Loading...
Exhibit CCC BCC Minutes 9-24-96REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:13 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Constantine CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Pamela S. Mac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney & OF project drainage system in order to accommodate for those types of flows. So basically, we're in agreement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds reasonable. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: --motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: --motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 96-56 RE PETITION PUD-96-3, DAVID S. WILKISON OF WILKISON ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING SAL ANGILERI, REQUESTING A REZONING CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD AND I-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER - ADOPTED WITH THE GAS STATION REMOVED, BUT GENERAL AND MEDICAL USES TO BE ALLOWED FOR TRACTS "B" AND "C" AND CHANGES TO THE PUD Next item is --Mr. Milk, it's your turn now PUD-96-3. MR. MILK: Good afternoon. For the record my name is Bryan Milk, and I am presenting Petition PUD-96-3. This is the third public hearing for this agenda item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, Mr. Milk, and something I wanted to chat with you about. that's --that's This is the third public hearing. We've heard the presentation. Is there anything new that we have not heard before? MR. MILK: No, sir. I just wanted to bring to your attention and make sure that you received a revised PUD document with the strikeout and underline version, which would show the two new exhibits of the architectural rendering of the wall at the northern property boundary and the rendering of the Racetrac gasoline station and other concerns expressed during the two previous hearings that were also outlined in here as underlines. And that's basically the comment; I wanted to make sure that everybody had that document so that we were all at the same level of conversation with the petitioners. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you referring to this handout? MR. MILK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got it. MR. MILK: If I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No board member has any specific questions at this time. Let's go to the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Duval Evans. Mr. Evans. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For the public speakers --for the benefit of those public speakers who may not have been here before, we allow five minutes for you to give your presentation and ask that you please be concise. You don't necessarily have to use all five minutes if you don't want to. MR. EVANS: Thank you. My name is Duval Evans, and I'm representing the Pine Ridge Chevron on Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge Road. As I've stated before in letters and also before the commission that I don't feel like the market will stand another gasoline and convenience store. As you know, when Vanderbilt Beach Road goes through, that's going to take a awful lot of local traffic off the Pine Ridge Road, and I just really can't see where --that the market And way, the will bear any more convenience stores or gas stations out there. I feel like that there's a lot of people here that feel the same and I thank you for your time. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bonness. Mr. Riley, you'll follow Mr. Bonness. MR. BONNESS: Joe Bonness. I don't believe anybody can logically say that 24-hour commercial won't have a major impact on value of the home sites on Livingston Wood --in Livingston Wood Estates; that's a given. The fact is that only three houses have been built across from that activity center in fear of what might develop. To quantitate the loss, look at Mrs. Brown's petition that was just before you last week. Mrs. Brown was asking for impact fees to be dropped as low-income housing. She's in this neighborhood at this point. Her lot was purchased for just a mere $18,000. Her lot is a --just about square. It's 230 feet by 189 feet, just under an acre. That's a pretty good-sized lot to be able to build on. She's selling --or she got her lot for less than half the value of what is generally going out for the per-acre cost of lots in the area. What sets her aside from everybody else? It's against I-75. That's a 24-hour traffic operation. That's the same impact that is proposed in this PUD. This PUD may have the impact on the adjoining properties of lessening their value by close to one half. That might be close to a million dollars in property loss --value loss. The petitioner will point out this is an activity center he has a right to develop and threaten lawsuits if --if he's denied. in for At stake for the neighborhood, maybe a million, two million dollars property value. At stake for the petitioner is a million-dollar contract or more; and if denied, he could still go out and build --at some other use. He'd still recuperate his value. But there's also a third party to the --this; that's the rest of Collier County. This is the entrance to Collier County. What is built here can affect everyone's value. affect everybody's The future -- How it affects traffic and causes congestion can life. the Future Land Use Element deals with these questions. mixed Where activity centers are designated, their and various uses shall be determined during the rezoning process. Rezoning is not a given. There are eight factors to consider during the rezoning that will determine what is acceptable use. Among them are the location of existing zoned and developed land. quadrant This 2 an 360 is is a low-density residential; while in the area around it, for the mile radius, there's 6 gas stations 20 more --and more 24-hour commercial places. Number two, consider the existing pattern of land use. Pine Ridge Road has developed as a traffic corridor. It's major arterial --it's a major arterial to get to and from work, and it's excava --evacuation route. Number three, what's the market demand? The market for this convenience store --for convenience and gas has not only been met, but it's also flooded. Adequacy of infrastructure. Whippoorwill Lane is the only alternate access to Livingston Wood Estates at this time. If commercial is put here, the access will be down to one access for home sites and a school with no alternative until Livingston Road developed; and when is that going to be developed? Who knows. Compatibility and buffering. This use is definitely not compatible. There are only a handful of places in this county where low-density residential and adjoining commercial is up against each other, and only two of those are --are 24 hour. The one that is almost --the closest in --in zoning difference like this is the 7-Eleven and Kenny Rogers at 41 and Pine Ridge Road. That's separated To by a huge lake against the residential land that's adjoining it. accept this PUD would definitely be a precedent. Other relevant factors. This is the entrance to Naples, a chance to put our best foot forward. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Bonness, may I interrupt you, because you and I met this morning and talked about that MR. BONNESS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: --and you mentioned that 41, Kenny Rogers. You've discovered that there is another one in Collier County. Where is it? sort and MR. BONNESS: The other one would be the --the Mr. G's that's out in Golden Gate Estates, and of course, that is there because of the need for commercial out in the middle of Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not familiar with that one. MR. BONNESS: Yeah. It's that small convenience store-gas station, and the need was definitely necessary for some of commercial in the area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's on Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. BONNESS: Okay. Well, I thank you for your time on this. Take a --a close look at it. This is an evacuation route, it definitely needs consideration. