Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-26 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:40 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 11 3 Kristi Hanson X 10 4 Chris Van Vliet X 10 4 John Vuksic X 14 Ray Lopez X 13 1 Karen Oppenheim X 14 Karel Lambell X 13 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 12, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of July 12, 2005. The motion carried 4-0-3-0 with Commissioners Hanson, Van Vliet and Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 `vw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 05-70 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LITECO, ROD CALDERON, 82-375 Market Street, Suite 1, Indio, CA 92201-2211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage and landscape plan for South Beach Restaurant and Night Club. LOCATION: 72-191 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Mr. Stendell stated that the commission reviewed the signage for South Beach Restaurant and Night Club about a month ago. The applicant has submitted signage showing three different font styles for the commission to choose from. One landscape plan has been submitted and Diane Hollinger is working with the landscape architect. The signage can be approved subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the first font option is a lot better than the previous submittal and better than the other two options that were presented. Mr. Stendell stated that they wanted some height variation in the landscaping to give the sign some character on the wall. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with Commissioner Oppenheim on the font selection. The other two choices compete with the "South Beach" portion of the sign. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of first option regarding the font, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-26 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): ALFONSO BECERRA, 43-550 Vanda Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 2 rrr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to replace existing wood fence with a 6' high block wall 8' from curb on street side yard on a corner lot. LOCATION: 43-550 Vanda Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that this is a single-family home on a corner lot. There's an existing 5' high wood fence that's deteriorating at 7' back from the curb face. The applicant is proposing to replace the wood fence with a 6' high tan slump block wall at 8' back from the curb face with a 3' planter from the sidewalk to the wall. We had some comments from the Landscape Manager that the 3' width is not enough room for a planter. The representative for the applicant stated that they took care of the landscaping earlier in the day and had a new plan. The plants were changed, but the 3' wide planter will remain, as proposed. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the purpose of the 10' wide gate on the side. Mr. Bercerra stated that this will be used for the gardener or for parking. The gate will be metal and will not be see through. Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant could repair the existing wood fence and leave it where it is. Mr. Drell stated that in theory they could repair it as long as at any one time they didn't take down more than 50% of the fence. The commission has the authority to grant an exception with the risk that the Council might call it up. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a need for two gates. The applicant stated that they intend to put a pool in the backyard and they wanted to have the gates for access. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the wall will have to be undulating to get some relief on such a long wall. Commissioner Gregory thought that having just one gate would be nicer looking. The applicant stated that the gates will be decorative custom made gates. Commissioner Gregory agreed that if the gates were decorative, then it would be okay to have two gates to break up the wall. He suggested that the gates be set back to give the wall some articulation. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 AGENDA Commissioner Hanson pointed out that one of the gates opens up to a huge olive tree in the rear yard. The applicant stated that he'll move the gate back so that it misses the olive tree. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the top is articulated and has never understood the whole pilaster requirement. Commissioner Hanson concurred and stated that it only makes sense if you're doing wrought iron, otherwise it looks busy. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested adding some offsets. Commissioner Vuksic stated that offsets would be much better. A larger planter area would be better to allow for larger plant material. The rear yard at this house is large so the wall could be setback further to allow for a larger planter area. Commissioner Hanson stated that she didn't know the applicant's lot size compared to his neighbor's lot. Because his house is held to 20' and 20' setbacks, effectively his yard should've been 100' wide instead of 80' because he's on a corner lot. I think that most developments make exceptions on a corner lot for walls to be closer to the street on a side yard. I don't think that it should be 5', but I'm wondering if we can't come to a medium compromise at around 10' so you get a nice landscape buffer and they're able to use a part of their yard that otherwise, they never get to see. Commissioner Gregory asked Ms. Hollinger about the minimum width that you would need for smaller canopy trees. Ms. Hollinger stated that 5' would work. He suggested 10'. Mr. Drell stated that it could be 10' from the curb and then there's a sidewalk there too. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested varying the wall from 10' to 12' from the curb. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) wall to be setback 10'-12' from curb with offsets, and (2) provide a more robust planting plan. Motion carried 6-1-0-0 with Commissioner Lopez opposed. 3. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303, San Marcos, CA 92069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of model homes for 159-lot single family subdivision. Dolce G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 AGENDA LOCATION: Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 05-82 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): SUPERIOR ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING, 1700 West Anaheim Street, Long Beach, CA 90813- 1102 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for the Vitamin Shoppe. LOCATION: 72-333 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. 