2014-04-03HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-130HOLDINGSLLCAMENDSPP870

Home

GONZALES: Any other questions for staff from the Commissioners? Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. GONZALES: Will the applicant and/or their representatives come forward? Yes, please. Could I please have you raise your right hand? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? GADD: I do. GONZALES: Thank you. GADD: My name is Greg Gadd, and I’m president of the managing partner. And I’m largely in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning Director. Really, I have, want to clarify numbers 3, 6—6 I’m in contention with, and 7. Three is to, let me get my notes here, to comply with the Orchidland Community Association letter, which I believe you have a copy of. They’re, the letter basically states project design to fit aesthetically with the rural atmosphere of the subdivision. It’s pretty ambiguous. Um, it’s hard to really comply with it. It also says all customers parking to be in front of the proposed buildings. Well, if you look at their plan of the buildings, they’re—one of the buildings doesn’t even have a front. Says no repairs, manufacturing, or work to be conducted from the front of the project, again, the same point. There is, you know, it really doesn’t pertain. And no deliveries to be to the front of the project. No uncovered storage, that’s okay. Business hours, limited to daylight. I believe we resolved that. Extension of paved road to mauka end of property. We already addressed that. The project to operate on County water. We already addressed that. And developer to provide proof of funds sufficient to complete. Really, this letter is totally obsolete and it stays in there but there’s nothing to really comply with. So, I don’t know, if we could maybe talk, there representatives from Orchidland here. We might be able to clean it up or enter into a new agreement or we just keep it in there, but it’s, it doesn’t serve as any purpose really. And then Condition No. 6 is that the burden, or the possible burden, of having to put a traffic light at the intersection of Orchidland Drive and 130 really cripples the project. The County and the State can’t afford to put a traffic light. How can a private business person be held to put a traffic light in at Orchidland Drive? We’d have trouble getting tenants. It’s taken six months for the Department of Transportation to respond saying that they want this to stay in this extension request, so we find somebody that wants to lease the property, we’d have to wait six months for them to even tell us if we have to contribute to the traffic light, and then it’s probably years from there. It basically leaves these buildings empty for maybe years. It’s unfair burden to put on a private person. And then, Condition No. 7, I believe, we reached an agreement with Orchidland and the hours of operation till 11. The other, Condition No. 9, is applicant shall provide an 8-foot high chain link fence or comparable security along the border. There was an 8-foot chain link fence which we had to take down to put in the retaining wall. Along the other portion of the property, we had the chain link fence into our property because if you look at the aerial photo, two of the neighbors’ buildings are encroaching onto our property, and we had to clear right up to the line. We’ve asked them to move the buildings or remedy it some way, and they haven’t. I don’t know. We 5 EXHIBIT A