Laserfiche WebLink
could be roads and we reiterate things because its important. So, it's kind of repetitive so, I don't <br /> want to document that uses every letter of the alphabet and then some. But we also don't want to <br /> just rely on one sentence that tells projects you got to follow all the laws that are out there. So, it <br /> becomes a balancing act that is the short answer to it. <br /> CLARKSON: Thank you. Can I go back to Mr. Rock then please and could you clarify one <br /> more time why this advisory "advisory condition"poses a problem since you going to have to go <br /> through DPW eventually anyway and that is still all up in the air what they going to require. <br /> What so problematic about this condition for your financing? <br /> ROCK: The condition in itself to seek approval from Public Works we basically agree with <br /> Planning Department. It is appropriate to go through Traffic and if the intent is to highlight the <br /> sensitivity to traffic and traffic control devices again, we are also sensitive to that matter as well. <br /> So, I think we are in alignment there. The issue is primarily just is if we have multiple sorts of <br /> like a restrictive covenant so in this case the zoning ordinance itself then you have County Code. <br /> It's just that if there happens to be a change then if the language is kept in the rezoning ordinance <br /> as is it almost leads the reader to allude that a traffic control device is expected. Whereas, or it <br /> tells the public that I am anticipating a traffic control device and as we discussed on this call that <br /> is a wide range of activities. The sidewalk, it could be a streetlight, a stop sign and so, if the <br /> Code and the County's current standards already covered the requirement what we are trying to <br /> do is just to add clarity to the process. So, that the traffic controls again, we do plan on going <br /> through the review, but we do not want to set unrealistic or unnecessary expectations that <br /> something will be imposed on the project. <br /> So, that being said kind of as a general comment we do agree that traffic controls and getting <br /> approvals are necessary and this is a condition that we definitely got to the Planning Commission <br /> discretion. But we do plan on satisfying traffic control device requirements. <br /> RAFFIPIY: You okay with that Mr. Clarkson? <br /> CLARKSON: Okay, thank you, thank you. <br /> RAFFIPIY: I do have a question, a follow up question to the staff. Let's say if we decide to <br /> eliminate this condition and the project falls through doesn't happen. What is going to happen <br /> with that condition, or will it be deleted forever and will not be part of the and will not go back to <br /> having that condition reinstated? <br /> KAY: So, yes that is correct. If the Commission recommends the deletion and the County <br /> Council agrees and deletes the condition the ordinance that comes out of the Council wouldn't <br /> have that again functionally any subsequent development would have to go through Traffic <br /> Division for a determination of traffic control devices and streetlights in any case. So, I think <br /> that's kind of technically yes it wouldn't be there on the document but functionally it still have to <br /> go through and follow that section of Code upon review of construction plans. <br /> RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. <br /> EXHIBIT A <br /> 16 <br />