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Riley. Then Ms. Madigan, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. RILEY: Hi, Commissioners. For the record, again, Bob Riley. I'm a resident of Livingston Woods. I live on Bottlebrush Lane, two streets in back of the proposed activity center. The only had thing I wanted to come back and mention was the security issue and living conditions that both Commissioner Constantine and Mr. Milk alluded to, that living conditions will not be better, in my opinion, the with a activity center with this much activity and people being on premises. We see a lot of squad cars in our neighborhood right now with people trying to break into automobiles on 75 then run to our neighborhood. I can't get information about propose --on our streets specifically, but we still and all --still see these squad cars. So in making the best decision and the right decision, that's what we're of in here appealing to you today to do, and we thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Madigan. And then Mr. and Ms. Yoke. MS. MADIGAN: I have some handouts. Can you -- MR. DORRILL: Sure. I'll do them. MS. MADIGAN: May I put these up? I'm a little vertically challenged here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a part of the county manager's contract; he's got to be at least 6'3". MS. MADIGAN: I can't apply then, can I? I'm going to put this down. Well, we meet again for the third time, and I think a lot of information has been passed and presented to the group, all us. And I must say I think it's been a very positive experience, because I, for one, find when the developer is so willing to give to the need or to your requests that you ask --to architectural standards without such a zoning, shall I say, or requirement, I find that very encouraging. And --take a deep breath, Ellie. After the last meeting, September or --that was September 10th, I left here a little perplexed in that I heard some of the commissioners comment that they were still concerned about --not concerned, but they still had questions in their minds about the compatibility of having a 24-hour gas station adjacent to a low-density resident (sic) and also the idea of how are we going to stop the prolification (sic) of gasoline, or shall I say fueling stations, along this corridor. The day after the last meeting, I heard Mr. Hancock on, I think, it was WINK-TV --made a comment that said the board -- and I hope I'm I'm going to quote you, Mr. Hancock --the board needs to entertain the concept of limiting the number of fueling stations in an area so not as (sic) to create a gasoline alley. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. MS. MADIGAN: Is that correct? Thank you. So I said to myself, well, how many gas stations are we looking at here? So I went and down to the planning development department at Horseshoe --on Horseshoe Drive, and I spoke with the planner on duty for the day, I have presented you with some of the information that I collected that day down there. The green --just to explain my --my map and charts, the green represents five PUDs on record, approved, undeveloped, all allowing at least one more gas station. The blue represents the existing gas stations. And I placed the red in there; to you We in that was a request for a gas station a couple years ago that was turned down for various reasons by the board. And I colored yellow be the --the present site. Now, we have three. I'm looking at five PUDs who have undeveloped property that each can have a fueling station. I ask --that's a possible eight. Why do we need to change the rules? have a plan. We're changing the rules to add --I shouldn't say change the rules. We're change --there's a request to change the zoning to add another gas station. I think the need is certainly satisfied. I think an activity center is to --is to serve the traveling public, one of its uses. When you're traveling down the road and you want to stop, what do --what do you think of? Gas station, food, sleep. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bathrooms. MS. MADIGAN: the gas station. (Laughter) Well, that's in the convenience part of MS. MADIGAN: And my husband and I have a joke about it. I --he said information. I said, "That's only if a woman is so the car, because a man will not ask for directions." But anyway, when I look at this --I'm done. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. and Ms. Yoke. MS. YOKE: That would be just me. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And then Ms. Rudnicki. MS. YOKE: Livingston Wood. these For the record, Kena Yoke. I'm a resident of I have to laugh. My son has been to more of meetings than probably that's half the people in Collier County, but very get to by sort how it is. The public meetings are held during the day when it's difficult for a majority of the public to get here. It's hard to baby-sitters and day care during the day if you keep your child at home, and that's what I do in the neighborhood behind where they're proposing the gas station. The map clearly shows that there's plenty of gas stations going to be available, already approved, for anybody who wants to put a gas station on there. We're concerned about crime, transients, public welfare, inundation of gas stations. We'd like see a more mixed use in the area. It's surrounded on three sides estates zoning and itself is estates zoning. Across the street is heavy commercial. We're asking for your consideration of more of a transition area than one estate-zoned lot. We need to have some of low-commercial zoning that would work across Pine Ridge and maybe to C-5 on the other side. There are gas stations on the other side. There's gas stations on the corner. There's gas stations if they turn around. Something more along the lines of a nine to five or nine to nine, something that wouldn't allow people to hang around, enter the neighborhood, walk around at all hours of the night. It's bad enough and now with dead-end --with kids in the neighborhood coming in. streets. It's a closed-off neighborhood. We've got They come in they drink beer on the end of our streets. The cops have been really to in good about addressing some of those concerns, and we're glad that a lot is not the kids in our neighborhood. But we have to be very concerned about the type of transients that will come and get right off of 75 and have access to 24-hour refreshments and a nice place enjoy a few beers sitting in our neighborhood. So, you know, if you could consider something that wouldn't be 24 hours, convenience, something --banks. We're not denying them the commercial use of their property at all. We're asking for your consideration in making sure that it is compatible transitions into the C-5 zoning across the street. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Rudnicki then Mr. Madigan. MS. RUDNICKI: Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners -- fellow commissioners --Commissioners. One of the items that was brought up in the July 16th meeting was whether the proposed change would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, and Joe Bonness addressed that talking about values of property. I would like to address that this morning with a little bit different flavor. I would like to present you with crime statistics from January of 1995 through August 31st of 1995 as compared to crime statistics from January 1996 through August 31st of 1996. I chose those dates so that we would compare apples to apples. statistics are presented is a 2-mile that The area for which the crime stretch of Pine Ridge Road goes from Logan Boulevard to Airport Pulling Road. That's all. did not, on this sheet that I'm presenting you, report any statistics for which the occurrence of the crime was one. Everything is larger than one. The crime statistics are broken into two major sections: Those I that are truly crimes that have an incident number according to the sheriff's department, and those that are not considered to be crimes. not of You can see from 1995 to 1996, theft, all types of theft, up 100 percent; battery, up 200 percent; burglary, up 167 percent; criminal mischief, up 300 percent; traffic accidents did change; and carrying a concealed weapon actually went down 300 percent. For those statistics that I'm showing you, the increase crimes during those two time frames is 57 percent. The "all" in parentheses is all crimes, including the ones I did not report because the incident was one, up 41 percent. Under noncrimes, the ones that 67 up worry me the most for my neighborhood are suspicious incident, up percent; suspicious vehicle, up 67 percent; and suspicious person, 83 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what that --what that is? I mean, what's a suspicious person? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Someone running around casing the place. MS. RUDNICKI: It's someone who called the police because there is a person that they are worried about. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MS. RUDNICKI: That's what a suspicious person is, behaving suspiciously, warranting enough of a worry for COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody called the sheriff and said, "I'm worried about this vehicle; check it out." MS. RUDNICKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. RUDNICKI: And that's why it's an incident and not a crime. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MS. RUDNICKI: The noncrime thefts went down by 57 percent, but overall, all of the noncrime statistics --noncrime incidents, were up 16 percent. Now, the major change to this neighborhood across those 2 miles was the addition of two gas stations. I'm sorry. The Mobil station opened in February of 1995, me you says and the Chevron gas station opened 12-1-95. I don't want to forget the addition of the Vineyards Shopping Center and the homes there. The crimes are a worry. They impact our neighborhood. They impact personally, and I don't want this to happen to my neighborhood. Bringing in more 24-hour commercial investments, commercial opportunities, will continue to increase this crime rate. Thank for your time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: station opened 12-1-95? MS. RUDNICKI: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: ninety -- MS. RUDNICKI: 12-1-95. Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: station? I'm sorry. Did you say the Shell That was a SuperAmerica back in The Chevron gas station opened Okay. What was the other gas MS. RUDNICKI: The Mobil gas station over in the Vineyards opened 2-95. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought you said Shell. MS. RUDNICKI: No, I didn't. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies. MS. RUDNICKI: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Madigan. And then it's either Mr. Barns or Mr. Bartis, Thomas J. MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have, as a matter of record, on July 16th on page --in Book 00, page 157, under Item 12(B) (2) --I'd like to quote from this. It says the Petition PUD 96-3 --and it goes on to the petitioners. And it continued to 8-13-96, as long as the petition does not come back with a gas station or convenience store as part of that application. It's my understanding that the application --the applicants have returned this you with plans for a gas station and convenience store despite what says here. The board has heard extensive testimony regarding this PUD. Part of this testimony included the implication by the petitioners' legal counsel to pursue legal action against you if deny their petition because of petition. Please don't vote to approve this PUD the threat of --that denial will cause legal action in against you. To do so would be a denial of your responsibility of oversight for the planning and zoning in Collier County. To vote favor of this PUD because of this implied threat of legal action will is his use, encourage every petitioner to threaten legal action if denied. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just let you know they already do. MR. MADIGAN: If that should happen COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They already do and we ignore them. MR. MADIGAN: Okay. If that should happen, you have lost your responsibility of oversight. And I'd like to bring up a statement that was made by Mr. Anderson in his legal argument. It says he --under the principals of the City of Sanibel versus Goode and the City of Clearwater versus College Properties where zoning so restrictive that it deprives the owner of any marketable use of property --and the estates zoning deprives him of a marketable there are --none of the residents of Livingston Woods are requesting are This or arguing that this should not be zoned commercial property. We arguing, as we have said many times, against a gas station and a convenience store operated 24 hours. And I'd like to point out on this map --one thing that wasn't covered is --my understanding -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Microphone, sir. MR. MADIGAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have to be on the microphone. There's one right behind you. MR. MADIGAN: Thank you. My understanding is that this PUD on this --what would be the southeast corner, is currently planned for either the Cleveland Clinic or the Columbia Clinic, and you will notice that adjacent to that on both --on two boundaries contiguous are estates zoning. Those are all residential areas. is Livingston Woods (indicating), and we propose that this development be in this area that has not already been zoned or authorized as a PUD also limited commercial use as this piece of property is currently limited. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Barns (phonetic) and then Miss Fehr. MR. BARTIS: Good afternoon. I'm Tom Bartis; I live at 6641 Livingston Woods Lane. Excuse me. I am the neighbor next door to the Falls, who seem to have withdrawn their objection to this PUD. No one ever approached me about it personally, and I have to tell you that I am still vehemently against this PUD, and I would ask all of you to consider very carefully your thoughts and considerations having to do with that. I have to tell you that having just been a resident here in Naples and Collier County for two years, if I had known that even Pine this kind of thing was going to take place, I would never have purchased in the area; and I find myself now having deep regrets having to put up with this much of a hassle. I would further ask Mr. Hancock, beseech him, to use the same sage observations he did on the corner of Airport Road and Ridge when he so criticized the buildings that were there and to consider what this Raceway (sic) gasoline station would do to the neighborhood up on Pine Ridge. It's not needed; it's not applicable; and therefore, I do respectfully ask all of you to consider very carefully this item which is going to affect the entire county. Thank you. all my MR. DORRILL: Miss Fehr. MS. FEHR: My name is Sandra Fehr. I live at 6911 Livingston Woods Lane. I just live a few doors down from the Falls and the gentleman that just spoke. My main concern is that with these gas stations being built around my property, that my