2014-04-03HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-130HOLDINGSLLCAMENDSPP870

Home

for service businesses such as electrical, plumbing, landscaping, garden, auto repair, farmer cooperative, and home business outlet. It was meant to kind of work together with the Orchidland Convenience Center so they wouldn’t duplicate uses. So this was more for trades; the other one was more for retail type services. Additionally in 2003, the permit was amended to allow for food service uses, mainly for restaurants. This is the applicant’s site plan. I apologize that it’s not very clear, but basically it’s to give an understanding what the layout is. Orchidland Drive is on the lower portion of your map. Access th to the property would be from Orchidland Drive. It’s not identified to provide access on 34. Currently, the two buildings on the right side of the map have been, the shells have been constructed. The applicant is proposing three more buildings for a total of five buildings on the property. This is a site photo looking makai, or looking towards Highway 130 intersection. The subject property is on the left. You can see the condition of the road at this time. This is looking mauka. The subject property would be on your right. Again, the condition of the roadway. This is on thth Orchidland Drive looking on 34, so you’ll notice 34 is unpaved. The subject property is on the left. The retaining wall we spoke about earlier—this is the retaining wall that the applicant has constructed between their property and the nearest adjoining neighbor. Again the shells that are constructed. This is the remainder of the property on the mauka side. The Planning Director is recommending the following. For Condition No. 2 which is a five year time extension to complete construction, the Planning Director is recommending approval of this condition. For Condition No. 3, the applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted. The Planning Director is recommending that this condition remain, and I believe that we also had received comments from the Orchidland Community Center yesterday, and so those have been passed out. And they also agree that they should, this condition should remain. Condition No. 4 which is a condition regarding water storage. Originally, the project was proposed to be connected to County water. There was a lot of problems that happened with that, and so there was an amendment to the permit to allow the applicant to have on-site storage. Since then, the applicant has come into an agreement with Gulsons, which is the owner of the Orchidland Convenience Center, to be able to sub-meter the water that’s currently there, and provide water to this property. If that agreement continues, that’s our, the Planning Director’s recommendation is that, it’s not either or. It sounds like the amendment request is to allow either on-site storage or connect, but if, the way that we’d like to keep it is that if County water can be made available, that would be priority. We’d like to see that connect. Condition No. 5 access, we’re recommending that, what, there was some confusion on how that condition was worded. We’ve changed the wording on the condition to be more clear as what is required for the applicant in regarding to access improvements on Orchidland Drive. Number 6, this is the intersection improvements for Highway 130. We have just received a, an email from Department of Transportation and basically, they are asking that the condition remain as it is. And that also is within your packet there. So, basically, we’re, the request was to delete that condition but because DOT is asking that it remain, the Planning Director is recommending that it remain as it is. And lastly, the hours of operation. Now since we’ve submitted this recommendation to the Planning Commission, there has been some discussion between the community association and the applicant. Both of those letters have been provided to the Planning Commission. Our 3 EXHIBIT A