact that the car movers that move cars from the north to the south there in season and vice versa, this is typically where they load and unload cars. So I guess from that standpoint, that use will no longer be there. Because they probably were using the property without approval. But that tends to be what the property has pretty much been used for for years. But you've heard nothing from the neighboring properties? They're going to have the -- they got pretty much what they wanted. And from what Clay said, it appears that -- what is that, the Hitching Post community to the south has pretty much conceded and are in agreement with the proposal? Go ahead. November 7, 2024 Page 28 MR. BOSI: And thank you, Chair. Yeah, this is an outlier. This is a Growth Management Plan and a rezoning for specifically a car wash and other community-serving uses. The community has embraced the design and the proposal. There have been no letters of objection. It's a testament to the work that the applicant has done I think just listening to the neighbors, talking to their neighbors, talking to staff and addressing some of the concerns that they heard. I was very pleased that we were going to have this arrangement of petitions for the Planning Commission with our new members to kind of start them off on something a little -- that's been embraced by the community that shows how those -- how good planning and outreach can work in a positive effect because some of -- there's going to be some petitions -- we're going to be bringing to you, probably starting with the next meeting, where we might not have unanimity amongst the surrounding property owners of what we're proposing as a good idea. So we gave you a -- we gave you a good test case to start for your first full action as a board, but it's going to get a little bit steeper and a little bit tougher as we go forward, as some of the more seasoned Planning Commission members can tell you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You call that a softball. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Any -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well said. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any public comment? Anybody? MR. ALONSO: Hey, everyone. No, we do not have any speakers this morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Such a controversial issue. I thought we'd have more. November 7, 2024 Page 29 All right. With that being said, I'll close this portion and open up to Board questions, comments, or motion to approve or disapprove. Go ahead, Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I just wanted to make note that in speaking with Jacob Winge representing the East Naples Civic and Community [sic] Association. I was happy to hear their support of this project. They very much appreciated the petitioner collaborating with them, incorporating some of the design plans in the plan when you didn't have to, so they really appreciated that. They appreciated the configuration of the car wash on the lot to minimize the impact of its front elevation. And they're excited about the potential of a gathering place in the subsequent -- or the property on the east side. So I was glad to hear that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Commissioner Schumacher, I didn't hear any proposals, but I will make a motion to approve. Just my comment that considering that they could come in for a C-4 today under -- since the -- the passage of the Home Depot to the east. This is sort of a fait accompli because it's going to pretty much give what they probably could have gotten right now anyway. So I will make a recommendation of approval for both the Comp Plan amendment and the accompanying PUD -- or the rezoning. So that's PL20220005822 and accompanying 5137. I will make a recommendation of approval. And this does not require an EAC review, so I recommend approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Chair. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. November 7, 2024 Page 30 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It passes unanimously. MR. SCALI: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Next agenda item, old business. We don't have any old business. Is there any new business? We don't have any new business. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: One quick question for staff. I know a couple of weeks ago we had discussed a proposal for either an afternoon learning process -- and, Mike, I believe you referred to maybe sometime in February or March we were going to do that. Is that still at least something we're considering and looking forward to putting a date on the calendar for? MR. BOSI: And I think it was to review, as I said, the Concurrency Management System and some of the other components of the GMP and how the process works, just as an educational -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. MR. BOSI: -- for the Planning Commission members. Yes, that is. And we are monitoring the number of petitions that are going to be within our -- both of our February meetings for which would be a more appropriate -- you know, which one it slides in, which one has the least amount of petitions so we can have that so November 7, 2024 Page 31 we're not going to be stepping on the toes of any of the applicants, but, you know, providing the opportunity for the discussion that the Planning Commission's looking forward to. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Wonderful. Thank you for maintaining that and keeping it on the schedule. Appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, as you know, I'm new, and I'm interested in, what is the protocol for us speaking with applicants outside of these meetings? I'm -- I was asked to talk to people about what we approved today, but I didn't know what to do. I didn't know if you could do that or what. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't think there is a formal protocol. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So what are you supposed to do? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I establish my own. Everybody -- I don't speak to them. Other people do speak to them. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I would ask for Shenko [sic] to chime in here, please. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I said, "I'm not talking to you," so I guess that was a good start. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So, essentially, the law says that there shouldn't be ex parte communication, okay. That's under the case law. But it allows ex parte communication if you make the disclosure that you spoke to people or had meetings or read materials, visited the site, and so forth. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So it's really at your -- it's your decision whether you want to allow ex parte communication with you. And some members do, and some members don't. November 7, 2024 Page 32 COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So if I do, I just have to tell the Commission that I've done it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. That's why in the beginning before the petition is heard -- not all petitions require ex parte disclosure. Those are the legislative actions. But the quasi-judicial does require ex parte disclosure, and the Chairman, as he did today, will ask for the disclosures before the hearing commences. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Hey, Chap, this is Joe Schmitt. You know, it is a good opportunity if you have specific questions to ask, and it also gives you an opportunity to talk to the petitioner in regards to understanding what they're going to bring and present. So it does provide an opportunity. And given my years on the Planning Commission and also my years with staff, there's never been a real issue. And as Heidi just said, as long as it's disclosed. Likewise, if you want to make a site visit or if you even talk to any opposition -- opposing parties, you just need to make sure that it's you and it's not other planning -- other planning commissioners involved, because that is a Sunshine violation. But otherwise, you just disclose it. And, Heidi, I think I made that pretty simple. Thanks. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You did. Good job. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Chair. All right. Having no other comment or business before us, we will stand adjourned at 9:55 a.m. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. ******* November 7, 2024 Page 33 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, 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.