Loading...
Exhibit MMM CCPC Minutes 5-27-98IIIMay 27, 1998 II TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE1 PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 27, 1998 rte , LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the GovernmentG Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: b ,..` CHAIRMAN: Mike A. Davis Karen Urbanik Russell A. Budd Gary Wrage Michael J. Bruet Donald York Michael Pedone ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ron Nino, Senior Project Planner Bob Mulhere, Current Planning Manager Kti Ate. 0 r Page 1 III May 27, 1998 MS. STUDENT: That's correct although I think Ron could -- what are the acreage minimums now for PUDs? Are there any? MR. NINO: Five acres outside of an activity center. There isn' t any -- there isn' t any upper limit in an activity center. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I appreciate your point, but from a good planning perspective for our county to designate areas where we want to see these kind of uses for the future, it makes sense. And your comment that it seemed -- without the addition of this use, it seemed deficient in the CF district, I wholeheartedly agree. Does anyone have an objection to our making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that this particular item be continued to the next cycle to give the opportunity for some further study? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No objection. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I support that, Mr . Chairman. COMMISSIONER YORK: I support it. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: All right . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. With that, we will move on. Thank you all for coming. MR. NINO: Consistent with our introductory comment that we would deal with those issues for which there has been a concern expressed, that would get us to the automobile service station section. And, again, I would like to ask Bryan and Susan to introduce some changes that were made twice since your last meeting. Here' s the third one . COMMISSIONER YORK: What page number, please? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Has Mr. Anderson been involved in this process? MR. MILK: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: Pages -- pages fifty-two through -- MR. MILK: Sixty-three. MR. NINO: -- sixty-three. MR. MILK: For the record, my name is Bryan Milk. MR. NINO: Let me -- let me say that some of these changes were also the result of the meeting we had with the development services advisory subcommittee, and particularly the ones on landscaping that you have in your package were driven by that subcommittee's comments . M.R. MILK: And with that and how this has really been handled is on page one, there is a summary of your findings and your recommendations, and I will go through them briefly, where we dealt with the -- number one is the window coverage for the gasoline service station/C-store where we recommended twenty-five percent coverage, consistent with the Land Development Code. Number two talks about eliminating the corporate logo on the canopy structure altogether. Number three, we discuss the pole and/or ground signs, which would be the flexibility for the petitioner to either provide one or the other limitations, fifteen feet in height from the grade of the parking lot. Also the sentence that you do not have but you had also discussed was -- and I am going to read it for the record, delete 0 subsection 2 . 5 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 10 . 2 of the Land Development Code allowing ten Page 14 May 27 , 1998 additional square feet of signage for displaying gasoline prices . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It ' s in here. MR. MILK: Oh, it is in there? CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Uh-huh. MR. MILK: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: This must be hot off the press . MR. MILK: That ' s good. Number four was to restrict the amount, of diZectional fi(Jns on the property itself . Number five was to restrict the language at the vacuum, air and water area to a minimum -- or a maximum of four square feet in any combination. Number six talked about whether we could charge customers for air and water. That was something we had noted. Number seven was the provision of the linear distance between gasoline service station boundaries . And I think our first meeting we had showed some maps that discussed what staff had recommended, and that was a five hundred foot separation requirement from the boundary. And what I -- what we thought you-all said was that if there was a four lane or greater arterial or collector road, that that five hundred foot boundary could not be penetrated, so it would be subject to that quadrant separated by the four-lane arterial and collector. And what we -- what we did was to illustrate that graphically. 411 As an example, up here at the Pine Ridge Road and I -75 , currently there are two existing service stations . Originally staff had recommended a five hundred foot separation distance from the boundary of each station. If that was the case, then that boundary would actually extend north of Pine Ridge Road to the properties within the estates and the Angileri and unzoned property. What it currently proposes is that the two existing service stations, that distance requirement would only be linear in -- provision where it would go either east or west and south of the site . So, in fact, if a gasoline service station were tc enter into this area, that provision would not apply. And the provision -- the first fellow on the block would have the right to come in and anybody else would have to go through the exceptions or exemption status that ' s provided for . COMMISSIONER YORK: I think that ' s what we said. