Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Page 4 <br />5/11/83 <br />and that if additional improvements to the intersection are <br />necessary, all parties adjacent to it should share the cost. <br />Commissioner Getty raised questions regarding sewer allocation, <br />commencement of construction and traffic level at the intersection. <br />Mr. Ellis responded that they intend to commence construction <br />as quickly as possible, probably by year end. After commencement, <br />construction should take about 12 months and they are planning <br />on opening in January 1985. As to sewer, they want to move <br />forward with permits as soon as possible. <br />Mr. Ellis then addressed the 52 conditions listed in the staff <br />report. He was concerned about the wording of the conditions <br />requiring participation in the assessment districts. Specifically, <br />rather than saying "fund or participate in the funding of" he <br />would prefer simply "participate in the funding of" the various <br />studies. <br />Commissioner tiJilson asked about the average flow required and <br />Mr. Ellis indicated it was in the 35,000 to 45,000 GPD range. <br />Mr. Ellis also stated they were short 110 D.U.E.s for the <br />property. T7r. Harris indicated this was available today, but <br />could-not guarantee it would be there in the future. <br />There was then discussion of other Holiday Inns, the number of <br />rooms, stories, acreage and F.A.R. <br />Commissioner Jamieson was concerned that if there is seating <br />for 250 in a banquet configuration that there would be far more <br />in an auditorium configuration and that consequently there would <br />not be enough narking. <br />Mr. Ellis and the Commission then discussed the negotiations <br />with Caltrans regarding the landscaping of the right-of-way <br />adjacent to the eastern boundary. <br />Commissioner Doherty then discussed the need for meeting places <br />on the north side of town and the amount of trade for dining;. <br />Mr. Ellis indicated they were not oriented to large numbers <br />in meetings., that economically there was a better return for <br />a greater frequency of small meetings. <br />Mr. Ellis then requested clarification for conditions 9, 38, <br />46, 48 and 52. The question of banquet seating capacity was <br />again raised and a suggested solution would be to post the <br />capacity at 250. <br />_ .____.._..__._ _._ _ w ._ .__ _ ~_ ..,...., _ . _ ._. .. __ _ _. <br />