3 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: PP 03-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARES-REGIS GROUP, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for a 320-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 73-230 Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 5 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 AGENDA 6. CASE NO.: PP 04-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of five office/industrial buildings totaling 61,857 square feet. Venture Commerce Center LOCATION: 73-700 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that the commission was being forced to approve sub-standard architecture. If it was to come before the commission as it is, it would never get approved. This is a very unfortunate situation to be in. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a significant project with five big buildings. It was probably looked at quickly and maybe the architecture wasn't fully understood. The applicant needs to look at designing a building that stays within the 30' height limit under the circumstances and is articulated better than what we're seeing here. I don't think that I can vote in favor of this. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he'd like to see it go back to the City Council and have them reconsider their decision. Mr. Bagato stated that once they're at the point where the project was finally approved by the City Council, nothing can be changed. Commissioner Hanson stated that we really push developers to better their architecture and now here's a building that's going to go up and it'll be a box. Mr. Drell stated that the City Council over-rode the decision of the ARC so the preliminary approval was this building that you see now. In terms of approving the final plans, the only requirement is to be consistent with the preliminary approval, which the Council approved. The point that one of the Council members who voted against the height exception was that to create architecture, in essence, you have to go below the height limit. The Council approved G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 6 1%W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 AGENDA the preliminary approval and these plans are consistent with the plans that the Council approved. He suggested that the commissioners write a memo or a report to the council regarding their concerns about this issue. It would also be reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that we're going to have to look at these buildings, they're not just on paper. Mr Bagato stated that there's another building that the commission will be looking at where the same thing happened. They were over their height limit and the Council approved it with the top chopped off. Commissioner Lambell stated that the problem is that the Council is getting into the loop. They've always been in the loop, but now they're really in the loop. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could look at the Whitecap building again. Mr. Drell stated that you can't go back. The Council acted on it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the commissions vote doesn't matter. Mr. Drell stated that the commission's job on reviewing final plans is to approve plans that are consistent with the preliminary plans. In this case, the Council over-rode your decision. The ARC makes lots of decisions that have gotten appealed and some get over-ridden by the Council. The Planning Commission does the same thing. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved for approval of the construction drawings, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, however, the commissioners expressed disappointment in that the City Council has chosen to approve what is considered inferior architecture and to not supply the commission with the proper direction regarding the 30' height requirements. The commission would like to have the opportunity in the future to revisit the architecture with the applicant within the 30' height limit guideline. Motion carried 5-2-0-0 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lambell opposed. 7. CASE NO.: PP 04-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STORAGE DEPOT 3 LLC, c/o Malcolm Riley, 11640 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90049 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for a 95,583 square foot self-storage facility. LOCATION: 73-750 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion subject to (1) add revised plans showing the parapet enclosed on the tower element on building C, and (2) approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 05-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MATTCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., P.O. Box 2502, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1096 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of single-family home with roof height of 18'. LOCATION: 74-065 Cosmopolitan Lane ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC., 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a restaurant building at the Canyons at Bighorn. LOCATION: 312 Canyon Drive ZONE: PR-5 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the architecture looks great on the new restaurant building at Bighorn. Commissioner Hanson stated that the large blank walls probably won't be as high as shown on the rendering because the location of the kitchen equipment keeps changing. Right now it's a big void and ultimately it won't look that badly. I don't know where the kitchen equipment is and I've added a 5'- 6' parapet so it'll be adjusted as we go. We added stone on another section of the building, as well as some niches that will have some stone panels that are visible to the street. The roof will be copper with a stepped back detail, reminiscent of what's on the main clubhouse and the underside will be wood. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he really likes the pinwheel roof and commented that it's a clever use of that area. Commissioner Hanson stated that it stemmed from the fireplace in the middle of the building. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES, 701 S. Parker, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868-4720 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 10,000 square foot office building. LOCATION: 73-760 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that this parcel is part of a map that was put off to be sold at a later date. Palm Desert Associates just had eleven buildings approved and now they're proposing the twelfth building to match the other buildings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had some questions about quality. The towers with the eyebrows on them are going to be visible on all four sides and right now there's a piece missing. There's no question in my mind that it'll be visible. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant was required to have four-sided towers on the first eleven buildings that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 9 wrr *40# ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES have been approved. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this one needs to match the previously approved towers and be four-sided. On the returns where they're more in the middle of the building along Dinah Shore and there's a raised element that returns, it needs to return 2/3 of the width of that element. The mechanical equipment on the roof needs to be screened. The parapet in the middle looks like it's about 4' above the roof structure, so there is a concern about screening the mechanical equipment. The parapet needs to be level or higher than the top of the unit. The roof access needs to be inside the building. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) needs four-sided tower, including eyebrows, (2) returns at the middle of the building should be returned 2/3 of the width of the element, (3) screen roof-mounted equipment, and (4) roof access must be located inside the building. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 04-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEXTEL CALIFORNIA by TETRA- TECH INC., RAMON R. SALAZAR, 310 Commerce Avenue, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 75' high wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment shelter. LOCATION: 76-055 Country Club Drive, Indian Ridge maintenance yard ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Urbina stated that this case was previously continued by the ARC. The proposed 75' high monopalm would be inside the Indian Ridge Country Club maintenance yard. They are proposing to add three live palm trees. Staff is concerned that two of the three live palm trees are too far away from the artificial palm tree to create an effective cluster creating a "palm grove" effect. The constraint to the applicant is that the Indian Ridge Country Club maintenance yard management does not want to lease the applicant additional space in order to accommodate additional planters and moving the two outlying palm trees closer to the artificial tree. Staff had suggested that the applicant G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES talk to management in Indian Ridge to move the monopalm another 20'- 25' south to create additional planter areas between the monopalm and the Country Club Drive frontage to accommodate locating the two outlying palm trees closer. However, the applicant stated that the management doesn't want to lease them additional space because they need it for their maintenance equipment. The last time that the commission saw this case, the applicant was proposing to put the live trees on the outside of the wall along Country Club Drive, but they ran into an issue with the overhead power lines. Edison wants a minimum of 15' horizontal feet separation. John Halminski, representative for Nextel, was present and stated that the previous applicant was Tetra Tech and they have relinquished all of their sites back to Nextel. There was a big lag time in the hand-off and we would've like to have brought this back to the commission at a sooner date. When I received the site from Tetra Tech I spoke to Mr. Urbina about some of the conditions that were recommended. The main one was to find locations for three live palm trees. The issue of clustering didn't come up and we're really constrained in terms of space. Periodically, they do have 18-wheelers that back up all the way down the driveway into the maintenance area behind the gated portion of it. Behind the wall is stored maintenance equipment and recycling of grass, shrubs, trees, etc... Therefore, I took a planter area in the striped parking area to the west and put a tree there and I extended the landscaped area to the east along the Edison entrance into the substation. The design of the artificial tree has been altered to hide the antennae completely within the bulb of the tree. The live trees will all have irrigation. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could put a tree in the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Halminski stated that he would be restricted in this area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this monopalm looks taller than the others in the City. Mr. Halminski stated that the average height of a monopalm in this region is between 50'-75' because of the topography in the area. Mr. Bagato stated that the taller trees are generally required to be surrounded by large palm trees. We've required 65' and 50' trees in the past. Mr. Halminski stated that as you drive eastbound on Country Club from Cook Street, there are a couple of other country clubs that do have a lot of large mature palm trees, but then for some reason on this block where the maintenance yard is located there isn't one palm tree. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant has a tough situation, but he's okay with the site being used for a monopalm. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant if he's looked anywhere else to locate the monopalm. Mr. Halminski stated that he spent a half an hour with the maintenance manager discussing the location of the trees. Chris Sanders, leasing agent for Nextel, was present and stated that the coverage that the engineers are looking for is very tight and there really wasn't any other place for us to locate a monopalm. Commissioner Lopez stated that he drives down this street and the walls are 6' high and it slopes up a little bit. You won't be able to see much of this monopalm as your driving. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 05-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AFL for NEXTEL, 29992 Hunter Road, #105-166, Murrieta, CA 92563 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 65' high monopalm telecommunications tower and equipment shelter. LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74, St. Margaret's Church ZONE: P Commissioner Hanson suggested that two live palms be added to the site. The monopalm won't be seen in the proposed location. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commisisoner Van Vliet for approval subject to adding two live palm trees at 40' and 45' in height. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NORM THOMPSON, 44-493 San Pascual, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of second driveway for single-family home. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 12 r `n+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 44-493 San Pascual ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is requesting a curb cut and a second driveway at his residence. There is some concern because the next-door neighbor has two driveways and we may be setting a precedence of having two driveways on one property. It was suggested that the applicant use some kind of decorative paving so that it's not just standard concrete. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant, Norm Thompson, what he intended to use the second driveway for. Mr. Thompson stated that he has four vehicles for all of his family members and it's hard to squeeze them in on the current driveway. The second driveway would get them off the street. On the opposite side of the house, a garage will eventually be constructed. This access would go into the rear yard on the north side of the house. On that side, a grass-crete driveway is being proposed. This way a car could be driven into the backyard into the garage, which will be built in the future. There's a porch at the front door of the house with a walkway that goes to the existing driveway and I was going to tie in another walkway that would tie into the new proposed driveway so everything would look proportional from the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Thompson if he was going to park his trailers on the new driveway. Mr. Thompson stated that he intends on parking the trailers in the rear yard. Commissioner Gregory asked if the gates to the rear yard would open so that vehicles not be parked on the new driveway. It would add to the neighborhood clutter in an area that's normally reserved for landscape. Could the gates open and have the trailers parked behind the gate? Mr. Thompson stated that the gate near the proposed driveway is narrow with a 5' side yard. The double gate is on the north side of the house. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if his intention is to park a vehicle on top of the new driveway. Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to be able to park a vehicle on the new driveway and also to use it to wash vehicles. Commissioner Gregory stated that it wouldn't be a driveway, but would be a parking area. This is a concern. Mr. Thompson stated that he stores a lot of stuff on the side of the house and he's always walking through from the street to the side yard. It would be nice to have a second driveway so that I could back right up and load the truck and take off for the weekend. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 13 �w `% ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has a nice planter between the proposed driveway and the neighbor's driveway with a large tree. Commissioner Van Vliet stated concern about setting a precedent of having cars parked on a second driveway. It does provide another parking spot, but you can also park on the street. Mr. Thompson stated that he could park on the street, but there's a blind curve in front of the house. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant was considering grass- crete for the driveway. Mr. Thompson stated that he was planning to use grass-crete for both driveways. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding a grass-crete driveway in the area where the garage is going to eventually be built. Mr. Thompson stated that when he builds the garage, he won't want cars parked on the driveway because he wants to be able to drive through to the back yard. Commissioner Hanson asked if the cars would pull into the rear yard anyways to go into the garage. Mr. Thompson stated that the garage will more or less be used for storing things and a shop. Commissioner Oppenheim asked the applicant when the garage will be built. Mr. Thompson stated that he's just starting to draw the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet noted that the neighbor has a second driveway that leads to the rear yard, as opposed to the current proposal where it's not going to go anywhere. There is concern about having more clutter in the neighborhood and it'll look like the car is being parked on the grass. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he could do something where he already has a driveway. Mr. Thompson insisted that he needs the second driveway and stated that he won't leave a car parked in this area. I would like to have a way to back the truck up and load and unload stuff in my side yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he's thought about looping the driveway around the front of the house. Mr. Thompson stated that he would've been happy to do that but the problem is that the patio on the front porch extends out into the front yard and it would look really cramped. If that front porch wasn't there, I definitely would consider looping the driveway in this area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thought that it would be quite effective if the landscaping were designed to screen the driveway. Commissioner Gregory commented that then they'd be parking in front of the house. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 26, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez stated most people don't even park their car in their garage because the architects aren't designing areas for storage inside the homes. Commissioner Vuksic stated that people always fill the available space. No matter how much you have, you fill it up. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant install grass-crete, which would grow over with turf within a year so that you can't see it, but you know that it's there and he could use that with a curb cut to access his left side gate, but he can't park there because he'd be violating the ordinance that prohibits parking on your turf. This way he would have a base so that he can drive on what appears to be a lawn, but he can't leave his car there because he would be violating the ordinance. At least he would have access to his side yard. Commissioner Lopez stated that he shouldn't use the concrete product because the grass will burn, but the plastic product works well in the desert. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to using grass-crete with curb cut to access gate. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Lambell abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. TONY BAGATO, ASSISTANT PLANNER for STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050726.MIN 15