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Bryan, as I recall that , you have phrased our thoughts real well on that -- that the linear separation across -- and I agree, arterial four-lane highway. MR. MILK: Arterial and collector . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Collector, yeah. MR. MILK: And it 's also very noticeable down here at Pine Ridge Road and Airport-Pulling Road where basically there are POD zoning districts and conventional zoning districts . If you were to pull that back, it would actually leave the northeast and the southwest intersection available for an additional station. Hopefully that represents that recommendation clearly. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And once again, Bryan, it only applies to Page 15 411 May 27, 1998 activity centers? MR. MILK: That applies throughout the county in its entirety,both in -activity centers and at all major intersections or roadways.COMMISSIONER BRUET:- If it' s a two-lane -- if it 's a four-laneroad •intersecting •a two-lane road, does the penetration extend to the4Ak_'; other• sjde of the two-lane road? COrNISSI'ONER BRUET:' So if you have, again, a new intersectionwithfourcorners, a two-lane and a four-lane road intersecting, thefirstgasstationtherewoulddictatewhatr,', corner? goes on the adjacent MR. MILK: That's correct . COMMISSIONER BRUET: Not across the four-lane but certainlyacrossthetwo-lane? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER YORK: There's got to be some spacing control and Ithinkthishandlesthatquitewell .MR. MILK: That's exactly right, Mr. Bruet, though.COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. And, of course, if there's anexistingstationthere -- as we talked in the fiist hearing, ifthere's an existing station there and a second station comes in across,the two-lane, then the existing station is non-conforming?COMMISSIONER YORK: No, it's grandfathered.SMR. MILK: It's grandfathered. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We got off of the non-conforming issue; isthatcorrect. MR. MILK: Well, if there's a station there currently and anotherstationdesiredtocomein -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: And there's a two-lane road between them,MR. MILK: -- between them and that five hundred foot separationdistancewasapplicable, then there is a -- what we will call anexceptionoravarianceproceduretogothrough.COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, I know it's not prohibited, but it isanotherstepthat -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think the thrust of this -COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- a person has to go through if he has anexistingstationandit's non-conforming and he has a problem on, youknow, some new construction. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: What I think the thrust was is most cases, infact, all of the ones that I can think of real quick are at arterialsandcollectorsand -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Probably. I cannot think of the exactintersectionwheretherewouldbeatwoandafour-lane --MR. MILK: There's going to be some -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- but I'm sure there are some to be honest 1withyou. But I'm sure there are some, Mike, that's my point. . mMR. MILK: And that is correct. Even at the activity centers,there's going to be some instances where there's four-lane roadwaysandtwo-lane roadways that intersect one another. That five hundredfootlinearseparationisgoingtopenetratethetwo-lane roadways but Page 16 411 May 27, 1998 it will not the four-lane roadway. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But isn' t that the reason that there' s a proces >of the appeal, if you will? MR. MILK: And that's what we' re calling waiver of distance requirement, which is an appeal or variance request to the board andyourselves. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm -- Mr. Bruet and I are going to buy a pieceofpropertyandbuildagasstationandwecometoyouandsayweknowthissaysthatwecan' t put one, here, but look, there's only one now,it makes all of the sense in the world to have one here,MR. MILK: Right. And there is some provisions that you' re goingtojustifythatwaiverrequest. Market studies, site developmentplan, architectural renderings, landscape plan and all of that, so there is a mechanism for the next one to come in within that fivehundredfootifdesired. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I think we need to look for a differentsite. Understand. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I drove seven hundred fifty miles Tuesday, and Ihaveastandard. When I got off 1-75, unless there are four gasstations, I don' t fill up. Because I saw some that were one and twoandguesswhat, there's a little different pricing structure to them than some of the other exits where you have got six in competitionwithanother. So I mean, you know, from a public standpoint, i mean,that has to be considered because let's face it, competition is whatit's all about. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I think it' s market driven as to who isgoingtogowhere. If they think it's that important that they gothroughthatprocess, then they must feel that the market is there, sothat's fine, Bryan. MR. NINO: Let's clarify. That's the recommendation of thePlanningCommission, however, does the draft currently --MR. MILK: There's -- there's the original staff recommendation and then there's the Planning Commission recommendation which isreallytheleadinfortheentiretyofthisordinance. In otherwords, your recommendation is number seven on page fifty-three whichis -- says revised subsection two six two eight one four so that thefivehundredfootseparationofdistancerequirementboundarydoesnotcrossafour-lane or greater arterial or collector road but ratherfollowsalinearmeasurementalongthefrontageofsaidroads . That' swhatweattemptedtodoonthegraphic, was to show your recommendation as it depicts the situation at hand and the one on theleftwouldsupportstaff ' s recommendation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I guess that 's where the departure is, andyouandItalkedaboutthisearlierbecausesomeotherchangeswetalkedabouthavenow -- those changes are now reflected in the -- instaff's writings here so -- MR. NINO: We -- we need to distinguish what has been included inthedraftthattheyhaveversuswhatisstillarecommendationofthePlanningCommissionwhichthestaffhasnotdecidedtoagreewithyet .CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And that was just the point I was going to get Page 17 411 May 27, 1998 to, Mr. Nino, is what we have had going on for the past few years,unlike previous history which was, I thought, a very had time here inCollierCounty, is that the Planning Commission ' s recommendations amended the code as it was presented to us and then that ' s how it wentontotheboard. And here we have a situation where that ' s been done with everything but what we' re talking about now and so the questionandwecertainlyneedtocommentbecausethere ' s a couple -- a couple of additional recommendations from the develotnent services advisory board that we certainly need to make comment on.MR. MILK: That 's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But is the point -- and I don' t think this isthecase, but it would lead one to believe that staff is saying thisiswhatwebelieveandthisiswhatwewantandthePlanningCommissionhadthesecommentsonitandtheDCSChadthesecommentsand -- but you're still saying no, we want what we originallypresented. Because On the surface it appears that way.MR. MILK: Right. And we will have to discuss that . It's averygoodpoint . MR. NINO: And to the extent there's -- the staff recommendationisinconsistentwithyourwishes, you need to reaffirm tonight thoseareaswhereyou' re making recommendations that are not yet reflectedonthestaffreport . MS. STUDENT: I -- I need to make a point . Absolutely as to - 40 about the requiring them to sell air and water . That ' s not a PlanningCommissionrecommendation. That is a legal staff recommendation andneedstocomeoutofthere. MR. MILK: And, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I am just trying for u.7 to -- excuse me, butmaintainourconsistencyaswehaveandifwehavedisagreement,you know, that' s fine, but we just need to make sure that we conveythattotheboardthatstafffeltverystronglyandweatthePlanningCommissiondisagreed, because I think probably a lot of this we agreeon. MR. MILK: And I would agree, if not to the full extent.COMMISSIONER YORK: I am confused. MR. MILK: I think it' s -- I think what we tried to do here forthismeetingistosaythat, you know, based on your meeting of twoweeksago, here is what your recommendations were and here is what weunderstoodthemtobe. There are also a couple of recommendationsfromtheadvisorycommitteethatfollowedonthe21st. I thinkbecausethisisaworkingtypeordinancethat' s fairly new, thatthere's some tweaking we' re going to do on a daily or weekly basisbasedoninput, based on real life situations with site plans that wecontinuallyupdatethis . So your thought is well noted. i think it' s a matter of howwe're going to format your recommendations into the body of thisordinancepursuanttotheBCCmeeting. And I think we will take thatupanddiscussaformathistoricallyhowwehavedoneitandthenpresentthattotheboard, because of the departure. Maybe thereeisn' t a departure and maybe there's one or two items that staff does Page 18 May 27, 1998 feel strongly one way or the other. I think the only one that I can see is about the five hundred foot separation requirement only becausethatisfairlyconservativefromourstandpointandwetriedtodepict that on the additional master plan. COMMISSIONER YORK: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Let me just finish up. And I guess that' s the reason I bring it up, Bryan, is to me it's more of a consistency issue with how things go from here to the Board of County Commissioners.And because if -- if the draft that goes to them, as it has been inthelastfewyears, is simply amended to reflect what we said as hasbeendoneelsewhereinthisparticulardraft, then it still you the opportunityprovides as staff to say but on the five hundred foot criteria, Board of County Commissioners, I want you to know that wehavesomedisagreementthere. That while ours was an airplane flightline -- yes, as versus the way that. we describe . t . So that, youknow, they, of course, make the ultimate decisi I. And really to me,it's just a consistency issue. MR. MILK: Right. And, again, from that departure, I think there may be one or two items that we may have that strong a feeling and the rest of them I think we are in total agreement with. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: I just want to clarify. Maybe I 'm beingstupid, but when this goes to the Board of County Commissioners, thisparticular -- these particular items on this gas station thing, itwillbepresentedthewayitwaspresentedtousthefirsttime, and then you are going to say to the Board of County Commissioners but the Planning Commission suggested these changes and the development services advisory committee also suggested these changes, do you wantthemincorporatedintothis? MR. MILK: I think that's what Mr. Davis was alluding to. It 'snothistoricallybeendonelikethat. What we will do is take thesechanges, incorporate that into the body of the document itself, andthenwherestaffmayhavesomedeparturefromthat, bring that up totheboard. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I think that reflects what we have beendoingthelastseveralyearsand -- because the one change that MissStudenttalkedabout -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that's illegal and that's got to come outbecausetheboardismyclientandIdon' t think we need to have an argument before the Board of County Commissioners about it and I am not going to recommend they adopt it like that. MR. MILK: And I guess staff's feeling was that based on yourrecommendations, that in a fashion of one through seven, I want tomakesurethatthat's exactly what we discussed at the meeting, toreconfirmthatatthismeeting, and then basically put that in thebodyofthedocumentthatgoesinfrontoftheboard, and then -we -canconveyourdeparturefromwhateverwethinkmayormaynotbesomethingwesupport. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to Page 19 May 27 , 1998 beat you up here . :t ' s just it really is the consistency issue .MF . MILK: Consistency in a procedural - - CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Exactly. An I would be - - i would beinterestedtoknowwh<:re you and the rent of the staff have a longdisagreementandmaybetrytoappreciatewhyyoudo .MR . MILK: Right . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Because you certainly do have the opportunity tochangeourminds, if you would be so inclined to do so .MR . NINO: I think it ' s apparent that the area that we feel strongest about is in the area of separation of gas stations and that,ought to be on an area basis, I would call it, or as the crow flies orairline, whichever way you want to define it as opposed to apropositionwhichwouldhavealinearononesideofthestreet only.I think in all other issues we' re prepared to make changes thatreflecttherecommendationsthecommissionhasmade .So that ' s the only area where we have -- and why? Well , one, webelievethatthereissomeprecedentnationallytodothis .And two, there is a strong direction that we perceived from theBoardofCountyCommissionersthatthisisindeedwhattheychargedustodo . And we feel , therefore, to bring back the best professionally supported recommendation that we can to them.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh, fait enough. MR. MILK: I would like to just continue on through some of theIchanges . CHAIRMAN DAVIS : The advisory committee ,MR. MILK: I am going to -- I want to pass on that and I want togothroughthedocumentandIwanttocomebacktoIiifd,scaping iant; ,CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Okay. MR. MILK: Only because there is some substance there .On page fifty-seven where it talks about minimum frontage, thatlastsentencetherewhereittalksaboutlocatedonalotwithlessthanonehundredandfiftyfeetoffrontage . And we changed that on avehicularright-of-way. There' s projects like PUDs and larger projects that we wanted tomakesurethatthefrontagewasonavehicleright-of-way and thatthatwasdeemedaright-of-way and not something else . And really,gets into lsements and plats and subdivisions . o that ita matter of w:iat we thought was tweaking that to make more was just a sense.CHAIR::AN DAVIS : Bryan, ir, other words , when you say vehicularright-of-way, that could be a driveway into a PUD, not a publicright-of-way? MR. MILK : That ' s correct . Sure, that ' s correct .CHAIRMAN DAVIS : Okay . MR. MILK : I guess then the largest degree of change we didtwothings . We met with the advisory committee and they had proposedsomeadditionalstandardstoourl,Indscaping theme that we had projected along the right-of-way and that right-of-way landscape bermasproposedistwenty-five feet along that road right-of-way. Withinthatright-of-way there is a berm that we ha' proposed. During thediscussionsthethoughtoflet ' s have a minimum height in there Page 20 111 ay 27 , 1998 because we don' t want somebody to '40 in there with a twenty-five toot. landscaped area and put a one-foot berm in there, so we had put at least a minimum height of three feet and that will undulate and you shall plant your shrubs, trees, hedges and palms within that area . Sci that was a conversation that we discussed. The other item that we somewhat departed from was the -- the clustering. Our thought was that in the landscape buffer, that we would develop clusters of tree plantings in what we call triangulation areas where there would be three trees in a cluster separated by alineardistanceandthenanotherclusterand :soo forth . And there wa: some discussion about heights and maturity and that sort of thing.And what we came up with was some departure, actually, from the advisory' s recommendation only because we tried to apply this in asituationofwhattheminimumcodesprovidedfor, what we knew thespeciestomatureat, and really what we were trying to accomplish inthatbuffer. So what you will see is the canopy tree;; shall he planted atleastfifteenfeetoncenterwithintheclusterorthetriangulationareas, that palm trees be planted and staggered. in other words, ineachclusterofpalms, palms need to be at least four feet in varyingheightssoyouprovideacanopy. In other words, you don' t have thte!