HomeMy WebLinkAbout1109 Now
FINISHED AGENDA
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING
WEDNESDAY - NOVEMBER 9, 1983
6:00 P.M. - ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 P.M.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Downs
III. ROLL CALL - All Present
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continued Case Nos. PP 15-83 and TT 19619 - ARMADILLO JOINT
VENTURE c/o RANCHO LAS PALMAS MARRIOTT RESORT AND
MARRIOTT CORPORATION, Applicants
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, precise plan of design, and 10 lot
tentative tract map to allow construction of an 809 room
hotel, 50 acres of residential land, associated commercial
uses, a golf course and associated recreational uses in the
PR-4 and PC (2) zones on 235.6 acres located at the
southwest corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve
findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0 (Richards not present)
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 900, approving PP 15-83, subject to
conditions. Carried unanimously 4-0
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 901, approving TT 19619, subject to
conditions. Carried unanimously 4-0
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
VI. COMMENTS
Mr. Diaz distributed a brochure from SFS Construction Company. He stated that
the applicant wished to make a presentation of his proposal (condominium project)
to the commission. Mr. Diaz informed the commission that if they wished to hear
his presentation he would ask the applicant to the next meeting, November 15,
1983. Commission concurred.
Mr. Diaz informed the commission that the applicant for the car wash located on
the Palm Desert Town Center had requested relief from the condition requiring a
masonry wall to screen the facility's tunnel from street view. The applicant had
proposed to use landscaping to achieve the same effect. The request was based on
the cost of the wall in relation to the overall cost of the facility. Because of the
cost ($50,000) the project was economically endangered.
After discussion it was the consensus of the commission that economic hardship
alone should not be the criteria to warrant relief. The commission, however, felt
that the use of extensive landscaping to achieve the desired effect was preferable
to a masonry wall.
Mr. Diaz stated that the applicant would be informed that the wall condition would
be modified after landscaping was installed to the commissions satisfaction. The
applicant would be required to install the landscape screening and only after it was
inspected and approved by the commission would the wall requirement be modified.
The commission concurred and instructed staff to so inform the applicant.
VII. ADJOURNMENT - 6:23 p.m. -1-
/lr