Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-11 . • � � ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT ��� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 1 Kristi Hanson X 1 Chris Van Vliet X 1 John Vuksic X 1 Ray Lopez X 1 Karen Oppenheim X 1 Karel Lambell X 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 28, 2004 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of December 28, 2004. The motion carried 4-0-2-1 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 . � . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 11, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: CUP 04-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VICORP RESTAURANT, 400 West 48`h Avenue, Denver, CO 80216 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a patio addition, exterior colors and business signage for Baker's Square. LOCATION: 73-075 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that Baker's Square is attempting to do a small remodel and have submitted revised drawings. The issues that came up at the last meeting have been addressed. The columns are now thicker and the applicant has included drawings of how the columns will be attached to the roof. There are also handouts that show how they're going to attach the signage to the sloped roof. Mr. Smith referred to photos which showed that the angle on the front is not as severe as shown in the plans. Mr. Stendell stated that they were able to screen the transformer and their equipment. Commissioner Vuksic commented that on the right elevation it shows the column shaft being 1'2" instead of 1'4" and it should be 1'4". Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there's an error on detail 7 on A-2 and the way the molding piece on top is wrapped. It should be like detail 4 on A-2 which shows a cap. It's probably just not drawn right. It should match detail 4. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant is going to do some nice upgrades with landscaping. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) column shaft being 1'4", and (2) A-2, Detail 7 must match A-2, Detail 4. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MIN 2 �` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NELBECK, LLC; DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of architecture for single family residence in hillside. LOCATION: 47-625 Calle de Los Campesino ZONE: HPR Mr. Smith stated that the plans have been reviewed by the commission. There were no changes on the elevations. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it looks great. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to add MISC 04-68 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a front courtyard wall. LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this case was before the commission in December 2004. The applicant would like to put a pool in the front yard of a single-family residence on Calliandra Street. The proposal includes a 6' tan slump stone wall 7' from the curb. Code requires a 15' setback for a 6' wall. Copies of the ARC's last action were distributed to the commission. The last submittal showed the wall at 7' from the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050111.MIN 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission had asked the applicant to push the wall back. Mr. Smith stated that at the last meeting, the applicant did not have scaled drawings and he was asked to return with drawings that were to scale. The commission wanted to know how far the pool could be pushed back. Looking at the drawing that the applicant has provided, the wall is still shown at 7' from the curb. Commissioner Vuksic noted that the applicant has a lot of open space with grass and flower beds and wondered why they need so much space between the pool and the house. Mr. Haile stated that if he put the pool closer to the house, the jacuzzi would block the entry. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the jacuzzi could be moved somewhere else. Mr. Drell stated that it could go in the opposite corner. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they have a lot of room to move it. Mr. Drell stated that to grant an exception there has to be some sort of exceptional circumstance. We've done it when they've had trees that they had to go around or if people didn't physically have the room. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he was set on the rectangular shape of the pool. Mr. Haile stated that it has to be a good size swimming pool because they want to swim for medical reasons. Commissioner Hanson noted that the applicant has a large rear yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Haile if he had thought of putting the pool in the backyard. Mr. Haile stated that he did think about it. The house is very small and it's located in the middle of the lot. There's an existing patio at the rear of the house and they want to add a room there. After the addition, they will have about 20' left in the rear yard. Also, we want our pets and our kids to have a place to hang out around the pool. Commissioner Vuksic commented that they could have a lap pool in the rear yard. If you opt to have the pool in the front, you're going to have to comply with the 15' setback because it looks like you have other options. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission has been directed by the City Council not to approve walls that are close to the curb. They don't want to see that anymore. With the property that you have, whether you want to add an addition or not, the problem is that you have the space available to put the pool in the backyard. We understand your reasons for not doing it, but the problem is that you don't have enough good reasons or issues where you can't put it somewhere else or comply with the setback. Mr. Haile stated that he really wants to use his property. Adding a wall in the front yard would give us good use of our property. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they have room for a pool in the front yard. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminW,R050111.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 11, 2005 MINUTES Haile stated that he needs a really nice patio near the pool. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he'll have to work that out design-wise and get it to fit. The commission is saying that they're not going to approve anything that's going to be less than 15' from the curb because there's no mitigating reason to do that. You can move the wall back and still get the pool in there. Mr. Smith commented that the City Council will be considering four wall appeals at their next meeting on Thursday and recommended that the applicant attend the meeting to observe. Mr. Drell stated that the Council will also be discussing various ordinance amendments that may even make the 15' front yard setback requirement obsolete. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to deny the request for the following reasons: (1) The property is a large lot with open areas in the front and rear which would accommodate a pool without reducing the wall setback, and (2) no unusual circumstances exist to justify an exception to the wall setback provision to the code. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST GOBLE, 1650 Zahker Road, #125, San Jose, CA 95122 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of two showroom buildings. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Urbina stated that the two proposed buildings are going to be behind the D'Mundo Tile building. Staff is not satisfied that the quality of the architecture is up to that of D'Mundo Tile and the two-story office building designed by Holt Architects toward Cook Street. This is before the ARC for feedback on the architecture. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR050111.MIN 5 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES Bob Ricciardi, architect, was present to explain the project to the commission. There are two buildings that are going to be used for furniture display and sales. They're tucked way in the back. This is kind of a development that didn't get off on the right foot. Mr. Drell stated that it still isn't on the right foot. Mr. Ricciardi stated that this is a lot that's way in the back near the railroad tracks. There is a problem with access to the site. Mr. Drell stated that there's a reciprocal access through this area. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the lot to the east is currently vacant. We're presenting two single-story buildings. The entry has a freestanding arch that will have signage on it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the building height for the warehouse. Mr. Ricciardi stated that iYs just a furniture warehouse so they don't need a lot of height. A 20' roof height should work. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the location of the air conditioning equipment. Mr. Ricciardi stated that it will be on the roof. They don't need a lot of air conditioning. If it's going to be seen we'll just add little screens around them. Otherwise, we could have a 24' roof height and you wouldn't see it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's thinking about the scale of it because it's so basic. Mr. Drell stated that you're not going to see these elements because they're so far back from the street. Commissioner Vuksic commented that you're going to see the arch. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he calls it soft tilt-up. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if I built the D'Mundo Tile building and the proposed buildings were going in next to me, I wouldn't be happy. It's nice that iYs a different style, but it's simple, minimal tilt-up. Other than the red arch structures, it doesn't seem like there's much to it. The scale of the arch structures is way off. They concern me. I think the spindly legs are too thin and the tops are too heavy. The archways seem pretty foreign to the design because iYs a basic, "anywhere USA" tilt-up building. IYs all straight lines and then there are these red arches. The contrast could be really interesting, but in this case it just looks odd. It looks like it needs more articulation and some more thought to proportion and massing. I wish we had a floor plan and roof plan to refer to. You're definitely going to need to screen the air conditioning equipment and we need to see what that's going to look like on top of these very marginal buildings. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they approved a building on the corner that's brutal concrete tilt-up. Commissioner Vuksic asked why he's pointing to that. Is it some kind of defense because that's looks great? Mr. Ricciardi commented that they have a philosophy problem. Basic, simple tilt-up isn't bad. We've done tons of them and they really come out neat and they're just like this. Because it's basically tilt-up I don't think that it's bad. I think it's a lot better than the D' Mundo Tile building, which has been approved and is really G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050111.MIN 6 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES brutal. Commissioner Vuksic commented that basic tilt-up is fine and I like the direction of the style of the D'Mundo Tile building than the proposed buildings. There's a level of detail and care with the D'Mundo building that I don't see on the proposed buildings. It's all just one panel height and I think it needs to be more because of what else is happening in the area. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have a problem with concrete tilt-up buildings. I think that Mr. Ricciardi has done this before many times but what we're looking for him to do is take the same principles but come up with some other architectural detail for it to make it interesting. The concept of the archways could work but it's such a departure from the simplicity of the building that it makes it stand out and seem odd. It's too narrow for its height and it could possibly tie back to the building. We're not saying that you can't do a tilt-up building, we're saying that he should find some different ways to articulate it to make it different from everything else you've done. Commissioner Lopez commented that the plans show trees in spots where the overhang of the shade structures would hit them. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they intend to take the top parts off the shade structures. Commissioner Lopez asked for the name of the landscape architect. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he doesn't know yet. They have so many problems with the building. Commissioner Lopez suggested that they tie their landscape in with the adjacent property. Commissioner Vuksic commented that if they do decide to have covered parking they should work with the building. The proposed carports look like they were taken off a different project and don't work with the building. Mr. Ricciardi stated that his client has realized that the delivery trucks will be driving in that area so he doesn't want covered parking. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the carport plans need to be simplified (cheapened up) to fit in with the simplicity of the architecture. Mr. Ricciardi commented that simple is better. Lots of people think that more articulation is better. The Canyon National Bank building on Country Club has so many things working there and they're so thin and the proportions don't work and it looks cluttered. I was raised in the 50's and 50's architecture is simple. Now we're getting back into the Fountainhead style where you have all these different things on the building to add articulation. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doesn't agree with that. There's a difference between being simple and being so bare that it just looks like it's completely economics driven. I believe that it was Neese Vanderoh (sp?) who said that "architecture is the learned play of forms in the light" G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MIN 7 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES and that covers all architecture. Mr. Ricciardi stated that that's the beaux arts shades and shadows that they were after. When you have long canopies held up by wires, it becomes too brutal. I've tried to stay away from these kinds of things. It's too brutal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a plain wall can be beautiful if it's offset with something else where it becomes a relief for something interesting. Right now it looks like an economics driven project. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he wants to keep it simple, clean and nice. Mr. Drell stated that there has to be some focal point of some sort, regardless of how subtle it is. The arch, which is the main focal point, is clumsy. If you came up with another feature or made the arch fit as part of the building and made it less clumsy, then maybe that would be the focal point that contrasts with the simplicity of the building. The problem is now is that the only thing of some interest is actually less elegant than the rest of the building. The arch may be the way to do it, but you have to come up with a different design for that element. If you're going to have landscaping, show the landscaping on the building. The purpose of the drawings is to illustrate what we're actually going to see. Mr. Urbina stated that he would like the architect to address the east side of the building, knowing that there will be a future building on this side. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when the applicant returns with revised drawings, we need to address the mechanical equipment. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he will provide a roof plan. I'd like to put the units in the middle of the roof and build a little screen wall around it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission needs to see it. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the repuest to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show more articulation of the architecture. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: TT 32655 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT WELLS 237, LLC, 5005 Calle San Raphael, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape plan. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MIN g • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: South of Gerald Ford and west of Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that Bob Ross, representative for the applicant, was present with landscape plans. This is for a tract of 270 homes in the University Park area. There is a significant slope condition along one side. We want a landscape solution before we went forward with any hearings on the matter so we can tell people what these slopes are going to look like. Mr. Drell stated that the slopes are going to be what the public sees of the tract. Mr. Ross stated that there's a 15'-30' elevation difference on the slope. They have a unique problem with this site with blow sand. There could be as much wind erosion as water erosion. We were thinking about using a decomposed-type granite look using the native soil and maybe blending some coarser material into it. Hopefully, this will solve the wind erosion problem. Our thought is to create bands of native soil (possibly three bands on a 30' high slope) so you don't have a big run-off before you hit native material. Native materials infiltration rate is about 15" per hour. If we can create these infiltration zones up in the slope, versus down at the bottom to minimize the run-off. The slope varies from 2.5:1 to 3:1. We're trying to put in some keystone-type walls at the toe to help flatten the slope out with 3' vertical walls. Mr. Knight stated that this is not what he spoke to the landscape architect about. I have a concern about the obvious line across the slope allowing open space for water to run free without any interruption of movement. When I originally talked with John Andrew, this was supposed to be alternated so the water never had a clear path of any length to gain acceleration. On the other hand, I had expected to see a higher plant population to interrupt the rainfall when it landed. Mr. Ross stated that the problem is that he would like to use ground cover but you can't overhead water here. Mr. Drell stated that we're not talking about ground cover. There's a long way between zero and ground cover. Mr. Knight commented that there are plant materials that have a big expansion, i.e. acacia redolens "Desert Carpet", which expands 15'-20' with one emitter. Overhead sprinkling wouldn't work. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that it won't meet water calcs, it just has to be designed appropriately. We had talked about using some boulders as well as plant placement to interrupt the flow of water so that it can't build up any velocity to become erosive. I would expect to see larger plant groupings moving throughout the whole area alternating pretty consistently to interrupt the rainfall. The concept is there but there are too many gaps in the plant material with too much open space. We have to look at plant G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR050111.MIN 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 11, 2005 MINUTES placement and then take a look at the water calcs. We're trying to get away from V-ditches and use more organic materials. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there will be any retaining walls built between the lots to help pick up the grade. Mr. Ross stated that this is still being discussed. It works without it. Mr. Drell stated that the property owners will probably want retaining walls, especially if they wanted extra room for a pool. Commissioner Lopez suggested adding more trees to the landscape plan. Commissioner Lambell suggested addressing the retaining walls in the rear yards. Mr. Drell commented that they probably won't be a problem because people aren't going to see their neighbors' walls. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Ross is there's going to be some undulation in the slope. Mr. Ross stated that it will be a contoured slope but he has to have walls at the bottom to help do that. Mr. Drell stated that the topography should look natural. Mr. Knight stated that when he originally talked to the landscape architect we talked about using boulders at different places on the slope to create vertical topography and also change the angle of the slope, which changes the velocity of the water. It also adds architectural design and aesthetics. We don't want it to look like Orange County. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to continue working with the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to add SA 04-115 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion regarding wall, business signage, and exterior colors for Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MIN 1� . . ' `�wrr` `�i� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. Mr. Drell distributed current photographs of the recently completed car wash to the commission for their review. There are a whole bunch of issues on this project. The first was the design of the wall. The design of the wall in the working drawings is identical to the design of the wall in the preliminary plans. It's supposed to be a very smooth, continuous curve and as it goes around the corner it almost looks like it goes into a reverse curve. There's only one peak and it goes down on either side. There should be angled fin details. The wall as constructed has a section that's approximately 40'-50' long with a flat elevation and then it has some abrupt edges to it. This is the kind of design where it has to be very precise and crisp in all forms of its execution. Dean Holm, superintendent, was present to address the commission. The curvature of the wall alone along Washington was staked out by their surveying service and in 100' there was only a 1' change on either end. We ran into some issues with the top of the radius coming over and bringing the roof in at 18' in height with the joist. The joist took so long to engineer so we do have a section that's dropping 1" per 14' off the center line instead of 2". That way we would have something that would create a watertight seal. On plan 4.1 we have dimensions for carrying the radius through, but they don't work. The beams would've been at 7' at either end of the entrance to the tunnel. They do not match the radius that the new architect came up with for the joists. We had to keep the wall up a little bit in elevation to be able to get cars in and out. Mr. Drell stated that the problem is that when you change your plans you're supposed to come back to the City and tell us about it and try to find a solution that meets the original design intent. Unfortunately, the wall is what everybody sees. Mr. Holm commented that he didn't know what some of the materials were supposed to be. Mr. Drell stated that it's up to you and the architect to design a detail of how they're going to be built. It's not for the City to design a detail. The details are shown on the plans, therefore, they should be built to ask to have them removed. Mr. Holm stated that he asked his superintendent. Mr. Drell stated that there are a whole bunch of little things that diverge from the original concept, which, in isolation might not have been so bad. What happened was that every single important detail has gotten modified to the fact that we ended up with an aardvark instead of a gazelle. We had a design that was very delicate in terms of how it was going to work. We have a wall that drops 1" a foot over 20 feet is almost 2' of elevation of wall mass which is a significant amount. Instead of it dropping 2', it's only dropped 1'. Mr. Holm stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MIN 1 1 . . � `'�I�r�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES that in 14' it drops 2". Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't match the drawing. A mitigating factor in the design was the vertical landscaping. No vertical landscaping in front was installed. The plan shows it but somehow we approved a plan that shows no vertical landscaping, except for two trees off on one side and one on the other side. Through the center part, which looks really awkward, there's nothing. The pure execution of the wall has problems. The edges are lumpy. This required a smooth, sweeping wall. The end of the curve has a reverse curve as it reaches zero and it basically was built in a way where it comes down awkwardly. The landscaping that was going to help soften it is not there, the architectural elements that would add some interest aren't there and the smooth sweep of the curving wall is not there. The paint job had to be just as precise in terms of following the perfect curve and the paint job is a little bit shaky. The plans for the signage showed a certain letter design, installed in a certain way and that is not what was installed. Virtually, every element that was of significance on that wall is a bit off. The cumulative effect of all these issues is a really unflattering elevation. Mr. Urbina noted that the approved construction drawings called for three different types of stucco finishes (smooth, light blown and vertical raked) for each of the bands and iYs all one texture. Mr. Drell stated that he's going to look through all the construction details and see where things went wrong. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the elevation shows something that's clear and the detail doesn't reflect that, then is it the commission's responsibility to catch that? Mr. Drell stated that it shouldn't be. Our job isn't to do a page by page, detail by detail, plan check of the working drawings. Our expectation is that our plan checkers are supposed to reconcile elevations with details. Commissioner Hanson commented that if there are problems with the drawings that will significantly change to the intent of what has been approved it is the duty of the people building it to make sure that they let the City know and then work out the issues. The applicant commented that they've worked closely on a daily basis with the Building and Safety Department working some of the issues out. There were a lot of inconsistencies on the plans when the original architect had passed away. There's nothing that we ever did on the project that we haven't communicated to someone in the City. I think that it's a little bit subjective as to how the building came out. We're not saying that we're done. We want to work with the City with these issues. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the applicant needs to look at the project and tell the commission what they intend to do to fix it to make it closer to what was previously approved. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that their architect makes sure that the structural details fit within the architectural intent. Whoever is stamping the plans is supposed to be coordinating between structure and architect. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MIN 12 . � �" `'�v ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lambel commented that the commission spent an incredible amount of time talking about the signage and it didn't happen. The applicant stated that the sign company that installed the signs had the permit with the drawings. They made a mistake and this will be corrected. Mr. Smith suggested that the commissioners visit the site so that they can better address the issues. Mr. Drell stated that now that we can see the signage on the building we might be able to see a compromise on the signage. Mr. Smith commented that they definitely should not have Imperial Sign Company change the signage or fabricate the signage until a solution is agreed upon. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with suggestions of ways to fix the issues. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050111.MW 13