_palm trees at fifteen feet so you see the under-story and you can netrightthroughthat . We wanted to try to provitki a perspective t:h rt 4 of a canopy. And that these palm trees would be available at theentryingress/egress drives to articulate that, because that ' s typically where the signage is and we thought with that cluster of palms next to the road rights-of-way that we could provide the canopyalongthemorelinearareaofthelandscapebuffer . So there' s some departure there . ;that we did do is increase themaximumheightoftreesfromtenfeettofourteenfeet . Trees shallhaveaminimumofathreeandahalfinchcaliperandthattheshrubsshallbetengallon, five feet in height and planted at four feet oncenter. So what you' re going to have is virtually an opaque buffer atplantingbutadiversifiedbufferalongthisbermandsomeopaquenesstobeginwith. And because of the language change, we also did agraphicillustration, one that talks about the distances and articulates what we tried to establish here in the narrative.So I think with that graphic and if somebody came in and saidwell, what ' u this mean, I think we could turn to the graphic and adesignprofessionalcouldsayyeah, I understand that perfectly,; Nowwiththatlanguageandthisgraphic, it makes sense.CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That ' s the last page? MR. MILK: And that ' s the last page. So there was some departure from their recommendation and ouroriginalrecommendation, but only because staff felt fairly stronglyabouttheirrecommendation, but we thought it was A little hit toomature. But ours were all the minimum , and we felt well, let 'sdepartfromthat, let ' s meet them halfway. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR . NINO: Didn' t we massage the exceptions section since our Page 21 111 May 27, 1998 last meeting? MR. MILK: :ghat we did with the exception:, war: to massage that down to include two paragraphs that were very brief in nature, verybriefandprecisetowhatexactlywasexemptandwhatwannot . And w' basically spell it out in two paragraphs . We talked about non-conforming -- what is deemed non-conforming .We talked about exceptir)n;; tr.) t'tJD:, that would have architectural renderings or site plans approved prior to the approval of this ordinance and that if it was deemed non-conforming and they were to come on line, then they would have to comply to ' he careatest extent possible with the remainder of these standards outlined in the ordinance. So -- and that was where Mr. Anderson became very helpful . We tried to make that larger paragraph very concise and reduce the amount of verbiage and touch on exactly what we intended on :saying in thefirstplace. So I believe that was .ac ompli shed with that change. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. NINO: Flowerer, does this paragraph not say that all clan stations which haven' t been built and .are appr<,';s 'I within a PUD that are accompanied by a special set o; illustrations which may not necessarily be consistent with today' s landscape nt..andards, are approved forever at the standard which they' re provided for in thePUD? MR. MILK: That' s correct . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Miss Urbanik. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Going hack to the Collier Countydevelopmentservicesadvisorycommitteerecommendation, do you know what the rationale was for that committee to limit palms to those suchassablepalms? What was their intent? MR. MILK: I think - - Bryan Nelson was the landscape architectthatwasthere, and I think there was a recommendation for the canopyandthespreadofsomeofthesepalmsversusothertypesandbasedon pruning techniques and seeing that the sable palm would provide adifferenttypeofcanopyballversusmaybeanotherspecies . And withthatwetookthatonestepfurtherandsaidwell , if you ' re going toplantpalmsandifyou' re going to have heights at four footintervals, so you can accomplish that hut have a variety of the palmsandnotjusttwo . That was our departure from that recomtnenclaati.on,COMMISSIONER URBANIY. : Good . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Makes sense. Anything else? Does that bring usbacktothedevelopmentservicesadvisorycommitteecomments?MR. MILK: It really does and that kind of takes --- it lendsitselftothatbecause, again, staff felt that our recommendations andtheirinput -- again, we massaged that to the point where we felt verycomfortableandtheyweretryingtohavestaffhealittlebitmore specific and that was the reason for the rendering and the reasoningforthemorematuretreesandspacingcriteria . So, again, that: was arationaleforthat . Page 22 411 May 27, 1998 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right . Any questions? Anybody from the public that 'r;a:3t:s to :speak on this section? You're not speaking, Mr. Anderson? Okay. Then I guess we gotabout where we wanted to get . Any other comments or concerns on this particular section from planning commissioners? I guess we' re all set. And it strikes me, and Miss Urbanik I think said it, that on the landscaping issue, it strikes at least she and I and maybe some of the rest that it makes all the sense in the world the way you have massaged it, so we would support that , Any disagreement? Okay. MR. MILK: And I will conclude by stating that we will institute your recommendations one through seven in the body and then we will proceed with that to the Board of County -- MR. NINO: You're reaffirming those? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. Any discussion about the siting, whether the five hundred feet is as the crow flies? COMMISSIONER YORK: I feel very strongly that the lineal measurement is probably the better way to go. I really feel strongly about that. COMt4ISSIONER WP.AGE: I guess, Bryan, and I heard Mike ask a question, I may be wrong, I sense there's a practical aspect of your Ask job that you support the five hundred feet linear? Does it make it lip easier or is there something -- application that we don' t see as laymen as to why you feel so strong about it? MR. MILK: I think it's more of a conservative approach and it limits the amount to half as much •an the linear standard would and really was direction from the board. The board wan looking at one or two per quadrant so to speak, and with that five hundred foot separation, we tried to imagine how that would lend itself to each area or each intersection. Based on the five hundred foot separation, you could basically get two gas stations in a quadrant. And I think that's where we tried to deal with their expectations and their desires and how to accomplish that in a sense that made sense from all practical points of how to measure that and be fair to an entire intersection without being prohibitive from any gas stations at all . I don' t know if that makes much sense but we -- COMMISSIONER MIRAGE: Well, I agree with Mr . Davis . I live on one of the intersections where we have one gas station and I can' t wait to get more because I 'm getting tired of driving ten miles -- it's either ten miles or a nickel, whichever I want to do. Competition does enter in. MR. NINO: Let me take a shot at that question by saying we don' t always deal with issues that are -- that are -- necessarily flow from professional planning -- from planning theory and professional training. That there are policy issues that surface every once in awhile that have to do with more with community imaging, unique community development standards that really have no corollary in terms 0 of planning theory as to what' s good or bad. And we have to work Page 23 410 May 27, 1998 within that environment, and I think we' re working - - and our t e:spc m;' is that we're working with that environment . There is a directed community imaging standard. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I appreciate your point, Mr. Nino, and 1 think probably this is one where we can agree to disagree. And in tho final analysis the Board of County Commissioners is going to make that policy decision. I think maybe what We' re saying is you-all have written an amendment to the code to make them :ook much nicer than they do now. MR. MILK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So that considered, maybe we don' t need a whole lot less than we thought we did. So maybe we have provided the -- an in-between place, if you will, and obviously they' re going to make that decision about which is going to be, because I think you have done a great job. They' re going -- they' re going to look totallydifferent. Okay. What else do we have on our plates here? MR. MILK: Thank you. CHAIRMAAN DAVIS: Thank you. Good work. COMMISSIONER YORK: Would it he -- would it be out of sorts to ask staff that when they do make this presentation. to BCC that they say that the Planning Commission strongly supports the lineal type? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any problem with that, planning commissioners? COMMISSIONER BRUET: No, that ' s fine. MR. NINO: So be it . We will do that . MR. MILK: Sure. MR. NINO: I see Mr. Hinchman (sic) is here and perhaps we can now have a discussion? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, Mr. Hinchcliff, sure. MR. NINO: Hinchcliff . I'm sorry, Hinchcliff . CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We would -- on that issue we would invite you to come up and speak to us . Mr. Mulhere, who had to leave a little early, did speak about it again to us, and to that point I think at least myself and there may be another one or two that needs to make a declaration. I did discuss this issue earlier today with -- who did I talk with? The attorney who represents -- I 'm sorry, Don Pickworth, that represents the cemetery. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I also had a conversation relative to this particular issue on LDC. COMMISSIONER YORK: And I, too, had a conversation with Mr. Pickworth. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I am obviously not looking for a plot, so I didn' t talk to anybody. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, this is legislative and not quasi-judicial, so you don' t necessarily need to make the disclosure but it doesn' t matter if you do really. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, we're aware of that but we thought beingthenicefolksthatweare, get it up front. Amk COMMISSIONER BRUET: Everything is above board, Marjorie. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And with that, Mr . Hinchcliff, if you'd like to Page 24