value of home is going to decrease and also that what you know, I don't care experts say. will I don't think that my val the value of my home increase with a gas station just across the street. And also with if you let this one in, I know for a fact there's going to be another two that I know of that will come in. And what's stopping everybody else from putting another gas station? You say that you have no authority to tell people what to do on their property, which is good the you in one way, but it is your responsibility. You represent the -- people, the majority of the people, and if --and the majority say that then they don't want a gas station, I feel that you should, know, at least say no to this gas station because of the effect that it probably will --another two that I know of will come in. you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Milk. Thank Mr. Milk, is there --other than Livingston Road, is there any connection between any of that strip of commercial properties and Livingston Woods Lane? MR. MILK: At this point, no, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is it contemplated in this application that there would be? MR. MILK: No, sir. the of to CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So if someone comes into this property --if it would be approved --they still can't drive into neighborhood -- MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: --from that property? MR. MILK: That's correct. It would prohibit --this PUD would prohibit access to Livingston Woods Lane. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have that in the other properties that have some approval, or do you know or --not part your review? MR. MILK: As far as the Naples Gateway PUD, I'm not sure on that. As far as the master plan was unveiled, it does not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The master plan does not. MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago I mentioned my concern and my unhappiness with the fact that we seem have changed direction between July and --and that public hearing. But I want to just quickly review the primary objections I had at that one July meeting, since it's been a couple of months. First, is suitability, and that would be under 2.7.3.2.5 of our Land Development Code. And there are three very specific questions, and I think Mr. Bonness covered them fairly well; but of those, is it possible to find other adequate sites for the service, and quite obviously it is in this case. One is, does this fulfill the need of the county and/or of the neighborhood. And I think maybe Mr. Evans was the best example that it's not fulfilling a need. And, again, I know we can't get into the economic development side of that, but I think, since that appears of Pine the any in our own Land Development Code, that's a --an appropriate application, that the need is not there. And finally, the consistency, and I think it was Mrs. Yoke said that no one is denying the idea of --of developing this as a commercial tract. The suggestion is that it be some sort transitional between the heavy intense use on the south side of Ridge and what's on the north side. And that takes us to 2.7.2.5, which deals specifically with the use and the intensity and all. If --if you look on that map, there is nothing to the east and nothing to the west, and on north you have one home per 2.25 acres. The only place you have intensity is on the south side, on the south of Pine Ridge. I think there is a very valid point that if we go ahead and approve --approve this use, we'd have a hard time not approving the same use in any one of those parcels that is not fulfilled there or when that Gateway comes back under our sunset provision. And I think it's a valid argument that you need a transitional use in between; and the fact is, if we do not create a transitional use as part of this public hearing and this public petition, we're not going the with the a a to be able to on the others. And while I understand that some of agreements that Mr. Anderson has made will rise --will bring the level of future petitions up, what they're required to do, it still allows that intense use. And I just --I think it's in concert what we've done elsewhere in the county, and that is retain some transition between heavy and light uses, and I'd like to see us do same here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If anybody needs --has any more questions for either the petitioner or the staff -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have some questions for staff, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Otherwise I'll close --when you're through, I'll close the public hearing, although I see Mr. Anderson has something he wants to add. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Milk, these maps that were handed out and have all this green on them --I'm --I'm more than little bit concerned. Is this accurate that there is another gas station allowable at the Crossroads? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And there's another gas station allowable at the PUD -- MR. MILK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: MR. MILK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: --across the street from Napa --Napa Road? MR. MILK: That's an accurate map, Pine Ridge Center West, Pine Ridge Center, and Naples Gateway. That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That --that -- MR. MILK: That's based on the permitted principal uses within those PUDs itself. That's why that's explained like that. That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, of course, that doesn't mean that a gas station will be built, but it does indicate there's permitted use for it. MR. MILK: That's correct, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: May I ask a question that --that folds into that? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was left with two predominant concerns that need to be answered before a vote can be taken today, and the second of that is the proliferation of gas stations along this corridor. My first reaction is that when you deal with a certain type can of use and a certain intensity of use, we, as a board --my understanding of --of land-use law, limited albeit, is that you limit certain types of uses. those You can limit the extent to which the good uses are allowed within the confines of certain areas. My question, Mr. Weigel of overlays or --or and this is a little on spot. But if we were to look at interchange activity centers as a whole in our Growth Management Plan and determine that there is a reasonable number of fueling stations due to their unique operating characteristics that should be allowed and no more than a certain number, do you feel that that type of an amendment would have a chance of withstanding a legal land-use challenge? MR. WEIGEL: I'll defer to my spot-question answerer, Miss Student. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially in consideration of the legislation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll tell you --I'll tell you my --my feeling is that when we --when we said interchange activity centers, I think our planning staff was anticipating that that a spreading of uses --of varied uses throughout, not 16 fuel gas stations. Something such as one in each quadrant or four total, I think, was part of that rationale; and what the folks in Livingston Woods are dealing with is not just this one, but is this the domino effect. By opening the gate are there going to be three more right next to it? That's a reasonable concern. We need to find a way to limit that, not just for them, but other interchange activity centers and can we do so successfully -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It may --if I could just add to the question --and --and your question, because of the existence of these green PUDs has to be, could we take away from these green PUDs on the to their current right to build a gas station by imposing this overlay the interchange. