Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/10/1998 S (LDC Amendments)TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS JUNE 10, 1998 LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:10 p.m. in a LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 24, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Land Development Code hearing for Wednesday, June 10th. I'd like to remind all of you, there will be no action taken at this meeting today. The second hearing will be held on June 24th at 5:05. Today, we'll be going over the different changes in anything that we may be doing in the future. So, if you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ron Nino, for the record. I have the privilege of presenting the Land Development Code amendments for this first of two annual cycles that we do in any calendar year. You will be -- you're meeting tonight, and you will, again, be meeting on June the 24th for, hopefully, what will be the final meeting to address these proposed Land Development Code amendments. With your indulgence, I'd like to start with the first and take them in chronological order in which they appear in your agenda. However, before that, I'd like to hand out the review comments of the Development Services Advisory Committee. Their meeting came after our preparation of your agenda package. Subsequently, we have to complement by handout this evening. The first item that -- the first amendment that is proposed is an amendment to the RHF-6 multi-family zoning district, and as a matter of fact, you may recall on a couple of occasions when we had to come before you to fezone land in the RHF-6 zoning district because people wanted to build single family housing, and single family housing was very inadequately dealt with under the current RHF-6 zoning district. It would have required a minimum frontage of 100 feet and a one acre lot size, and I recall -- I think you even suggested that, staff, you ought to think about changing that section in the Land Development Code. We think these standards are comparable with the standards that would be applicable to the respective housing structure types. Namely, if it's single family, we've introduced the RHF-6 standard which is a 60 foot lot and similarly, for a two-story -- two family and multi-family structure. Importantly, lest you -- we be concerned that this would affect some nonconforming lots, there is a provision in here that says any plat of record irrespective of its size may be utilized for a single family house. That matter was reviewed by the planning commission and the Development Services Advisory Council, and they did not express any objection to that amendment. The second amendment, Pages 6 and 7, have to do with introducing a requirement for a minimum space between commercial structures when they are cjustered on one parcel of land. It's hard to believe that such a standard did not exist, but the fact remains that there was no standard as there is for multi-family housing and the business park district, and this requirement would institute the same technique that is applicable to the spacing requirement for multi-family structures, namely one-half the sum of the heights of the building or a minimum of 15 feet. Again, no objection was voiced to that amendment from either the planning commission or the DSAC. The next item has to do with lighting. The C-3 section of the Land Development Code did not have a provision for lighting as did the C-i, C-2, C-4 and C-5, and this provision mirror images the standard that applies to lighting in C-l, C-2, C-4 and C-5. Again, no objection to that amendment. The next amendment has to do with introducing to the industrial district permitted uses in the form of barber shops and beauty shops and gunsmith shops. Again, you may recall where recently we came before you and had to zone land -- as a matter of fact, in the Collier Park of Commerce that we are located in -- the land to the C-5 district in order to accommodate a barber -- a beauty shop, and you expressed the opinion that this would be an ideal use in an industrial area because that's what people working in those areas require from time to time, those services. However, with respect to the gunsmith shops, the Development Services Advisory Council brought to our attention a concern that that provision ought not to allow outdoor shooting ranges and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That would be nice. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well thought of. MR. NINO: -- we would propose that Item 18 on Page 11 have additional verbiage to the effect that this regulation excepts outdoor shooting ranges. The next amendment has to do with the addition of educational services to the community facilities district, and Mr. Hulhere has asked specifically to speak to that issue. MR. HULHERE: I requested to speak to this issue because it -- what I determine -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who are you? MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry, Bob Hulhere, for the record, planning director. Thank you. The -- in looking at locating a private university or a post secondary educational facility, it came to our attention that there really was no district that specifically permitted that use. Arguably, that use could be permitted in various commercial districts, and, as well, there's the opportunity to fezone to a PUD within the urban area because these types of institutional uses are permitted by the comprehensive plan within the urban area, but there is no specific zoning district which calls for that use as a permitted use, except the "P" district, but the "P" district is restricted to publicly owned institutional uses, publicly owned educational facilities, for example. This -- I might as well put it right on the record. This came to my attention because of discussions that I had with one of the -- with the private university that exists in Collier County, International College and their desire to relocate to a location within the county, and when it was brought to my attention that there was no zoning district that allowed that, as is often the case when we find what we determine to be a deficiency, we address it and bring it -- call it forward for the board's consideration. In the case -- and, obviously, that specific situation has nothing to do with this, in my opinion, with this proposed amendment because the property in question would, nevertheless, still need to be rezoned to the CF district. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bob, what's the -- how does the school currently exist if there's no zoning district for it in the county? MR. HULHERE: I believe it's in a commercial district. Commercial -- the commercial districts would allow for it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I mean, I think that's a real important point is that this school -- this would qualify as a commercial school in a commercial district. MR. HULHERE: That's correct, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, we do have a zoning classification for it, just not -- MR. HULHERE: By -- Commissioner, by interpretation, it's not specifically expressed as a permitted use. Commercial schools are, but that's not -- the definition of commercial schools is, you know, driving school, a beauty salon school -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. MR. HULHERE: -- those types of things. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Beauty college. MR. HULHERE: An educational facility is not expressly addressed anywhere in the code -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. MR. MULHERE: -- post secondary educational facility. The definition of schools is limited to elementary and middle schools and high schools. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, the matter before us tonight isn't a specific school or a specific location when -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we are talking about Land Development Code? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. I do need to bring to your attention, and I think it will become obvious, because we have some 10 or 12 speaker requests, that there is some concern over this proposed amendment from residents in the general vicinity of the potential site for the International College, and I have received a number of written pieces of correspondence from property owners' associations. I received a letter from Dr. Richard Woodruff, the city manager, indicating that they had some concern, and they wished to express that concern and as well from several attorneys representing either themselves or other property owners in the immediate adjacent area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I get a copy of the city manager one, if somebody could be getting that while you're -- I don't have to have it right this second; just if somebody would get it to me within the next -- MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, can you explain to me why, from an interpretation standpoint, public, private and parochial schools would not include something such as International College? MR. MULHERE: Only because it's expressly excluded in the definition. The definition actually limits it to primary, middle and secondary, and by expressly limiting it, I cannot make the interpretation that it intended to include those. I think there is some argument also that that type of use may have additional activities associated with it that a -- potentially a middle school, an elementary school or a high school might not, otherwise, have, athletic activities, evening activities, to a greater extent. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And conversely, the playground is going to be a lot smaller if it were a college. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's different, that's the point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I guess maybe that is an issue when we start looking at what a permitted use is as to what is compatible with permitted uses in the category. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so, you know -- okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I believe these letters are within your packet at the very end of the packet, but I do have copies here if not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not in mine. I mean, I have them all but Richard's. Maybe I don't have them all. MR. MULHERE: I think that covers all the issues from my perspective. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have, and as I said, I know there are a number of people from the public that wish to speak on this subject. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let me ask the members of the board, would you -- we have a number of speakers regarding this issue. Would you like to hear it now or would you rather wait until we go through the whole presentation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think out of courtesy to them, let them speak instead of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If they'd like to, okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that would be great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then they can go home. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not that this isn't the most fun. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a choice. You don't have to, you're welcome to stay, but we are not the most exciting thing at 5:30 in the afternoon. Let's go ahead then. We'll have the speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first two speakers are Mike Prioletti and Randy Merrill. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see Mike in the audience. Mike, are you going to speak or -- MR. PRIOLETTI: I'm going to pass. MR. FERNANDEZ: Randy Merrill and Jane Earle. MR. MERRILL: Good afternoon and thank you, commissioners, for taking the time. My name is Randy Merrill. I am an attorney. I'm here representing the Park Shore Association, which is a homeowners' association of Park Shore and not in a -- in a capacity as a representative as an attorney, but also as a board member. I'm only speaking very briefly, and that is that we as the association would recommend that you follow the CCPC recommendation to postpone the decision on the -- on this issue until the next cycle. I think some excellent points were brought up by Mr. Mulhere in that he indicated that there are some additional uses associated with institutions of higher learning that are not necessarily been looked into or maybe not compatible with surrounding areas, and I think that one of the things that you should look at in a broad policy base of making zoning decisions is to determine what will be the impact on a broad base countywide by making this. I think that one of the things that should be done, and I don't know if it has been done, is to take a look at a zoning map and determine, if you make this change, what would it look like under that type of a map? In other words, how is it going to affect properties that are zoned CF if you drop a college that wants to operate right next to, perhaps, someone else's neighborhood. I don't know, and I'm not going to address the issue of whether International College would be a good thing or a bad thing. I have my own private points. I don't think anyone will address that from the association. We are concerned about the future. We are also concerned -- I think that we sort of pulled a definition out of thin air, and I understand you're trying to slot this somewhere, but it is not necessarily a good thing to put a square peg in a round hole. It would seem to me that just as easily, you could change another definition of what a "P" district is. It says that it's specifically limited to publicly owned. I would think that you could change that definition to include and private or you could change some other definitions, and looking at it again on a countywide basis, not that particular use of that particular piece of property, I don't think that's a good, wise zoning policy, and I don't think you have that. That's why we are asking you to wait and take a longer, harder look at this and how it would affect the zoning countywide. That's all the comments I have to make unless there's questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for staff. Do we have a map that would show us where are the CF parcels in the county? MR. MULHERE: I don't have a single map. I did plot all of the existing CF in the county. There's less than a hundred acres totally COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it in residential? MR. MULHERE: Well, 25 acres are on Marco, so I took that out of the mix for discussion of these purposes. Twenty-two acres are in Immokalee, which is a cemetery. That's not going to get converted to an educational facility, so I took that out of the mix. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a dead issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have to put up with this all the time. MR. MULHERE: There are fourteen and a half acres owned by the Boy Scouts behind the Getmain Automotive facility along the North Trail. It is in close proximity to some RMF-6 zoning and some PUD zoning. There are 20 acres, which is the current site of the Naples or Collier County YMCA, and there is some twelve and a half acres, which is the site of the Naples Golf Center, which is just off of Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Naples Golf Center. MR. MULHERE: That's it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The driving range. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, the driving range. MR. MULHERE: Now, I just did want to add that it wasn't really that we pulled it out of thin air. We did look at the district, and the other uses in the district are very similar in nature, at least in my opinion, to this type of privately owned institutional use, and that was why we deemed that the CF district would be the appropriate district. In no way am I commenting on the favorability or lack thereof of any specific site. Whether or not we want to allow for some district or to have some district allow for a post secondary educational facility, to me, the most appropriate district is the CF district, because the other -- the "P" district handles publicly held, and if you were to change the definition of the "P" district, you would impact a great deal more property, because there's a lot more "P" zoning out there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would the board mind if I ask one other staff question or would you like to finish -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, you go right ahead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- my only other question, Bob, was when I look at the list of CF uses here, they all seem pretty innocuous no matter where the piece of property might be except for having had the experience now of considering the impact of a small private college on a residential area, it makes me think that it might -- should be a conditional use instead of a permitted use. Do you have an opinion about that? MR. HULHERE: A discussion of that came up at the planning commission, and I think it's probably a very good idea, because either way, you would be requiring a public hearing. The good benefit of that, as Mr. Herrill indicated, is that then you would have a public hearing for existing zoning -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- if someone were to choose to come in and locate a university on existing zoning, which I think is a good point, and that was discussed at the planning commission, and we indicated we would have no objection from the staff perspective. Obviously, we would have no objection to that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In my mind, and this doesn't make everybody happy, and Mr. Herrill would like for us to take more time, but in my mind, if we had that as a conditional use, then we would have the opportunity for every particular case if we looked at it on a case by case basis. Then as a fezone comes in, you look at it -- obviously, existing properties, you look at it through the public hearing process of a conditional use and impose conditions that match the neighborhood if that's necessary. I just wanted to know if that was something -- MR. HULHERE: No, we -- we didn't have any objection to it. It was discussed at the planning commission. I'll just put out that our -- staff's -- from staff's perspective when we looked at the permitted uses and the conditional uses in the district, the conditional uses are predominantly recreational outdoor activities, and that's why we thought it was more appropriate as a permitted use. However, given the nature -- if we look at worst case scenario, the potential -- but I think more importantly, it addresses the situation of someone who lives adjacent to the existing CF zoning then having some relative level of comfort that there would have to be a public hearing process. So, I don't disagree with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, you have a question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Herrill, just in your comments, you had expressed two particular concerns, one, had we looked at the impact where that is, and apparently, Mr. Hulhere has done that, and the two was the thin air comment, which you may or may not agree with his response to, but was there something more than -- those were the two I recall you raising a question of, but was there something more than those two issues why you would want to delay? He appears to have addressed those issues, so I didn't know if there was something I missed. MR. HERRILL: We, again, speaking for the board, have had little opportunity to really analyze the impact of this type of a zoning change on that particular property or to analyze what we now hear, we, as the board, Park Shore, hear as the zoning director's first time comments regarding this. We feel that this is a sweeping change and that any type of sweeping change like this -- and unfortunately it was brought up with one incident in mind, but you are making a change that will affect the county from now on. Therefore, this should not be something, and I don't mean to say that you're doing it lightly, but it should be something that is well thought out and has a lot of public input. By the number of people here, you can see that no matter which side of one particular site that you're on on the issue, the issue has generated a lot of interest and -- which should be explored. So, that was the reason for the delay. I think the recommendation by the CCPC was also for the delay, and that's why I'm here in front of you today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. HERRILL: And thank you for your attention and belated comment. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Jane Earle and then Judith Pendergast. MS. EARLE: Yes, my name is Jane Earle, and I'm a resident of Naples for the last 17 years, and I serve as vice president on the park association board for the past six years, and I don't understand a lot of this technicality, but it all sounds pretty good to me, however, I really would like to recommend that the CCPC -- that you take into consideration the recommendations of the CCPC for consideration in the second annual cycle, and at the very least, the conditional use rather than the permitted use. I'm sure that the International College is a fine institution, and I was impressed with their presentation, which we had. However, I have great reservations regarding the traffic impact, the proximity to the Seagate Elementary School, which is right next door to it, and in general, what is going to happen down the line with the growth of the International College and its impact upon us. I know that this is not the time to be discussing this, but I appreciate your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Judith Pendergast and then Wayne Arnold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think she is waiving -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think she waives her right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Wayne Arnold and then Jeff Kannensohn. MR. ARNOLD: Good evening. Wayne Arnold. First of all, I think -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, aren't you supposed to be on that side? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was going to say, you're at the wrong podium. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's at the wrong podium. MR. ARNOLD: Previous life, yes, I was. It does feel a little bit unusual to be at this side of the podium. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't it a tradition to just beat them up the first time? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The first time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your time is up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The answer is no. MR. ARNOLD: I'd just like to say that I think we all realize that the purpose of the meeting tonight is really to establish whether or not an educational facility is appropriate to be a permitted use in the CF zoning district and not really focus on a site specific parcel of land, and I understand that the International College certainly has looked at a piece of property, has also talked to some of the community groups about that site's appropriateness for a college, but I think it's also important to note, as Mr. Mulhere indicated, we have really three sites in the urban area that are currently zoned CF, and I think it's also important then to note that should this facility decide to locate at the Seagate property or any other site, most likely in Collier County, they would be in the position of attempting to fezone the property to that zoning district. That, in itself, does require a public hearing. It requires public hearing before the planning commission and the board of county commissioners. It requires the same tests for traffic impacts, compatibility, et cetera. So, I just want to make sure that we re-enforce that that is the purpose of tonight's meeting, really to establish whether or not we should allow these educational facilities somewhere other than a commercial zoning district because in many instances, I'm not sure that we really do want a college to be in any commercial zoning district, and in fact, we have more commercial zoning in Collier County than a bunch of residential property. Then we have some residential zoning categories abutting residential property. So, I'm not sure we automatically have a test of compatibility just by putting it as a permitted use in a commercial zoning district. I think one of the other things that I heard tonight was whether or not a conditional use would be more appropriate, and I think a conditional use certainly may be appropriate because as Mr. Mulhere pointed out, the other uses are primarily outdoor uses, and I'm not sure that a college in itself is any more intensive than certain churches might be, because we don't contemplate scale of use in this list of uses. We have fraternal organizations. We have libraries. We have parks. If I have a park today in one of those CF parcels, a fraternal organization can come in tomorrow under our code and operate. There's no protection for those people currently for some of these intensive uses. So I think that while a conditional use is certainly something that's acceptable and it's another level test that you need to go through, certainly the fact that you'd have to fezone property most likely to get an educational facility site here in Collier County, you have a double hearing requirement, and most likely, those track concurrently and you look at many of the same issues. I'm not sure you accomplish a great deal by requiring a conditional use in this instance. Any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think you gave us a lot of information in a brief time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Just the only difference is, in this particular -- in the one case that we are aware of, it's the only public hearing opportunity is to have it as a conditional use, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, that's not true. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They have to fezone. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The fezone. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Just the opposite is what I meant to say, that in the case of -- probably the only piece of property where it really matters is the North Naples piece behind Getmain, do they need the protection of having an additional hearing, because in this case, there's going to be a public hearing as you say? MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Jeff Kannensohn and then John Agnelli. MR. KANNENSOHN: Good evening. My name is Jeff Kannensohn, and I'm appearing here as a private citizen. I'm an attorney with Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, and I would just like to, again, support Mr. Herrill's comments and would like to state that I understand this is not a discussion about the specific property on Seagate Drive. The point I'd like to make is that this definitional change would change a definition that's been in place for a number of years. As I understand it, it's being driven primarily out of a concern for a possible fezone by International College. I'm not aware, however, that there are any other colleges or any other similar universities that are interested in relocating at this time. So, I'm not sure what the urgency is of making a decision on this matter during the cycle, and I think because of the time of the year, we are in the summertime, there may be other interested parties surrounding the areas that we are talking about, which are already zoned CF that would like an opportunity for input. I would think also that there is a distinction between a post secondary college facility and the primary and secondary in terms of the type of students, the geographical area that is -- students are attracted from. So, there are certain distinctions that could be made, and I would suggest that the county might be well served in delaying this for another cycle so it could be considered a little more fully and to have better public input from other citizens. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: John Agnelli and then Jeanette Brock. MR. AGNELLI: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is John Agnelli. I'm chairman of the board of trustees of International College and a 25 year resident of Naples. I would like to endorse Mr. Arnold's comments regarding the situation. There will have to be a public hearing at which time the board will find out that the exterior of the facility is not going to be changed, that the amount of traffic the facility, the International College operation will generate will be less than what is currently carried on at the site. Yes, the time delay would be a concern to International College, so even though it's being addressed as a general issue, the specific matter would hurt the opportunity for the college to move to that site. I'll leave that to Dr. HcHahan to expand on. It's a great opportunity for this community to improve itself even further. The location is excellent because of the proximity to the Philharmonic site, and as I said, I don't think it's going to impact the neighborhood any more than it's being impacted now. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Agnelli, you said you're the chairman of the board? MR. AGNELLI: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If this change is made to the LDC and if the International College comes forward at some time with a fezone or a request on this particular piece of property that I think the citizens are in question about, would the International College have any objection to doing that under a PUD? MR. AGNELLI: Commissioner Norris, I can't answer that off the top of my head. I -- you know, we are cooperative. We don't have any hidden agenda, but I would say, yes, if that would make things better. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The critical point there -- because that's what -- the question I was going to ask Mr. Mulhere is if we don't -- if this institution -- if this use is not a conditional use, if it's a permitted use, then they come in for a straight fezone. We don't have the opportunity to impose some conditions that are important in this particular case. It would have to do with the expansion of the physical plant, some limitation on the number of students, some things that I think this institution had certainly indicated so far that it's willing to agree to. So, if they do a straight fezone, can we impose conditions or do we need to have a conditional use in order to impose conditions? MR. MULHERE: I'll give you my answer, and then, perhaps, you might want to ask the county attorney. My answer is that -- that you are correct, that it's more difficult, unless it's voluntary -- unless they offer certain conditions to the board during the straight fezone process, they are not limited other than by the constraints of the property, but a conditional use, you have an opportunity to place conditions on -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's exactly what was on my mind. MR. MULHERE: And as far as the PUD goes, there is only one issue I do need to bring to your attention, and I spoke of that option at the planning commission in that the size, the minimum size for a PUD is really -- is generally ten acres. It can go below. It can go to five if the project qualifies as infill, and it's likely that it does. So, you know, we spoke of that at the planning commission that that probably would be an option. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there -- what are the limitations? I assume when -- you mentioned number of students and that sort of thing. By the size of the structure, I assume either our code, fire code, et cetera, there are just some natural limitations to that anyway. MR. MULHERE: Well, there would be in terms of the physical limitations, how far they could -- if they wish to expand the site, how far they could considering open space, green space, water management setbacks, height restrictions and then fire code and other building restrictions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the good news in this particular case, because you won't be surprised to hear that I've been having some meetings about this, is that this particular user does seem to be willing to impose more restrictive conditions on themselves than those -- you know, they are willing not to expand the physical plant even though they might be able to on the site, and that's real important to the neighborhood. So, either -- my bottom line, and I just get one vote, unfortunately, but my bottom line is either a conditional use so we can impose conditions or an agreement from this group that you'll come in as a PUD so we can impose conditions. MR. AGNELLI: I think we can address that meeting with staff prior to any decision by the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sometime between now and the next two weeks when we make the final decision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Yes, Madam Chairman, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. I have Section 2.7.28 here of our LDC that deals with rezonings, and the way I read it, you can put any condition on a straight fezone. You know, obviously, with the legal constraints, it has to be related, you know, the impacts of that and so forth, but you can put any condition on it that would be related to it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like no expansion of the physical plant, some specific number, a maximum number of students, for example. MS. STUDENT: Well, this is what it says. The planning commission -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I want you to tell me what it means. MS. STUDENT: Well, okay. A zoning district, to amend, supplement or establish a zoning district, it can be approved subject to stipulations, and the key word here is including but not limited to, limiting the use of the property to certain uses provided for in the requested zoning district. So, when you have language like that, including but not limited to, that means you can put other restrictions on it as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It just seems that it's always functionally easier to do that, if you're going to do that sort of thing, to just do it as a PUD, and that's why I asked Mr. Agnelli if they would consider that sort of -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because then on the zoning map, what do you put, CF with a star? MR. HULHERE: That's -- that's the problem. I have -- I have seen -- we have approved in the -- the board has approved in the past fezones with a limitation on the uses. It does provide a bit of a procedural problem later on down the road, but -- I mean, it has been done, and it could be -- it certainly could be monitored. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is -- MS. STUDENT: And I think we have the same situation with the conditional use because, you know, how would you know if you've got a CU on the map what the restrictions were? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is kind of Zoning 101, but we do it -- we do that all the time as a matter of rule. If the petitioner offers it and it becomes a condition and a part of the record -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In a PUD. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, on straight zoning. On straight zoning, we have conditions offered by the petitioner on a regular basis. They become a part of the record. Should those conditions be violated, a violation of the zoning exists. It has happened time and time again. It's not the preferred method of doing things. A PUD is clear, is more concise, and everyone can pick up a document and read it, but again, I understand why the question is being asked, Commissioner Norris. I think it's a valid one, but I would really like to hear the comments this evening focus on what's in front of us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I think we're getting off too much on COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting so far afield -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- debating the issue of International College versus the location, et cetera, that's not what we are here for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's not have that hearing twice. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, and I'm afraid we are going in that direction. So, who is our next speaker, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jeanette Brock. MS. BROCK: I'll pass. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. She passes. MR. FERNANDEZ: And then Terry HcHahan. MS. McHAHAN: Good afternoon. I'm Terry McMahan, and I am the president of International College and just having heard what you've had to say about this matter before the commission, I will not address plans for an application other than to say that we have a problem with that. Right now, we have a contract in existence that has a zoning term limitation in it for us to move for fezone, and there's no place for us to go. If I were a public institution and I wanted to fezone, I could go to the "P" district and do that. I am not familiar with the PUD ramifications either legally or technically, so I wouldn't want to commit on behalf of the college today other than to say if CF is not the appropriate district, where do we go and would we be allowed to go to the PUD. I think having said that, other than getting into the merits of the situation, our concerns are, again, twofold; one, there's a time limitation that's going to elapse, so we need some place to go, and it's running right now. We'd like to be able to file the rezoning application, and two, if you look at the "P" district, it provides for the public institution and it follows with the CF district, which is silent to private institutions, and the only difference in the two institutions is one is tax supported and one is not, okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Neno Spagna and then Jim Brennan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Neno, you're familiar with where to stand and speak, aren't you? MR. SPAGNA: Pardon? Good afternoon. I'm Neno Spagna, and I'm here on behalf of the International College, and Mr. Hulhere has done a very good job on explaining why we are here discussing this amendment this evening. It was because we could not find anyplace in the zoning ordinance where a private college is permitted, and I guess as the old saying goes, in a community, the zoning, there should be a place for everything and everything should be in its place, but when we started looking for its place, we couldn't find one. So, Bob has explained this, but what I would like to add to it is that myself and Dr. HcHahan and his staff people have also made a very thorough check of the zoning ordinance as to where this possibly could be properly located. I have personally gone over every district. I've checked all the definitions. I've been to the dictionary, and our conclusion after discussing it was that the staff had properly advised us, and that it does belong in the CF district. So, we did not eliminate any of the other possibilities that have been mentioned. We looked at them. In my opinion, they would be probably our second possibility, but first and foremost, we feel like we are supportive of the staff's advice to us and to the planning commission, and that is that the zoning -- the Land Development Code be amended as described to include private colleges as well as the local, state and federal public colleges. So, if you have any questions, I would be very happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does anyone have any questions? I think not. Thank you. MR. SPAGNA: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker on this subject is Jim Brennan. MR. BRENNAN: I'll pass. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Brennan passes. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, without getting into the details, the merits or demerits of the International College situation, which is really inappropriate here today, in a nutshell, the issues that individuals have raised today regarding impacts of that particular use would be covered under a fezone, period, whether it's PUD or straight fezone. That's the time in which those issues are to be addressed, not here in the Land Development Code. What we are being asked today is determine whether educational services is compatible with the balance of uses in the CF district, if it's consistent in its application, it's consistent in its external impacts. Some of the -- some of the numerous calls I've received on CF districts in opposition to are for schools, elementary schools and for child care centers. I don't get calls about, you know, nursing homes or museums. I get calls about schools, and from my two cents, a private college, if that's the application, or a private school of some sort is far -- has potentially far less impact externally than does, say, an elementary school or a middle school or even a high school with a football field and weekend games and that kind of thing. So, I think from a group standpoint, I think it is consistent. I think we should proceed with the LDC amendment understanding that the individual particulars of these sites will be addressed in fezones, and also understanding that the existing CF zoning out there that could be converted -- you haven't been to the Boy Scout site, I take it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's at the end of a road of public homes, not on an arterial type road. The -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about the one that's in your district? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, and aren't you worried about if there was a college got plopped down there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not worried about a college locating in that site, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, it just -- they would be out of their mind in the first place, but no, I don't think that's a concern. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not today but down the road. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The concerns on that site are people that are parking on the street, not people that are using the site for an appropriate purpose that is designed well. So, I just don't see that application there. So, I think we need to move ahead with this as an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For my particular case, the one that's in front of me right this minute, it doesn't matter, because like you said, we're going to have a public hearing on this particular Park Shore case no matter what, and I think -- I'm confident we'll find a way to impose some of the necessary conditions if that were to get approved, but I think that if -- for the good of the rest of the community, for the good of the future, you know, you need to broaden your idea about what this private college might look like. In this case, it's a small primarily night, primarily business school, but what makes you think that it might not be a private school with football fields and, you know -- I mean there's just a whole lot of possibilities about how big it could be in a CF district. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mainly because there's only 53 acres in the entire county that fits this classification. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we're saying that for future CF fezones -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we would get to review because of the fezone. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fine with me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was my whole thing. Wouldn't we get to know that when they in -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It doesn't matter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that we would know if they were going to have a football field and if they were going to have a soccer field and those kinds of facilities? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What this does is this affects existing CF zoning as the opportunity. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only concern is that Boy Scout place. If that's it -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I look at that Boy Scout place, you can't fit what you're talking about on 20 acres, period. So, that's why I don't have cause for concern. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we had more property already zoned CF, it would be a bigger concern than it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question. I think -- I think we would want to look individually at those, but we've heard from Mr. Hulhere about the parcels that are CF that are out there, and I know where they are located, and I just don't -- I don't share that that's a concern for us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can I just backtrack a little bit and just ask a general question? Is -- this has been the concern in regard to the zoning for churches, has it not, trying to find suitable locations for churches? Is this the issue that comes into play in that? From time to time, we've had people say that they're out -- MR. NINO: It's very difficult, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- they're out looking for church sites, and they can't find a church site because of the zoning and so forth. Is this -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But this isn't going to solve their problem because nothing is zoned CF. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I understand -- no, I understand that, but this is, apparently -- is this part of the -- MR. HULHERE: Well, I think the problem with churches -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or is it another issue? MR. HULHERE: I think it's a combination of things, one, the cost of land in certain districts where you could place a church, and the second is that in the other districts where you might be able to get the land, it's usually a conditional use. It requires a public hearing for the church. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I see. Okay. All right. That answers the question. Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I think Mr. Spagna, of all people, can tell us there's a pretty healthy track record of churches getting the zoning when they request one. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: I ainwt going against the churches. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we through with this item now? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe we are. MR. NINO: The next item -- the next item you have before you is amendments to the areas of critical state concern that you recently directed amendments to the Growth Management Plan which would except COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is just a mirror of those? MR. NINO: Yes, agricultural uses from those, and this is a mirror -- this is an implementation of that action, and similar to the -- similarly in the ST areas where oil and gas geophysical surveys are exempted from the provision of the ST and water management betms. Now we are at Page 22, and this is the Immokalee overlay district. Currently, the Immokalee -- currently, the Land Development Code has two Immokalee overlay districts, specifically spelled out as State Road 29 and the Jefferson Avenue one, and there are exemptions to the parking requirements as they apply to the Immokalee area. This is an attempt to redefine for the Immokalee area an overlay zoning district and reinstitute the existing two overlay districts and to add two additional districts and to bring forward the parking requirements to that common overlay district for the Immokalee area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What does this add in regard to the parking issue? Somewhere -- maybe I missed it in here but -- MR. NINO: The parking -- the parking issues didnwt change at all. We simply took them from the parking section and moved them to the Immokalee overlay district, but there are two new overlay districts, and with respect to that, I -- we do have members of long-range planning who are responsible for that if you would like some detailed description of whatws going to be allowed in those two overlay districts. I think itws safe to say that it recognizes, if I stand to be corrected, it recognizes the way the farm produce area functions and the packing area functions and attempts to, more than anything else, legitimize the way they are, in fact, operating. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone need to correct Mr. Nino? Okay. MR. MULHERE: I just want to add a couple -- Bob Mulhere for the record. Just like the Marco Island overlay, when we brought it forward, we told the board, we are not finished with this project, with this work process. So, what we have here is a shell that in some parts is complete, but in other parts, wewll be coming back to you after we work with the community, perhaps with specific development standards for the downtown area, which Immokalee has been requesting for some time, and we are working with them. Members of -- Barbara Cacchione and her staff have been out in Immokalee, presented this information to them. They are supportive, and so we will be coming back, perhaps in the next cycle or the cycle beyond that with additional amendments to this overlay, and thatws why we married all of the existing information to one single overlay district which can be amended from time to time; one source to go to for that information. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thatls fine. Thank you. MR. NINO: It can be added to as the need for additional overlay districts come about. The next item on your agenda is Page 44, and that deals with, specifically, keying the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan as a reference document and equally applicable to development -- landscape development standards as the landscape section itself, Section 2.4. The next section deals with a broadening. One might -- I think the best way of describing it is a broadening of the opportunity to have additional boundary markers identifying project developments, particularly those that are greater than 45 acres. Some large developments really have inadequate exposure to major highways, and this is an opportunity for them to have additional signage. I would point out that the Development Services Advisory Council -- Committee had a problem with the statement on Page 45 at the bottom of the page that said that while we acknowledge additional opportunities for boundary signs, we don't want any promotional or sales material to be reflected on that boundary sign. The DSAC objected to that, didn't think it was necessary, that, indeed, they ought to have the opportunity to say great buys here, one hundred twenty-nine ninety or whatever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got to say, when I drive through -- and I'll use Lee County as an example. You know, there's no access road, and there, you get to the corner of a development, and there's a little sign saying, you know, Wood Shores or whatever it is, and there's landscaping around the sign, and then it's desolation until the next sign. So, I agree with DSAC on one sense. Let's strike that sentence, and as far as I'm concerned, let's strike the one before it, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Boy, do I agree. I'm so glad you said that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think -- I just think project entry signs are for project entries and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Period. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm not sure if you back up to a road and don't have an entrance on it, other than for purposes of sales and marketing, why that sign should exist in the first place. You know, I'm trying to kind of bring things down in the sign area, and this kind of puts them in places that -- if I'm on the back of a development, I can't drive in that way, what do I care what the name of the development is, you know, and I see -- Mike, I see you're here, but I just -- I don't know what problem we are fixing with this other than a sales and marketing issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree more. I think that's a terrible idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll bet Mike can address that issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, tell us, Mike. MR. DAVIS: Mike Davis with Signcraft. I didn't register for this item, and the reason I came up was to point out a correction that's not in here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't know if you were an advocate of this language or not, Mike. I saw you move up and thought you might be. MR. DAVIS: Well, it's something that I've been working with Chahram Badamtchian on for awhile. This is something that was included in the Island Walk PUD and DRI, and basically, the concept is, if you're coming down an arterial or a collector is a small identification, not 32 square feet, but 16 square feet to tell you where that development begins and then at the far end of the development, where that development ends. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why? MR. DAVIS: Well, because if you take one the size of Island Walk, they have -- they have the ability to put 64 square feet at their main entrance or they can divide them into two 32 square foot signs to identify that, but very often, you have long walls or just trees, as you pointed out, Commissioner Hancock, that you really don't know where it begins and where it ends, and certainly no promotional information at all; merely the name, and 16 square feet, all you are going to be able to do is the name of the project. That's all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Mike, I'm sorry, but why do we need to know where the project begins and ends if we can't enter the project at that point? MR. DAVIS: Just informational, pure and simple, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it just clutters. MR. DAVIS: And my reason is you-all thought it was important to include in the approval of the Island Walk PUD and, therefore, thought it was a good idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they integrated theirs into the wall, right? MR. DAVIS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I'm picturing is this little stand-alone sign -- because what happens is, if we approve this, any project over this size will utilize it, and we're going to see the little stand-alone signs with a couple of shrubs on either side at the corners of every 45 plus acre project because it's a sales and marketing issue. Island Walk, and there was more discussion on it than just allowing it, but it was integrated into the wall, which, to me, makes a difference. So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big time. MR. DAVIS: Well, certainly adding the wall integration might very well work, because it's those sorts -- I agree. It's those sorts of situations where it seems to me to be useful. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be honest, though, I'm sitting here saying to myself, I missed it on Island Walk, because I should have picked it out and removed it, because it's not something I would agree to if something said we would like to do this. I think it was in there, and I didn't catch it, and shame on me for that, but I don't want to promote it everywhere. So, I appreciate your background on that, but I'm just not supportive of this change at all. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying just delete item three in its entirety? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. NINO: That would delete -- that would delete the entire need for this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. NINO: Fine. I apologize, Mr. Davis -- I didn't tell you. The planning commission did recommend 16 square feet, and we had changed our draft, actually, but somehow or other, it didn't make it to this publication. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the planning commission was on the right track, but we're just going to go a little further. MR. NINO: It's redundant anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep going down. MR. NINO: The next item deals with our recommendation that inflatable balloons in their entirety be prohibited and -- because the word tethered has given us a problem. We haven't been able to adequately define that. People have been very argumentative about what is tethered and what isn't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All this does is make it easier to say no. Let's just say no. MR. NINO: So, we're saying, let's just get rid of inflatable signs altogether. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. What you said first, I'm all for, eliminate inflatable signs. I mean, they are just ugly. MR. NINO: That's what we are trying to do. MR. HULHERE: We actually have an official appeal or, excuse me, an official interpretation which may be appealed to you because the argument is that an inflatable sign is not tethered, I mean, somehow or another, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, by eliminating tethered, inflatable signs will not be allowed; is that what you're telling me? MR. NINO: Exactly. MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. MR. HULHERE: And they're not right now by our interpretation. We do not allow them, but we are just clarifying it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. Thank you. MR. NINO: The next item deals with acknowledging -- acknowledging architects as having the capability to sign and seal drawings. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Kind of a glitch item. MR. NINO: The next item deals with amendments to after-the-fact administrative variances. Currently, administratively, we are allowed to grant up to a two and a half inch after-the-fact administrative variance, and for those presumably what were older buildings and in resale found that they were encroaching into the side yard, we were able to deal with a 10 percent or two foot variance. What really drives this amendment is that in the first -- in both paragraphs, you'll see the words, or a final development order. We had previous -- there has been an interpretation that the final development order is a building permit, and consequently, when someone got a building permit and came in with a spot survey, we found that increasingly we were being tested to see if we could grant variances of up to two feet, and that caused us some concern because we don't think it's what variances were all -- are all about or were ever intended to allow. Therefore, to get rid of that challenge, except for where a certificate of occupancy has been issued, then obviously we are culpable at that point in time if someone has a certificate of occupancy, and we find, indeed, that in 15, 20 years when they go to sell the building and the bank is asking for a title search and there is a cloud on the title because of some situation back 20 years ago, that -- you know, that still gives us the ability to acknowledge a two foot variance. However, with the advent of zero lot line development, we find that increasingly people are coming in with spot surveys and -- because they are afraid -- they are afraid to put that building on the zero lot line for fear that they'll encroach, and we increasingly find that they are getting six inches away, and that is shortchanging the other side, perhaps by a couple of inches. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you remember about three years ago when we had a couple of people chop pool cages off and do things because they were after-the-fact variances due to shoddy surveying or shoddy construction? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the message is being heard and creating a new problem. MR. NINO: I guess -- from the point of view of staff, we feel that given that type of development practice, that there's some justification for amending the degree to which we can administratively grant variances of up to -- from two and a half inches to six inches. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a survey of the board here. Would the board support my suggestion that any administrative variance like is proposed here would be one of our famous Collier County conditional variances? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that would solve the problem, yeah, because it still requires principal structure to be destroyed or altered of a significant stage for that variance not to be honored, so MR. HULHERE: We can contain a standard stipulation. We give them a letter of approval for a qualifying administrative variance then that the property owner records in the public records and so that would be recorded in the public records, that condition as well, that it runs with the structure and not with the land -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. HULHERE: -- and we can structure that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see a downside to that. I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The only thing I was just trying to think of -- I wish there was somebody else in the room who does this stuff -- is a title, does it solve the title problem for the bank who's making the mortgage? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if the bank mortgage -- it's not perfect, but maybe it would. MR. HULHERE: It seems to not be too problematic because we've been doing it for about four or five years now on the administrative variances, and there was a problem, because initially, we were not having them recorded, but since we've had them recorded, that seems to have addressed the issue of a title search. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Either a rebuild or a remodel to a significant extent, you generally see a payoff or remortgaging of the property -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Host of the time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, nine out of ten, so -- I understand your concern, though, but no, I think that whole item is okay, and I like Commissioner Norris' suggestion. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. MR. NINO: The next item deals with instituting requirements relative to the type of enclosure and the size of the enclosure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This one just makes sense, Ron. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hake sure the truck can get in and pick the dumpster up. The one thing that this doesn't cover that I had a question about is -- and I've received -- it's only one location, but a multifamily project placed their dumpster immediately next to single family that's only ten feet on the other side of the fence, and we didn't seem to have locational criteria when that occurred to review the off-site impacts of the dumpster location, and so -- MR. HULHERE: It seems like that -- we can review that as part of -- it should be reviewed as part of the site development plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask for our next LDC amendment cycle that we look at whether or not that proximity to residential is part of the review process? MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to drag this out today, but I wanted to mention that as a concern and understand how it's addressed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, you're absolutely right, but I'll tell you, a wall or a wood fence doesn't necessarily take care of it because whatever is on the other side can be pretty putrid. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in this example, that dumpster -- instead of locating next to the units of the people who are buying in there, they threw it next to the houses of the people across the fence for obvious reasons, and I don't think that's fair, and I don't think it should happen, but we need to have a way in the review process, a mechanism for you to look at that and determine whether what they are doing is offensive to neighboring properties, and that's all I'm asking, that we find a way to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great idea. MR. NINO: So noted. Just for the record, I handed out some modifications to that provision primarily dealing with access and noting after the first sentence that that should read, when directly accessing a public street for that eight by fifty and indicating a sketch diagram of what that looks like, and we will take up the matter of locational criteria for your next review. The next item deals with a revision, wholesale revision of the automobile service station section. Host notably -- I'm just going to touch on the highlights, and Susan Hurray has a presentation, which I think will be very interesting in addressing what would be the impact, in particular, the spacing requirement. We had recommended a spacing requirement of 500 feet airline miles, airline distance, and both the planning commission and the DSAC recommended or thought that that 500 separation should be linear restricted to one side of the street. The copy that you have does reflect the DSAC and CCPC recommendation. We wanted you to know how it started out originally, however. The -- there are substantially enhanced landscaping requirements here, and I would like Susan Hurray to discuss the detail effect of the 500 as it applies to the interstate. MS. HURRAY: For the record, Susan Hurray with current planning staff. First, I just want to preface my presentation briefly, just to let you know, and I'm sure you noted that we did strike out the entire section as it currently exists. However, in generating the replacement code, basically what we did was we fewrote the existing code enhancing some of the existing requirements and adding others, and this new version, while similar in some respects in content and structure, does depart in some instances from the existing code, and I'll be pointing those out to you as we go along. We did revise the purpose and intent of the amendment as written, basically recognizing that automobile service stations have become a multi-purpose use in their function and nature. They're generating high levels of traffic and activity. They've become a highly intense use, often on a 24 hour a day basis, and this has prompted a need to protect surrounding land uses, especially residential land uses, and to attempt to create regulations which reduce the impacts of the intensity of the use through the use of buffers and separation of land uses. So with that said, I'd like to go ahead and touch on the areas of the code which have been enhanced, and then I'll go on further and explain the areas that we added to the code. The first area I want to touch on is on Page 59. It's under Subsection 8, the landscaping section. What we did was we added some additional requirements for right-of-way buffer landscaping. Specifically, the code now as it's drafted requires a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer easement in which water management swales would not be permitted to be located. However, you could have water management as underground piping. Within that 25 foot wide landscaped buffer, you would be required to construct an undulating berm with a maximum slope of three to one. It would be required to be constructed along the entire length of the buffer at an average height of three feet, and that undulating berm would be required to be planted with ground cover other than grass, shrubs, trees and palms. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Ms. Murray, what is an undulating berm? I think I know what a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Curvy. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, a curvy berm. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bumpy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Varying in height and line. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I was thinking it was some type of a moving berm, and I was thinking, I don't think I'm familiar with this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: New from Universal Studios, the undulating berm. MR. NINO: It's moguls. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's moguls, okay, I understand that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moguls, now you're talking our language. MS. MURRAY: The plantings on this berm would be required to be cjustered in double rows with a minimum of three trees per cjuster. We are proposing to limit the use of palms to areas within the landscaped areas adjacent to vehicular access points, and we've also established some minimum spacing criteria for the trees planted within these cjusters and then minimum spacing criteria between the cjusters. We are increasing the required height of the trees to be -- 100 percent of the trees at planting shall be a minimum height of 14 feet at the time of installation, and we've also proposed some enhancements to increase the shrub size at the time of planting. We also proposed landscaping adjacent to other property lines. We enhanced the -- basically, the plant standards adjacent to these other property lines. What we've attempted to do, and I'll refer you to the iljustration that's shown here, is -- and this example shows a corner piece of property, but if you look to the left side of your page, you will notice that what we are trying to do is create an instant buffer rather than the soldier effect that we tend to see on our right-of-way landscape buffers. We are trying to create an instant buffer so we are not waiting years and years and years to get this kind of landscape buffer. I'll also refer you to Page 43 real quickly because we amended Table 2.4 in the landscaping requirements, and if you look at the bottom of that table under Number 14, you'll see that we specifically referenced automobile service stations as a specific use and then required very specific buffers depending on the type of use that they are adjacent to. The second part of the code that we enhanced had to do with architectural standards, and that would be starting on Page 61, specifically with regard to signage, and that would be -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, let's talk signage, shall we? MS. HURRAY: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've always been an advocate of eliminating whole signs pretty much altogether. I think you saw when we looked at the -- or if you've seen the Amereda Hess presentation for what they're proposing, they went to a ground sign -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looks good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yep. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and it just looks 100 percent better. My question is, and Mr. Weigel, I'll ask it of you first, gas stations are becoming a different use. When I first moved to Collier County, it was called SuperAmerica on Pine Ridge. I thought that thing was a truck stop. I had never seen a gas station that big that didn't have 18 wheelers parked out in front of it, but that size is becoming the standard for a number of pumps, and if you go to the new stations, and, again, I was just up in Lee County, and I drove by a 7-Eleven, and it had as many pumps -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shocking, ain't it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as SuperAmerica, and so it was just -- it was amazing to me, but they are becoming different. They are changing. They have Blimpie inside now and sub shops and all kinds of stuff. So, for us to say that the signage requirement, due to the mix of uses and the cluttering of the signs, since it's no longer just Exxon. It's Exxon, Blimpie, Dunkin Donuts, Taco Bell, whatever. Because of that, is there any problem saying that gas stations are required to have ground signs and no pole signs will be allowed? Am I singling it out unfairly if I state that that -- the mix of uses is causing us to avoid sign clutter that way? MR. WEIGEL: I have assistance coming up, but I tend to agree with the ability to provide some limitation along that line, quite frankly, myself. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: You can place restrictions on sign sizes, you know, as long as it's reasonable and the type of structure and so forth without running into any first amendment problems unless, of course, you made it so small that nobody would be able to read it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if I just said it had to be a ground sign in gas stations, it couldn't be a pole sign, am I running -- in your opinion? MS. STUDENT: No, I don't believe you are. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I like that idea. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, 12-B, we can scratch out the first four words. MS. HURRAY: Madam Chairman, I just want to point out that that was our original -- staff's original recommendation was to eliminate pole signs and only allow ground signs. The Collier County Planning Commission, however, drafted a lot of this language, and we just went ahead and incorporated it, and that's kind of how it ended up in the form that it did, but that was our original recommendation for your information. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, in architectural standards, I wanted to go the whole way with them at that point, and we didn't, and that was kind of a -- we acquiesced somewhat to, you know, the fact that there are a lot of pole signs out there, and that it's better than what not, but I just think the gas stations in particular are becoming so varied in what's on that site that those signs are just getting uglier and uglier because, you know, of the varied uses that are all attached to the same sign just doesn't look good, and so anything we can do to minimize that by elevation I think is warranted, and for that reason, I'd like to see us make that change, and I want to compliment you on building colors and color banding on canopy structures. The Union 76 canopy next to the Circle K on 41 and Wiggins Pass Road wins the ugly award of the year, and we need to make sure that kind of coordination or lack of coordination doesn't happen anymore. So, thank you for that work on that. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. Let me just go ahead real quickly through the signage. Basically, what we are also prohibiting is accent lighting and back lighting on canopy structures. We touched on the pole signs. It's limited here to 60 square feet in area, 15 feet in height placed within a 200 square foot landscaped area. Illuminated signage, logos, advertising and information would be prohibited above gas pumps. The number of on premises directional signs would be limited to two signs per entry and exit, and signage identifying water, air and vacuum apparatus would be limited to a total of four square feet in area. Commissioner Hancock touched on the building colors and canopy banding, so I won't talk about that. We did amend the section on canopy setbacks to be more restrictive, requiring them to be consistent with the setback requirements of all buildings on-site, and we did briefly touch on lighting; basically, directing lighting away from adjoining properties, encouraging low level indirect diffuse lighting, limiting it to 20 feet above finished grade which is consistent with the architectural and design standards, and encouraging canopy -- under canopy lighting of a low level diffuse type, basically just lighting the area under the canopy rather than the entire site. That really was about it for the major enhancements of the code. What I'd like to do is kind of switch gears and talk a little bit about what we actually added to the code. Specifically, the separation requirements which are on Page 58 at the bottom of your page, Number 4, and I'd like to preface that by saying staff did do quite a bit of research on these type of separation and other requirements of communities within the State of Florida and in the United States and found that quite a few communities do heavily restrict the locational standards of automobile service stations, either be it through the use of separation requirements. One community actually required every automobile service station to be developed through a conditional use process. Others were very site specific. They had to be located at specific intersections of specific roads, and others required separation distances anywhere from 300 to a thousand feet. We looked at that. We looked at our current code separation requirements, because we do have some language in there regarding uses involving intoxicating beverages, and we have a 500 foot separation requirement between those types of uses. So, we did try to stay consistent with that. We did look at the layout primarily of activity centers to see how this 500 foot separation requirement would impact that, and I've provided some maps, and we can talk about those a little bit later, but as Mr. Nino pointed out, the language in your packet basically reflects the language that the planning commission and the Development Services Advisory Committee recommended, and I will say that the planning commission basically felt that the language as it was currently drafted would allow automobile service stations to be located across the street from one another, thus would reduce perhaps some traffic turning movements with folks wanting to make U-turns to get to gasoline service stations that were located on the other side of the road, that it would reduce traffic perhaps into neighborhoods with folks driving down the road looking specifically for a gasoline station on that side of the road, and basically, make it more convenient for the motoring public. Staff felt like the 500 separation -- the 500 foot separation distance language that they had drafted basically accomplishes a true separation significantly reducing the intensity of the land uses, and that it was similar and consistent with the other separation requirements we had in the code as it presently exists. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we talk about that issue in particular, the separation? MS. MURRAY: If I may, I kind of wanted to go over the waiver requirements, because that kind of ties in, if you don't mind -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Please. MS. MURRAY: -- so you'll have a clear picture of the whole -- how the whole process works. If you turn to Page 63, what we did was we added a mechanism which would allow the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals by resolution to grant a waiver of part or all of the separation requirements set forth in this subsection. Basically, this waiver section establishes criteria to which an applicant would have to demonstrate to the board that they meet. The submittal requirements for such a waiver request would require the applicant to submit, along with a very specific site plan, a written market study analysis which justifies the need for an additional service station in the desired location. So, that -- that is available to folks that want to pursue it. Lastly, what I wanted to go over before we touch on the maps and any other questions you have is another section which may be a little confusing but which would allow exceptions to some of the specific locational and site standards including the 500 foot separation requirement, and that would be found on the top of page 62 under exceptions. Number one, and the easiest way to kind of do this is to go back to 58 but keep your finger on 62, and I'm just going to go ahead and read it. The locational and site standards in accordance with Subsection 2.6.28.1(1) through (5), specifically in that subsection, shall not apply to nor render nonconforming any existing automobile service station or any automobile service station located in a planned unit development in which a specific architectural rendering or a site plan was approved for an auto service station prior to the effective date of this amendment. One through five basically references frontage requirements, site depth requirements, minimum lot or parcel area, the separation requirement and the yard setback requirements. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We only approved one gas station with an architectural rendering attached to it. So, this really affects that site and that site only to your knowledge? MS. HURRAY: That's to my knowledge, that's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may want to say with a specific architectural rendering and site plan that was approved, because it had both. I don't want to allow someone who had a site plan approved but not an architectural rendering to utilize this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very good catch. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the word or says one or the other. And says both, and that particular project had both. We beat the heck out of them, and they produced an architectural plan, and they shouldn't be penalized for it. So, I agree with that, but I think the word or after rendering should be changed to and and the appropriate verbiage changes to make that -- whether it be first or third person or whatever the heck you English teachers know about them. MR. HULHERE: I just would put a caveat out, they do not have a CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. They do not -- that particular service station, I do not believe, has an approved final site development plan. I think though your point is well taken, and perhaps if we were to say an architectural rendering and an approved -- and a site plan approved as part of the fezone, then that covers it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine. MR. MULHERE: Then that covers it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because that's the only one that that occurred on, and I think it's unfair to cause them to, you know, go through all that again, but anyone who just got zoning and they may have a site plan that was part of their zoning but did not submit an architectural rendering will not qualify under this; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question about the distance is whether or not the 500 feet -- I wasn't so much looking for the ability to have an exception to 500 feet as I was worried that 500 feet is not enough to avoid the gasoline alley that we are worried about, and I guess you're going to cover that when we look at the maps? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I just have -- continuing on with the exceptions, under Number 2, I would note then that existing automobile service stations may otherwise be rendered nonconforming by the provisions of the subsection, Sections 6 through 17, which would reference such things as landscaping, parking, architectural standards, signage, et cetera, and this, again, excepts automobile service stations within a PUD as described above, and these stations would be required to comply with the applicable sections of Division 1.8, nonconformity. So, in other words, if they fell within that definition of a nonconformity or a nonconforming site, they would be required to bring those sites up to code. So those, basically, are the two ways out of meeting a 500 feet requirement. That's really about all I have as far as the code goes. We did -- I did hand out color maps to you just to give you a clear understanding of how the 500 foot separation requirement would apply. In both cases, in staff's recommended language and the planning commission's recommended language, if you look at them, they are numbered one through 4A and B. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: It basically covers almost all the parcels that are remaining. I mean '- MS. HURRAY: Pretty much. That's why we chose these -- all the A's reference staff's proposed language, and all the B's reference the planning commission's language, and you'll see that the dotted red lines around the red colored buildings actually represent the 500 foot spacing requirement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're saying it would have to be outside of those lines then? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That would be the nearest station then would be outside of that? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. We also tried to reference, looking at map 1A, the yellow areas you will notice are PUDs approved for gasoline service stations, just to give you an idea, for example, on the Pine Ridge 1-75 activity center how the language would impact the development at that area. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The B's were planning commission, did you say? MS. HURRAY: Yes, sir, the B's are planning commission. MR. HULHERE: Again, the difference between the two is that the staff methodology would, as Mr. Nino indicated, use sort of an airline miles measurement, actually, or circumference around the existing gas station 500 feet. The planning commission recommendation would use a linear measurement and only apply it to one side of the street. So, that's the difference between the two. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask a question. On your airline measurement, it said in there that you can't cross a four lane divided road with that airline measurement, that you have to go linear. What do you mean by that exactly? MS. HURRAY: I equate it to -- staff's recommendation is like putting a dome over existing gasoline service stations. No matter what falls underneath that dome, you cannot build a gasoline service station underneath. There should be one under there, and that's it. The planning commission's recommendations actually cut that dome off when you intersect -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That wasn't my question. MS. HURRAY: I'm sorry. Go ahead. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question was concerning the language back in the -- do I have it here? No, I don't have it in front of me, but it was -- it said you can't use airline measurement to cross a four lane divided arterial or a collector road, but you then go linear 500 feet. What do you mean linear 500 feet? Do you mean go down 500 feet down the road and then at a right angle across the road? MS. HURRAY: I think if I'm understanding your question, it would stop at the road and then follow the road out to where it meets the 500 feet out from side property boundaries -- MR. HULHERE: That's correct. MS. HURRAY: -- forming a square, if you will, if you look at your map. MR. HULHERE: But -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But it would then cross the street at a right angle, perpendicular across the street for 500 feet across the street; is that correct? MR. HULHERE: Only -- the only way this separation would go across roadways, arterial or collector roadways, is under the staff's recommendation. Under the other recommendation, it would not go across the roadway. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: feet linear measurement. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That would be measured from the -- from the existing gas station in a direction, say, north and south or east and west 500 feet in either direction but not crossing -- not at all crossing the street on which the gas station is located, the arterial or collector. MS. MURRAY: Then it would intersect -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, it could be straight across the street? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But then your map 1A doesn't reflect that at all. MS. MURRAY: One A is an exhibit of staff's proposed language which would not -- well -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Your A's don't reflect that. MS. MURRAY: Our A would reflect crossing of the road and that's staff's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MS. MURRAY: -- proposed language. One B -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is how does it cross the road? You know, let's take the -- what's the Super America called now? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shell. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what it is, Shell ETD? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, ETDs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's take Shell ETD's site. If I draw a line 500 feet in any distance from that property, you can't locate a gas station within -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Under the staff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- under the staff proposal -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- regardless of the roadway? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do I have a box instead of a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A radius. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, a radius of some kind? I'm just -- MS. MURRAY: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does it match? MS. MURRAY: Basically for iljustration purposes for today's presentation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the Clesen PUD where the red dotted line corner meets on the Clesen PUD is more than 500 feet away because it's diagonal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, the map just doesn't match the wording. The iljustration covers more property than the 500 foot radius; is that what we are saying? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I'm asking because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what it looks like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the verbiage to me says you go to the Okay. Well, I understand that. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to get a handle on your 500 corner point and draw a radius of 500. You do that on each corner point, and then you connect them, and what you actually have is a box with rounded corners, so to speak. MR. MULHERE: It would actually be a circle, that's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of a circle because it's a square parcel. So, you know, I'm just -- if that's clear and everybody says that's the way we'll do it -- MR. MULHERE: That is the methodology -- that is the methodology that we use currently in measuring the separation for alcohol -- for intoxicated -- for establishments primarily engaged in the sale of intoxicating beverages, and that's the same language that we are intending to use for this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make sure 1A or whatever exhibit we use is revised to show that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK -- because this does not depict the actual distance that would be in play. MS. MURRAY: I will say for the record, this really isn't an exhibit, per se, that's going to be included. It was basically for iljustration purposes and -- MR. MULHERE: We'll correct that before the next meeting. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, no problem. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't want someone using this against us or invalidating what we're doing with this saying it doesn't match. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Norris, on 1B, to get back to your question, you see the way the linear measurement, it could cross the side street but not the arterial or collector on which it is located. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that is the staff's recommendation? MR. MULHERE: No, that is the planning commission recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, and your staff recommendation will cross the street? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That clears it up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is certainly the one I prefer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the staff better, but I even wonder when I look at these maps if this is enough to prohibit gasoline alleys which is what started the discussion. It means that they will be more spread out, but it doesn't limit the number of gas stations permitted at a particular intersection or something like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's done by zoning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but it will. I mean, just the mere fact -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the one that worries me is the last page, you know, where there aren't any, example number four -- who would do such a thing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean leave it on or call? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean leave it on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a little sign out here. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We're up on Pine Ridge Road and 1-75, that interchange. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last one is Immokalee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The last one is Immokalee. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, where -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 1-75 and Immokalee Road? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: example, if there's not -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: the first one -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 1-75 and Immokalee, that's just one There will be no more than four. There will be no more than four because Because once one goes in, it will actually occupy that quadrant plus a portion of the parcels across the street. There may be no more than two depending on their location based on this intersection. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See, right now -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The max. There would be four no matter what? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, and that would require -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right now, Pam, there's one going to go in -- would it be Lot 1 or would it be that -- isn't that Lot 1 that they've got the Shell oil station in the Strand? Isn't that it? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, that one is going to block out Stiles and a good portion of Donovan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, it depends on their location, but in a nutshell, at that intersection, you would have no more than four, and in all probability, two to three max. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The rest of that, Carlton Lakes, that's all residential. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, and that does -- once you start the dominoes, they fall in a way that you're going to end with only four at a major intersection. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Had this been in place at Pine Ridge and 1-75 -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we wouldn't have the ETD and the Chevron right practically next to each other with a restaurant in between, which is part of the gasoline alley complaint that we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as we continue to limit our commercial zoning in an appropriate manner, we are not going to have a recurrence down the road. MR. HULHERE: I also wanted to just add that we looked at -- we looked at as an option a maximum limitation within an activity center, but it appeared that the locational restrictions in combination with the enhanced architectural and site standards was a better methodology to use, and we knew that it was tested, because there were a lot of communities that used the same methodology out there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. With that explanation, I understand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you concur with my statement about that intersection, that that's the sufficient limiting factor, that no more than four -- MS. HURRAY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and all probability, three. MS. HURRAY: Yes, I do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two or three. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make sure I'm right. You folks are the experts. Oh, we need to clarify that sign language because -- the suggestion -- are you swearing at me in sign language, Pam? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's her chance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because the 60 square feet, I don't think, is a problem, but, see, what we have to do is we have to cap the height of a ground sign, but I have a feeling Mr. Davis is here to talk to us about that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Talk to us, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: As well as other people. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. When you get called, Mike. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have other speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Davis is the first speaker and then Todd Pressman. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Mike Davis with Signcraft, Incorporated for the record. Obviously, I'm here -- you and I will probably have a similar conversation about ground and pole signs as we did with the architectural standards. I'd like to point out that when you talk about the changes that you're proposing for gas stations, you're talking about gas stations looking completely different than they look now with the site standards that are being proposed, and I guess that goes to hopefully support my case about overkill. With the -- when it comes to signage and also the visual part to the station, I certainly agree the deletion of color banding on the canopy is a great idea. They should be one color. What I don't see in here and I would suggest to be added is that also apply to the building. If it's good for the canopy, I think it should be good for the building structure, also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consistent with the predominant color of the principal structure if applicable. Maybe the applicable part is the problem. MR. DAVIS: Yeah, I just didn't see where it specifically prohibited it on the building -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point. MR. DAVIS: -- as it did on the canopy. Along with that, the accent lighting and back lighting of the canopy is prohibited, great idea. The illuminated signage, logos, advertising, et cetera above the pumps, wonderful idea. Limiting the directional signs to two per entrance or exit is a good idea. The Land Development Code currently doesn't have a limitation on that. So limiting it to two, which, obviously, with entry and exit makes sense. The four square feet for the various service station amenities makes sense. The one thing that I didn't hear proposed was currently in the Land Development Code elsewhere, specifically for service stations, there's a ten square foot adder for pricing signs, which, if that's left in, would -- we are not talking about a 60 foot square sign. We are talking about a 70 square foot sign. So, I would suggest that that be eliminated. That brings us to the pole sign/ground sign issue, and as you pointed out, Commissioner Hancock, with the change that ended up in the architectural standards where, at out-parcels, at shopping centers, ground -- the pole signs were required to be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet, from 100 square feet to 60 square feet, required to have all the other amenities, the pole covering and what not. The few that we've seen constructed certainly look far better than what we had before, and I think serve -- serve the station that they identify quite well. The part that may be missed here is when it talks about the pole sign being limited to 15 feet in height. It says, as measured from the grade of the parking lot. That's a big change from the way it currently is to the crown of the road. The point here is it makes more sense if you visually drive by a service station, the elevation of the parking lot and for whatever -- whatever you have coming up there in the way of elevation be measured from it makes all the sense in the world. I'm concerned with all these additional landscaped requirements for these service stations that a ground sign at eight feet above the parking lot elevation may not be enough. I think if it is, in fact, a 15 foot pole sign, the elevation of the parking lot works fine, and I think probably that's something we need to look at in the future how we measure all signage, because it just seems to make sense in scale as you come down a road to work off something that's in your line of vision. If, in fact, the board's desire is to change it to the ground signs, then I would suggest you take out the part about measured from the grade of the parking lot so that ground signs can be treated as they are elsewhere in the community where they are measured to the crown of the road, which, to be real honest with you, is going to get them up to 12 or 13 feet visually. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point, Hike. MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Todd Pressman and then Bruce Anderson. MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you. My name is Todd Pressman for the record. I wanted to speak just very quickly on one particular item which staff did not touch base on, which is referring to car wash uses and the regulation of those hours, and I haven't heard any discussion with regard to that. I do want to make you aware that there is a car wash constituency out there. It is a use that is in demand. It's a use that I'm sure some of the commissioners use, and it's a popular use at these type of sites. What becomes a difficulty is the shortage of hours in the evening. The restriction runs from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and I would suggest to you that perhaps rather than a broad stroke to address what, obviously, you feel was a potential or potentially -- not potential, but is an issue is when you look at zoning criteria where these places can go, when you look at the type of buffering, when you look at the type of regulations that are already in place, the evening hours are not as obtrusive as you may believe. Certainly, as you get later into the evening, that certainly may change, but the first priority that we would -- that I would ask you to look at would be lessening these evening hours. Those are coming home hours. Those are hours people are coming back to their homes, and that becomes a period of time when that use starts to get more attention, and then, of course, dwindles during the evening, but in regard to a priority, we would ask you to look at that. I would also make you aware that the new second generation or third generation of car washes are designed much quieter than the real big mechanical steam throwing, rumbling car washes that we're used to. Most of them are going to touch free, and those have significantly less noise impact, and they are designed that way, but also just by the virtue of their function, they are much less loud in that respect as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, do we really have a problem existing right now? I'm wondering what the motivation is to his question. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the motivation was that oftentimes these service stations, particularly the last two or three that we've dealt with, are in very close proximity to residential zoning, but having said that, the Development Service Advisory Committee concurred with Mr. Pressman, I believe it was -- MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: -- that they didn't feel, at least in their opinion, that the hours of operation for a, sort of an accessory car wash should be limited. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's still light out at 8:30. You know, if we're going to limit them, seven seems kind of strange if it's still light out at 8:30, but, you know -- if we're going to limit them, 9:00 or 10:00 at night is reasonable. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds reasonable to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that limiting them really is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Necessary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- necessary. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about -- what about 10:00 p.m. when property or car washes are adjacent to residential zoning? I mean, if that's the issue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have the noise ordinance, guys. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and that's really what popped into mind is if it's violating a noise ordinance, we have a way to address that. I don't know what other uses would be offensive. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, 55 decimals at two in the morning wake some people up, and that wouldn't violate -- well, actually 55 would. Fifty-four wouldn't violate the noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty-four isn't going to wake them up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I don't want to regulate something that we aren't having a problem with, so -- I can go either way on that. That's fine. I would like -- we heard Mr. Davis speak. I would like staff to take a look at -- if we go to ground signs, maybe we can do it from crown of road instead of -- MR. MULHERE: We made a note. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: sense to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: driving along. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does everyone agree with that? That makes Certainly. That's your point of reference as you're Exactly. Your base of reference, I should say. MR. NINO: Fine. With your indulgence, move on to the next -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so we are clear -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have another speaker? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we are in general agreement on the not regulating? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll say. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I believe we want to lift the regulation on the car wash. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not replace it. MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you for your attention, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome. Thank you. We have another speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Ellie Krier. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We'll let Ms. Krier speak to us. MS. KRIER: Ellie Krier with the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm your wild card tonight, because I'm not going to talk about signs. I would like to talk about something that I had hoped would be in this cycle, and that would be asking new gas stations to have generator capability; not own the generators, but be wired for them. Thanks to the good graces of Councilwoman McKinzie (phonetic), she has gotten concessions through a couple of fezones in this city for some of those gas stations. As of last year when Mr. Pineau did a survey of your gas stations, there is one generator at one gas station in Immokalee. You have no ability to get the gas out of the ground after a storm. It's just a thought. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we require that? MR. HULHERE: I think that's an accurate statement from emergency management perspective. There are very limited service stations that have generator capabilities. I think it's just a question of whether or not you want to require that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or at least provide the infrastructure so the generator can be hooked up. MS. KRIER: We're not asking -- I'm not considering asking them to own the generator. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. KRIER: The generators are provided through many venues immediately after a storm. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good idea. MS. KRIER: If at a bare minimum, require it in the interstate activity areas where you're going to have your traffic coming in, needing to leave and regas their cars. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like it. MS. KRIER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's wonderful. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we look into that, please? MR. HULHERE: We will prepare some language and bring it back to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great idea. Thank you. MR. PRESSMAN: Allow me to add a quick comment to that. Mr. Hancock brought up a good point. I'll just indicate to you that generators don't mean you're going to have gas. What means you're going to have gas is where the storm comes in, if you're going to be a distribution route, if you're going to be able to get gas out of there at all and where the trucks are, and that all changes per each individual emergency, and Mr. Hancock was correct when you -- I would suggest to you in the greatest -- with the greatest liberty that the best defense is to have stores that are prepared for or wired for the generator, because they bring the generators in and go to those different sites where there is distribution. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: And if thatws not a terribly expensive thing, Mr. Mulhere, we might want to do that -- why wouldn't we want to do that every place; not just at the interstates, but if it's -- MR. MULHERE: We'll provide some language, and you take a look at it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just a matter of cross breakers is all that is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Category two storm, the interstate is the first place you'll be getting gas anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Moving on, we have an amendment to the communication tower section of the Land Development Code to provide setback situations for towers of less than 75 feet when located in a commercial industrial zoning district and adjacent to residential zoning districts. We also have the ability here to deal with towers in excess of 280 feet in the agricultural area on sites less than 20 acres I believe under a conditional use provision by the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. MR. NINO: The next amendment deals with exemptions from the platting and subdivision regulations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those look just great to me. MR. NINO: Being here all this time, I think Tom won't speak to them unless you have any questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about, Tom, if we just liked what you did -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is that all right? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's great. Thank you. MR. NINO: However, there is a modification with respect to the time in which it takes effect. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good, because that's the only thing I had a real issue with, Tom, is that you fix that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, you would have done it already. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're too reliable, Mr. Kuck. MR. NINO: Should do it by June the 1st. MR. MULHERE: I just want to add that the board directed many of these changes as a result of the ability for property owners to come in and subdivide into the mini farm type scenarios without any oversight from the board, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a great -- MR. NINO: That takes us to Page 73. On Page 73, this amendment gives the county the ability to require a developer of a lot on a public street that doesn't have a sidewalk to install a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Done. MR. NINO: Heretofore, we were not able to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. MR. NINO: The next item deals with -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pickworth's client. MR. NINO: The next item deals with the removal of protected vegetation. Would you like to -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Actually, it's the next one that I'm dealing with, but I can speak to this issue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are going to tell someone who is removing non-native vegetation, they have to replace it one for one? MR. MULHERE: It previously -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What am I missing there? That -- I mean, we tell them they have to remove it, and then we tell them they have to replace it with native vegetation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just please remove it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's overly cumbersome. MR. HULHERE: It previously was more cumbersome than that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we ought to remove this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometimes what you don't know is a good thing around here. That -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do too. If we're going to require them to remove, that's fine, but I don't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that mean if they have six Helaleuca on-site, and they remove them -- this is not exotics. It's non- native. MR. HULHERE: Right, it's non-native. The situation here was one of -- previously, they were required to replant to the same size and caliber of the existing vegetation, which, obviously, was very costly. What we are trying to do is encourage people to remove the non-native vegetation by requiring them to replace those trees on a one-to-one basis but only to the minimum size required by code. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't we just let them remove them? Why do we -- what's wrong with just letting them remove non-native vegetation? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they remove them, can they replace them in the landscape buffer or do they have to replace them in place or - MR. HULHERE: No, they don't have to replace them in place; anywhere on the site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds remarkably like an anti-republican more government thing -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Really. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I'd like to see it -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It really does. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me point out, everybody has seen how Helaleuca fields expand, and they get on about one foot centers. If you're going to take all of those Helaleucas out -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it doesn't involve exotics. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is not exotics. MR. HULHERE: I think I can give you an example that -- there are examples where non -- today, non-native -- what is required or specified as non-native today were used as required landscaping 10 or 15 years ago, and if you allow someone to take up those trees and not replace them, you will not have the type of landscape buffer that this county is -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Used to. MR. HULHERE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, technically, a non-native tree are the poinsettia trees. MR. HULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why would we encourage them to take those out? MR. HULHERE: Sometimes -- we get a lot of requests to take out certain non-native trees that people feel have become a nuisance. They're dropping things on cars or something like that, and they want to take them out and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And all this is saying is replace them with about the same size unless it's not available, and then -- MR. MULHERE: Right. Not even the same size that's existing, but the size that's required by code, minimum size that's required by code. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a little more reasonable than what I -- how I originally read it, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I was confusing non-native and exotic -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Me too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- when I first opened it up. MR. NINO: The next item deals with administrative exceptions for agricultural -- agricultural areas for native vegetation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with Mr. Pickworth on this language. Is this what the planning commission approved and said was -- they wanted to move ahead on? MR. MULHERE: Yes, the planning commission recommended approval -- there have been some minor changes from what the planning commission saw, and I'll explain those to you. We simply clarified to a greater extent in the first part of that paragraph exactly what is meant by bona fide agricultural uses. Bona fide agricultural uses are exempt from the native preservation requirements, and we natrowed the focus on that to specify, as you'll see in there, crop raising, dairy farming, horticulture, et cetera, et cetera. The second part of that amendment is the portion of the amendment that the EAB had some concern with but which the planning commission recommended approval of staff's language on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: EAB as a whole? MR. HULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, the majority of the EAB did not like this second -- MR. HULHERE: Correct, and I can tell you that their concern over it was that they felt that a process that required some higher level of review other than administrative is the appropriate process for that. The staff's position was -- and I just want to give you a brief history of it. This issue came up as a result of looking at the only existing cemetery in Collier County, which is running out of space and which you want to continue to bury, obviously, deceased individuals. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We hope. Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We were getting a little worried there. MR. HULHERE: But they are constrained by the preservation requirements, and I thought, gee, maybe that's an essential service. Well, it's not an essential service, and it's privately -- it's a commercial enterprise, in fact, but it is one that I believe, not a pun intended, but somewhat passive in nature, and it seemed to me that it would be appropriate that we restrict to some extent where we could the preservation -- that we alleviate them from the preservation requirements. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Preserving the trees, oh, yeah. MR. HULHERE: And beyond that, I thought there might be some essential services within the agricultural district -- this is limited only to the agricultural district -- where administratively we might review, and if they could provide a bona fide public use associated with that essential service, and presumably there would be one, they could ask for a reduction in all or in part, and that we would administratively grant that. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got no problem with that myself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm the one who usually agrees with the EAB, so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neither do I. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. NINO: Finally, we have some definition assumed revisions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Especially defining a mobile home. MR. NINO: Definition -- the current definition -- there's some concern that the current definition allowed mobile homes in single family zoning districts. This attempt is to clarify that that indeed COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. MR. NINO: -- that's not to be permitted. Ms. Student has -- MS. STUDENT: I just need to make a comment. I believe it's in the section about the sidewalks, and in the last sentence there is the use of the word remonstrance, and what the author really meant was that they could get a waiver from those provisions and there weren't any criteria in them either. So, that's being redrafted and should come back to you at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: Again, we have a definition where it constitutes a construction sign, and we like that definition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's pretty straight. MR. NINO: And we have -- we're proposing some additional -- replacing the cross-sectional street requirements to reflect the increased width for sidewalks and sidewalk locations on two sides of the street and bike lane conditions, and you have in your packet all of the replacement that will be replacement street cross sections. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: DSAC reviewed those? MR. NINO: Yes. No objection from CCPC or DSAC, and that ends the number -- that ends the section of proposed amendments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, are there any formalities we need to proceed through at this point or can we just wrap this up? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. Mr. Weigel, is there anything that we need to technically do at this point? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I think it's always appropriate to mention when the next meeting is going to be held notwithstanding it is advertised separately. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next meeting of this board regarding the Land Development Code will be held on June 24th at 5:05 p.m. If there's nothing further to come before this board, we stand adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn H. Breehne