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I understand understood your question to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm asking can we make amendments to the Growth Management Plan that says this number is maximum, and if they come in and build and --before that number is achieved, so be it; and if they don't, so be it, but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think Miss Student understands the question. Let's let her answer it. MS. STUDENT: I think that as long as we have some data and analysis, the growth --and you're talking about an amendment the Growth Management Plan; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MS. STUDENT: Okay. There is broad requirements under that and the more law the Growth Management Act and Rule 9J-5 which flushes it out and implements it a little more. If you would and I think anytime there's some sort of rational basis --and again, that's the reason for the data and analysis requirement --that we, you know, could possibly sustain that. Again, it's --without doing some research so forth in this area, it's hard to give you a concrete answer on spot. And also to answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, I feel that where there's already existing zoning, we will have a difficult problem taking away a land use, if you will. The case used to be prior to the Private Property Rights Act, which was enacted a couple years ago by the Florida legislature, that zoning without it was sort of a vested-rights-type of question. Zoning without more gave you nothing. that So it was sort of, if you will, crapshoot at Act, point; however, with the enactment of the Private Property Rights where there is a reasonable investment-backed expectation --and, again, this is being flushed out. There's no real cases under this yet, but a property owner may be able to sustain a challenge under that, in which case the local government has to get out the checkbook a is and pay the property owner for the value of the right that he lost, difference between the value of the land prior to and after -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is my question: So in translation, if we imposed a --an overlay district that said three the magic number or five is the magic number for gas stations in this area and there are three already and this guy builds one and this guy builds one, you know, the other four or five property owners that currently are zoned for a gas station can make us buy their property yet can or case if we take away their gas station use? MS. STUDENT: If I might --that's --that's arguable because this law is new. There's no reported cases that I know of under it, because it's a long drawn-out process in the court if it ever get to a court of appeals, but there's an argument there. But there's also an argument where you have PUD zoning. There's a case called the Porpoise Point case. Because it's somewhat contractual consensual in nature that --the local government can have some difficulty if there's a land use that was already put in the PUD, perhaps, in taking it out. Again, that's arguable because that dealt with a local government's imposition of a PUD zoning on a property owner's property who did not want it. But under that general but of heading --these are all arguable --there's no cases yet on that, there are arguments that could be made. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the difficulty in arbitrarily removing a use from someone's property; however, at least a couple are due back to us starting next month under sunset provisions, so we're going to have an opportunity to look at some these existing PUDs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if there was action on the part of this board with justification that a certain type of use should be limited in geographic areas for the benefit of the community initiated prior to that look, I think we have a nexus to make that argument when we --when we review those individual PUDs. I just - the idea that there could be a case or, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, they can make us buy their property, I disagree. MS. STUDENT: It's arguable. It's arguable under that law. There's a very drawn-out procedure that could go on for years. a COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Communities have outlawed stores of certain sizes and --and --and defended it successfully, so I think there is some -- MS. STUDENT: But your question had to do with the Growth Management Plan amendment and --and that's somewhat different. And then, of course, when you deal with that, you have whole scenario that was raised, what, almost nine years ago now when you changed the Growth Management Plan. Again, vesting and these come but questions of vesting and so forth, anytime there's a change, they up; and you know, we need to see how we would deal with that also, so I think there's enough data analysis you could do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's let Mr. Anderson say his final words here. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. I can't resist the temptation to comment on these good questions that you've been asking. Number one, with existing PUDs, may I suggest that you use the same approach that you have used so successfully with this petitioner, and that's called carrot and stick. You don't necessarily need to adopt a new set of massive regulations but use a carrot and stick to get what you want when they come in before you. Secondly, the question about amending the Comprehensive Plan to place a limit on the number in each activity center. What you're talking about, essentially, all stripped away is first-come-first-served, and that may be a little more defensive. We've all suffered through three emotional hearings on this petition, and it's supposed to be a fact-based application hearing process. I do not wish to needlessly prolong this hearing with a summation of the facts and remind you of all the stipulations that we've agreed to and extra things. However, if any of you, with the exception of Commissioner Constantine, are not ready to vote to approve this PUD, please let me know now so I can answer your questions and try to convince you to vote for approval. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm having difficulty because of all of these green parcels and the fact that they're already gas-station approved. And at this point, at least until they come back to this board in sunset provisions, we have no control over them at this point in time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me offer an observation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm concerned about that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me offer an observation and we've heard here in these three public hearings a couple of statements. One of them is that the gas stations that are out there are not profitable, and they're not economically viable. If you put in another one, it's going to be the same and make everything worse, and you'll have another losing proposition on this same area. We also hear another statement that if this is approved, there'll be three, four, five more gas stations go in. But you see, those two arguments gas are mutually exclusive arguments. that. The free market society economically feasible and what is The marketplace will not allow the marketplace dictates what is not. If --if somebody builds a station and they're all going broke, there's not going to be a big rush of people building gas stations. It's just not going to happen. is of So, you know, that's an observation that sort of goes to your question. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand, you know, the theory behind that. Unfortunately, theories don't always work. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, not only that, it goes back to our own code and need within the county, within the neighborhood; and you know, you have the two arguments. The need one, and as you look at where these greens are with the exception the Gateway, which is due to come back to us soon, none of the others are backing up against a neighborhood like this, and so I go back to the transitional argument. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, and as to --as to market out analysis and market being a driving force, I mean, I can't help but every time I drive out to the eastern end of Immokalee Road out around Orangetree, that Randall Boulevard Commercial Center still, after five years, is vacant. I mean, certainly somebody did a market but analysis that said that that commercial space was --was needed, obviously it's not. It's still vacant. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's no more questions, then I'll close the public hearing. MR. ANDERSON: I --I'd like to --to point out that the market study that we were required by the Comprehensive Plan to submit your at with this application concludes that there is a market demand for a convenience store-service station at this location, particularly because of its easy accessibility to the interstate and because Access Management Plan calls for a traffic signal to be installed the corner of this property. One of the reasons that this site was specifically chosen by Racetrac was because they felt that this would be the best get location for safe turning movements for people coming off the interstate. Because if they're coming off the exit ramp the way things are today, they have to cut across four lanes of traffic to over to the Sutherland Plaza. Soon it will be six lanes of traffic. If the Racetrac station is built in this location, there's not going to be any of that traffic cutting over trying to get over there as you're exiting the interstate. You're simply going to make a right-hand turn at the traffic signal. So there is a legitimate public-safety reason for --for wanting to go at this location as opposed to some of those others. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion to deny the petition based on 2.7.3.2.5 and on 2.7.2.5 do as outlined in my earlier comments. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask some I mean, this is --this is very difficult. more questions? Mr. Milk, when --when these PUDs come back to this board for sunsetting or whatever it is that we're supposed to do with them? MR. MILK: Approximately two months. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In approximately two months? MR. MILK: That would be the Naples Gateway PUD, the Pine Ridge Center PUD, and Pine Ridge Center West PUD. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Sutherland is coming back already in two weeks. MR. MILK: I believe we COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I think we've already given notice that we're going to open the whole thing up. And the --and the Vineyards PUD will come back when? MR. MILK: Well, that's a DRI so that's vested. some a COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's vested? MR. MILK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's also constructed. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No, there's more. MR. MILK: That particular green there --there's about 20 acres there that's unconstructed at this point. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. But there's a there's a teeny little green space on Vineyards Boulevard -- MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: --that's also approved; and that's vested? MR. MILK: Well, that whole area is about 40-some-odd acres there at the Vineyards. As it is there's a plaza, there's outparcels for development for office, possibly gasoline stations, mixture of C-3 uses. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Realistically, a gas station -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As we --as we go through the reevaluation process and the sunset provision --I guess this is a Miss Student question. Are there limitations on our ability to say we're going to remove gas station uses from these four PUDs, for example -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, either that or we let them sunset. We don't extend them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what is the process? MS. STUDENT: I don't have the code here with me. There's --there's criteria in the code for the sunset. As I recall, a certain percentage of infrastructure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not like that, Bettye. MS. STUDENT: --has to be in. I think one of the things that you will need to look at is if they are vested. My memory fails me right now as to whether or not if it's a DRI that --along with the PUD that's a whole 'nother scenario. I think they may be exempt. And then countervailing this, again, you still have the Private Property Rights Act considerations that go a little bit beyond the the vesting, you know, if you will, kind of, you know, staring you in face. Again, as I stated earlier, there's no case law on that, so it's just some arguments that could be made on -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe you're unable to answer the question right now, but I think -- MS. STUDENT: Well, there's criteria -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me --let me finish my question. Commissioner Matthews is pretty close, I think, in that whole idea of sunset is to give the board a review after a certain amount of time and --rather than just have it speculated out there for eternity and --and there's never any chance to look at it again. When it comes back to us for a sunset review, it is open, and we have an opportunity to deal with that. aren't My understanding is that we required to give everything that some board in 1987 or 1991 gave. So the answer is, does this board have the latitude? Yes, it does. MS. STUDENT: Yes. You can --you can look at it --as I stated there's some criteria that --in the code that deals with it, and there's some, you know, state law and common law principles that are in that as well, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what will the process be assuming that --that --that the property in question has not met the criteria to avoid sunset review and, therefore, is in front of us for review. these. Can --can we --and I think that applies to most of CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, sir? MR. MULHERE: Bob for the record, Bob Mulhere, current planning manager, and your staff is currently reviewing all of those PUDs, including those for DRis which do not meet the sunsetting provisions. We will bring back every single one of those to you with the comprehensive review COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can toss them out. MR. MULHERE: --and we can have all aspects --we'll identify for you every aspect that is inconsistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code, and we will identify those. Now, we're able to make a recommendation per the language - just a clarification of how it's going to work. We're able per the language in the LDC to make a recommendation to you to either extend those PUDs for two years, or you may request that the property owner yet amend the PUD to make it consistent. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask one other --is there one other option, and that is to not extend it at all? MR. MULHERE: No. That's not one of the options unless --unless the applicant chooses not to amend the PUD per the direction of the board within six months, then you can rezone. The code says that you can rezone the property to an appropriate zoning district. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're putting our eggs in the wrong basket here. We're trying to rely on a process that has to be ferreted out to do what's in the best interest of this community when, in fact, we have already heard --we have the tools available, a or albeit arguable, to say in interchange activities center, there is certain type of uses to an extent, and beyond that it is not acceptable by this community's standards to --to have five or six seven gas stations in an interchange activity center. That's why - that's why I --I think that's the way to go, because the difference AGO is, one, you are controlling your destiny; the other, you're just letting it be controlled by --by a state attorney's opinion or an opinion. And I just don't think we should operate that way. This particular petition needs to be decided on its individual merits, whether they exist or don't exist, and if part of that is the proliferation of gas stations, that needs to be addressed proactively by this board, not sitting on our heels and waiting for these other ones to come in and see what we can do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree and I think your point that we don't want to get to the point --whatever that number or is, five or six or seven in an activity center, but this is eight nine. And so my hope is we recognize that and that with that recognition, someone will second the motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm --I'm tempted to second it, because I'm really, really concerned about these PUDs that for be already have gas stations permitted for them. sunset analysis within 60 days, 75 days MR. MILK: That's correct. They're coming back COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: and I --I would feel a lot more comfortable about this if I knew what was going to happen with them before we tell these people --and they have a nice-looking project --to just go ahead and do it. I'm --I'm just not comfortable with this. And with that being --I've said all the reasons why, so I'm --I'm going to second it. MR. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, in light of her -- her --Mrs. Matthew's comments, I would request that our petition continued until after you have dealt with these other three PUDs that or the you --that you're going to do through the sunset-review process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If --failing that, Mr. Weigel, could they reapply, or would they be out of the process for a year two, or what's the --I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we turn them down, they're out of the process for a period of time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six months. MR. WEIGEL: If you --if you act on a motion today making a determination, yes, they'll --then they will be out of process for a while. And I --I just wanted to mention to you as get into your COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How long is a while? MR. WEIGEL: It's minimally six months. I think it's -- it may be as --as much as a year, but it's at least six months. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the purpose for the second was to find out the status and condition of the balance, even though I area as think it's wrong to keep stringing the people of Livingston Woods out COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I don't like it either. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: --if that's the purpose of the motion or the purpose for the second -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But the --the answers to your questions, Commissioner Matthews, have been given to you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't --steps we feel were appropriate to amend those PUDs given certain criteria --and I believe that criteria can include what is in --in and around the and what's more appropriate to be expanded and what is not as far uses are concerned. So I think we do have that control. I would rather be proactive than reactive on it but -- MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're left to deal with the situation that we have today. Today this is a reasonable proposal under our Growth Management Plan and our interstate activity centers contained therein, and the petitioner has given numerous concessions to protect the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I --I'm aware of that. That's why I'm so terribly troubled with this. Mr. Milk, what --what stops the sunset process? If any one of these before our development community process three PUDs were to be put (sic) in the next two weeks to --a site plan. Does that stop the sunset process? MR. MILK: They would normally come in with a site development plan for infrastructure and development of at least 15 20 percent of that project. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that stops the sunset -- MR. MILK: Well, that -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: --process? MR. MILK: --would qualify them for not being exposed COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. MILK: --to the sunsetting procedure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said construction of 15 to 25 percent of the project? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's --that's considerable. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, they'll never get that done in 60 days. MR. MULHERE: I believe that's 15 percent of the infrastructure required in the --the approved phase of the project. So they may have a phase approved if they've developed 15 percent - we have the language here; we can read it to you. But let me put it this way: I do not believe that any of those PUDs which are subject to sunsetting can qualify between now and then --between now and two months based on the review process. I don't think any of them would qualify for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we have a motion and a second on the floor. I'm going to call that question. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we --we also have --the petitioner has asked to withdraw. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That hasn't been granted. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, just one small point of information and that is with this particular motion on the floor, particularly as opposed to a motion to continue, this is a continued it hearing from before, an advertised hearing, and I would appreciate if the commissioners would just state for the record that their determinations and decisions today are based upon either the prior advertised hearings that --that you've had on this very agenda item or today's hearing, or if you have other information, just put it on the record what affects you in your decisions today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had conversations with the neighbors as recently as today, but I am absolutely basing my decision on what's in front of us today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I've had considerable outside contact in this, including a terribly insulting telefax today; however, my opinion will be based solely on the information provided during the three days of public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've had considerable input from all parties involved on this as well, written and telephone and personal contacts, but I am basing my decisions based on --specifically on what I've heard in the three public hearings. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I've had extensive contact on this. I will base my decision on the information presented in the public hearings. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I, too, have had considerable contact with both the petitioner and the neighbors, and quite frankly, my decision is based on this map that just came in today. Mr. Weigel, what's the appropriateness for a motion to table? Since I'm the second on this motion, would it be appropriate for me to motion to table? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question. Rather than continuing, Mr. Anderson, would you consider withdrawing the item? MR. ANDERSON: The entire petition, sir? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would give you the leeway to return in three months' time, and it wouldn't have the board continuing the item again. That way you wouldn't have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pay another fee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That way you wouldn't have a six-month ban if you wanted to do something with the property. be MR. ANDERSON: That's an interesting option. (Laughter) MR. ANDERSON: Could I --could you take up the next item and give me --no? MR. MILK: Can I make a comment too? During this reevaluation of the sunsetting, a petitioner like Naples Gateway or Pine Ridge Center may choose to come in and amend the PUD document itself, so that way we'd be under a whole new review of the PUD itself. It may take two or three months, maybe four depending on scheduling and not the 30 or 60 days. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the idea that we're going to amend all these things and be done with it in one afternoon is not realistic. MR. MILK: And I think --you know, we're going to let you know up front which petitions or --or what PUDs are going to recommended for a two-year extension, what are consistent and inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan, and what petitioners choose to amend their own PUDs to bring that into compliance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's fine. If someone brings it in to amend it, it still opens it up for review. MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Either way. Let me ask you though, these older PUDs have to bring up to today's standards if they're going to develop, so does that trigger some sort of a review process in your office? It automatically will, won't it? MR. MILK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No matter what they do. So --so one way or the other, they are going to have to bring those PUDs before this board. MR. MILK: What's going to happen is we're going to bring each of them back with the recommendations and comments from staff of that expertise, whether it be water management, roads, water and sewer, to comment on that and the upgrades. MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner, I have a --I have a reply for you. What we would propose is that we have --we would request a vote on the PUD with the service station and a vote on the PUD without it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want those numbers now? Because I don't think I could -- MR. ANDERSON: Well --well, I know --I know what the vote is going to be, I think, on --with the service station. I don't, however, know what it will be without the service station. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. So you want to -- after the --after the vote --after the vote on the current motion, by you're asking that another motion be made excluding the service station and have a vote on that one? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And I'd like to have office uses in place of the service station. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion on the floor to deny, and we have a second for that motion. All those in favor signify saying aye. Opposed? That motion fails. Is there a substitute motion? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That motion fails? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, the motion to deny fails. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the PUD with the substitution of office use in place of the proposed fueling station. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that general office and medical or just general? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General and medical. MR. ANDERSON: Am I understand that you have with am I --thank you. Am I to officially denied the PUD as submitted the service station? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir, we did not do that. He had requested that we vote with the service station in tact. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Then I'll withdraw my motion. MR. ANDERSON: I still want that one but just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can --we can go through the steps. In other words -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, hang on. Let me --let me take take care of running the meeting, please, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead and make your motion if you want to make a motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of Petition 96-3 as proposed with the addition that we direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Growth Management Plan limiting the number of fueling stations in interchange activity centers to a number --maximum number of four. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a second for that motion. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion fails. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will then move approval of Petition 96-3 with the change being that the gas station be removed as a permitted use in the --the southern tract. I believe that's Tract B. in MR. ANDERSON: C. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: C. Thank you. general-medical office will be inserted. In its place the COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand. Mr. Anderson, that was your request? MR. ANDERSON: Would the --would the medical office use be allowed in B and C? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'll amend it to include medical and office use in both B and C. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's your request to substitute in place of 96-3 as originally proposed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think you --I think you need to clarify your motion a little bit for me. Your intent is to exclude gas stations, period? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to exclude gas stations. However, I didn't see medical and general office as a specified use both B and C, and I would like to make those as additions to the PUD, got that B and C be allowed medical office and general office uses, but Parcel B not be allowed to have a service station. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No parcels be allowed to have COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No parcels be allowed a service station. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, can I assume that the same wall and trees and all those things that you before are still part of the motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they are a part of the PUD, which I believe they are; but some of the specific requests regarding the gas station would go away. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Item #12Cl RESOLUTION 96-443 APPROVING A RATE RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE LANDFILL TIPPING FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AND FRANCHISED COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES -ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're still having a meeting here, folks. If we could press on now, we'd appreciate it. The next item is 12(C) (1), recommendation that the Board