Loading...
PC MINS 20070123 Approved March 27, 0 RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knight at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Perestam led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Sohn, and Assistant Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed items of correspondence and reported on the upcoming League of California Cities Conference. Director Rojas also reported on the January 16th City Council meeting. Commissioner Lewis reported that he met with Dan Ireland and Chairman Knight reported that he received a call from Sunshine regarding Agenda Item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00490): 6503 Certa Drive Assistant Planner Mikhail presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Variance and Grading Permit. She explained that staff could not support the Variance request and was recommending denial of the Variance for landscaping. She also explained that staff could support the Grading Permit for the wall, but could not support the Variance request for a portion of the wall, and was recommending denial of the Variance requested for the free standing portion o the wall. She also clarified that option 2 in the staff report regarding the Minor Exception Permit was not accurate and should be disregarded. Commissioner Karp noted this property has two driveways and asked if it was within the purview of the Planning Commission, as part of the approval, to require one driveway be removed and restored. Director Rojas answered that it was not in the Planning Commission's purview, as one does not need Planning Department approval to have a second driveway. Chairman Knight asked if there was a visibility triangle associated with this property. Assistant Planner Mikhail demonstrated on a slide where the visibility triangle is located in regards to this property. She noted a wall located in the visibility triangle that the applicant will be removing a portion of to comply with the City standards. Chairman Knight asked staff if they considered rocks and rock gardens landscaping. Director Rojas explained that in the past staff has determined that loose rock is considered landscaping while rock with grout is considered hardscape. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Ben Samu (representing the applicant) noted that the retaining wall in question was existing and the owners added a little height to the top of the wall for privacy in the backyard and safety. He did not understand the need for a Grading Permit, as he did not feel any grading was done at the site. He stated that both driveways were existing when the current owner's bought the house and may have been part of the original construction. He asked if some of the concrete were removed and replaced with loose gravel, if that would satisfy the City's concerns. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Samu if he had considered the staff's recommendation to build a second wall three feet from the existing wall, which would eliminate the need for a Variance. Mr. Samu answered that he had considered that, however the second wall would take space away from the property and would be more of an eyesore than having just one wall. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Perestam stated that the Residential Standards Committee spent time discussing ways to maintain a semi-rural character in the community and one of the things they pointed out was that when a certain percentage of the surface of a property has an impervious surface that is a big factor in urbanizing the look of the community. He stated that he very much agrees with that statement and therefore he is very much in agreement with staff's analysis and recommendations. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt the wall should come down to the Code allowed height and if the applicant would like to build another wall that is further back they can go through the application process with the City. He also felt the impervious surface should be at the allowable per Code. Commissioner Karp felt that two driveways is a hazard and if that is not within the Planning Commission's authority to deny the request for a second driveway, the Commission should make a recommendation to the Public Works Department that one of the driveways be removed. Commissioners Ruttenberg, Lewis and Chairman Knight all agreed with the staff's recommendations. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2007-04 as suggested by staff, thereby denying with prejudice the requested Variance and conditionally approving the Grading Permit; and recommended that the Public Works Department look at the safety of the existing two driveways on the property, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned if it was proper to ask the Public Works Department to look at the safety of the existing two driveways if they were installed when the house was originally built. Director Rojas stated that Public Works will most likely look to see whether the second driveway is a legal non-conforming situation when looking at the safety issue, and if it is a safety issue he would assume they would check with the City Attorney as to what they can and cannot require. The motion was approved, (6-0). 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. Zon2006-00410): 8 Toprail Lane Chairman Knight noted that he had a phone conversation with Sunshine, who indicated that a portion of the trail segment transverses the property and the staff report does not include that this property is in the Q District. Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining the need for the Height Variation and the scope of the project. She stated that staff was able to make the Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 3 necessary findings to support the Height Variation and was therefore recommending approval of the proposed Height Variation as conditioned in the staff report. She explained that she had spoke with Sunshine and clarified that the trail segment is not located on the subject property, but noted that the property is in the Q District. Chairman Knight noted the plans show a septic tank and asked if the City geologist will be involved in approving that septic tank. Associate Planner Sohn answered that it will be addressed in Building and Safety, as well as with the County Health Department. Chairman Knight asked staff if they took a view analysis from the property at 5 Toprail Lane. Associate Planner Sohn explained that when the project was first submitted she conducted a site visit at 5 Toprail Lane and, while staff felt the height of the proposed project caused view impairment, it was not significant view impairment of the harbor. She noted that the currently proposed project has been reduced by three feet, however staff was not able to conduct an additional view analysis. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if a different decision regarding the privacy and the windows would have been made if the trees had not been removed. Director Rojas answered that staff may have had different recommendations regarding the windows if the trees were still remaining. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Brian Donnelly 3638 Del Amo Blvd, Torrance (architect) noted that 6Toprail is a two- story residence rather than a single story residence as stated in the staff report. He also noted that there are six existing windows rather than five windows at the subject residence that face the property at 6 Toprail, and that the sixth window will be eliminated. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Donnelly if he had done everything in his power when designing this remodel to protect the privacy of the residents at 6 Toprail. Mr. Donnelly answered that he was very careful to protect the privacy at 6Toprail, but could add additional landscaping. Stephen Garcia 8 Toprail Lane (applicant) stated that because of the topography of the neighborhood his neighbors at 6 Toprail have been able to look into his children's bedrooms since they moved into the home. He also noted that the recently built pool at his neighbor's home can be seen from the bedrooms at his home. He stated that he is happy to discuss compromises with his neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Garcia why he cut down his trees. Mr. Garcia answered that the trees were cut down because of a rat problem. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if his neighbors contributed to the maintenance of the subject trees. Mr. Garcia answered that since he has lived in his home the neighbors have not contributed to the maintenance of the trees. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Garcia if he would have built the proposed addition if the trees were still there. Mr. Garcia answered that he would have proposed the same design even if the trees were still there. Warren Sweetnam 7 Toprail Lane stated that when viewing the original plans he and his neighbor at 5 Toprail felt it was blocking their views, however the new proposal does not block the views from either residences. He mentioned that the trail that was discussed by Sunshine is a trail that cannot be built along the Narbonne right-of-way because there are now houses in that area. Anthony McAdoo 6 Toprail Lane explained that the five of his trees have been illegally cut to the ground and the proposed addition will built very close to the property line where there would be no opportunity to plant new trees to protect his privacy. He stated that he has documents he would like to give to the Planning Commission which document what he felt were the many lies that have been told throughout this process. He stated that he went from having 100 percent privacy to no privacy once the trees were removed and even putting in opaque and non-operable windows will not replace the privacy he once had. He felt that decisions were being made regarding this addition based on the illegal removal of his trees. He stated that he has no problems with the Garcia's adding on to their home, but not at the expense of his privacy due to illegal actions taken. He felt that something is being rammed down his throat and was inappropriate. Chairman Knight clarified that the Planning Commission has no authority to review the legality or non-legality of removal of the trees and must follow the City Guidelines in making their decision. Dr. McAdoo responded that he had 100 percent privacy and now this addition will invade that privacy, and he did not think that the City was insuring his privacy, He was very frustrated because he was only trying to do what he felt was fair and just. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Dr. McAdoo if he had any proof that he contributed to the maintenance of the trees. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 5 Dr. McAdoo answered that he and the Garcias shared a gardener and he could show that he contributed to the maintenance of the trees. Carol McAdoo 6 Toprail Lane stated that her main concern is the loss of her privacy and asked how the privacy can be returned to her residence. She did not like the prospect of looking out her windows at a home looming over her property. She stated that she prefers landscaping rather than hardscape. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mrs. McAdoo if there was room on her property to plant trees to protect her privacy. Mrs. McAdoo answered there is no room on her property to plant trees because the new addition will be in the way. Steven Garcia (in rebuttal) stated that his property has always looked down onto the McAdoo property and there was not 100 percent privacy. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Garcia if he would be willing to plant trees on his property to help with the privacy issue. Mr. Garcia answered that he was absolutely willing to plant trees, at his expense, if that would help the problem. Commissioner Ruttenberg reviewed the setbacks on the property and asked Mr. Garcia if he couldn't build his addition more towards the center and rear of his property where he has more room. Mr. Garcia explained that the because of the way the current rooms are configured it would be difficult, as he would have to put bedrooms in front of his living room and kitchen, which would block the view from those rooms. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis stated that the Planning Commission is a body of limited jurisdiction. He stated that the intentional destruction of trees in California is very serious and is a matter for the civil court. He agreed with staff's analysis and should consider this project as if those trees never existed. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that the Planning Commission should not decide if the trees were taken down legally or illegally, however he felt the Planning Commission should do their best to see if they could avoid litigation between two neighbors. He felt that suggesting trees be planted to help soften the impact of the addition would help, as well as requiring the windows on the addition be opaque to help with the privacy issues. Chairman Knight also agreed that the issue of the trees is not one for the Planning Commission, however agreed that adding some type of condition to add vegetation to Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 6 soften the impact and privacy concerns was a good idea. He stated that he was able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Lewis moved to accept staff's recommendations and approve the requested Height Variation as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Lewis stated that he agrees to a certain extent that if someone is willing to plant trees that it should be included in the conditions of approval, however in this situation there appears to be a disagreement as to where the property lines are and where and on whose property the old trees were planted. He did not feel the Planning Commission had enough information to make this type of recommendation, and if that was the direction the Planning Commission was heading, he would recommend a continuance of the matter. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he believes it is incumbent upon the person wanting privacy to do things to protect their privacy. He noted that the McAdoos have constructed some of their improvements right at the property line, which would eliminate the possibility of vegetation being placed on the property to protect themselves. Therefore, in this instance, he would not condition the Garcias that they should place trees or fences to expand on this privacy. He also felt that since the Garcias are willing to put in frosted windows, he would agree to that condition. He stated that if the Garcias want to plant vegetation that would be a neighborly gesture. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that it is the Planning Commission's duty to determine the conditions, and in this situation where the applicant is willing to compromise and plant trees, he did not know why the Planning Commission would not go along with what both of the neighbors are willing to do. Chairman Knight felt that Commissioner Lewis brought up a good point, and at this time and with the knowledge they have, he would be hesitant to try to establish a condition on what trees to plant and where. He hoped that Mr. Garcia would follow through on his own and plant trees to help appease his neighbors. Commissioner Ruttenberg pointed to that continuing this discussion and allowing staff to work with the applicant to obtain additional information may allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to get the information needed to properly craft a condition regarding the vegetation. Commissioner Perestam agreed, adding that the Planning Commission can ask for a landscape plan as well as a maintenance schedule for the trees in the harbor area. Chairman Knight re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Knight explained that some of the Commissioners felt there was not enough information available to add a condition that some foliage be added and that additional Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 7 time is needed. He asked Mr. Garcia if he would be willing to grant a 90-day extension per the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Garcia stated that he would not be willing to grant the extension, and noted that there is already available a certified survey of the property lines. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-05 thereby approving the Height Variation as recommended by staff, (4"-2) with Commissioners Ruttenberg and Perestam dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:55 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:10 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (con't) 3. Variance, Height Variation, and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00481): 2160 Via Colinita Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, giving the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She explained that staff was not able to make the necessary finding to support the project and was recommending denial of the project. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Christy Kelly 2160 Via Colinita (applicant) stated that this is a very challenging lot and is most likely the smallest buildable lot in the City. She explained that she never expected to have the kind of neighborhood resistance that she has met with this design, and she and her architect can redesign the project. Commissioner Lewis asked if a two-story house with no garage would be a feasible option. Ms. Kelly answered that may be a feasible option. Jerry Rodin 29000 Western Avenue (architect) explained that he is before the Planning Commission to get guidance on what direction to go in with this project, as the lot is so unique and difficult. He stressed that he is very willing to change the design of the proposed residence based on the guidance given by staff and the Planning Commission. He explained that there is an Edison easement on the property which adds more difficulty to the property. He explained his requests for the Variances and the need for these Variances. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Rodin to respond to staff's concerns regarding privacy as expressed in the staff report. Mr. Rodin explained that the structure in front of the home is not a balcony, but rather a planter, and therefore there should be no privacy issues for the neighbor across the street. He noted another balcony on the north elevation that can be removed. Chairman Knight noted that the plans indicate building on the easement, and asked Mr. Rodin if that was his intention. Mr. Rodin clarified that the redesigned plan will show that there will be a five-foot easement along the eastern property line that is not built into. Chairman Knight stated that the City's traffic engineer raised safety issues regarding this proposal and asked Mr. Rodin to respond to these issues. Mr. Rodin explained that Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro have very different codes regarding traffic. He also noted that there is a 6-foot wall below on another property that is impeding the view of oncoming traffic. He suggested moving the driveway to the west side of the property. Commissioner Perestam asked what the implications are of eliminating the garage altogether. Mr. Rodin answered that without a garage he will be able to minimize the building height quite a bit. Patrick Hansen 253 N. Enrose Ave, San Pedro, stated that he has quite a few cars at his residence and it is very difficult to park the cars on Via Colinita. He also noted that there is a school bus stop in front of the subject property, making traffic even more congested and dangerous. He stated that the proposed residence will look directly into his backyard and it will be a big project on a very small lot. Chairman Knight asked if there are parking restrictions on Via Colinita in front of this residence. Mr. Hansen answered that there are no posted parking restrictions on Via Colinita. Joy McAfee 4325 Miraleste Drive stated that the proposed residence will take away from her view. She also explained that the tree existing on the subject property will most likely have to be severely trimmed or removed, which will very much open up a view from her property. Once the house is built it will take away the view that was opened up. She was also concerned about the traffic. John DiCarlo 4312 Miraleste Drive stated the proposed development creates a view obstruction to his property. He also felt the proposed structure will cause a privacy Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 9 issue into his backyard, patio, and pool area. He agreed with the other comments from the neighbors and the staff recommendation to deny the project. Frances Russo 301 N. Enrose Ave, San Pedro, objected to the windows that would look out over her property. She also explained that the height of this structure will block the sunlight she currently gets onto her property and will put her in shade for the majority of the day. She also objected to the residence blocking her only view, which is of the trees in the neighborhood. She agreed with the other comments made by her neighbors. David Smith 309 N. Enrose Ave, San Pedro, noted that staff acknowledged in the staff report that a privacy infringement will exist with the abutting property, but since that property is in San Pedro it is not considered in the analysis. He also noted that the staff report states that over 50 percent of the residences within the 500-foot radius are in San Pedro. He therefore felt that extraordinary consideration should be given to the resident's rights and opinions in the neighboring city of San Pedro. He felt there would be an infringement of privacy to his property in the rear yard. He agreed with the recommendation of denial in the staff report. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Smith if he would oppose a two-story structure on the property. Mr. Smith answered that it is difficult to answer that question without seeing a plan, noting his main concern was the ability to look into his backyard. Rolf Tillmann 6512 Nancy Road stated he is completely opposed to this project, as the lot is not really a lot. He stated that everything next to the lot is parkland and there is a fire access road and trail maintained by the Miraleste Parks and Recreation District. He felt there is a time when the City just has to say no, as this project is oversized and requires too many Variances to be built. He objected to approving the project without a garage. He supported the staff's recommendation of denial. Jerry Rodin (in rebuttal) understood the issues of parking and traffic, noting that the applicant's side of the street is the safer of the two sides. He stated that Mr. DiCarlo's comments and concerns were well taken, and noted that the balcony on that side of the house can be removed and any other privacy issues can be addressed by eliminating windows on that side of the structure. He noted that the Russo property is downhill from the subject property and even a one-story structure will present a problem to her property. He stated that he is before the Planning Commission to try to put together a good project, noting a single-family dwelling should be allowed on the site by Code and the General Plan, and he was looking for guidance on how to do that. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Rodin to suggest how the Planning Commission should start in reviewing this project and what type of Variance he felt was necessary. Mr. Rodin answered that he would request a one-foot side yard on the west, he would maintain a five-foot side yard on the east, a front setback that would allow him to get Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 10 onto the site without destroying the site, and the possibility of eliminating the parking requirements which would then make the site workable. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that in addition to the requested variances there is neighborhood compatibility to take into account and he felt that it would be extremely difficult to grant all of these variances and maintain the neighborhood compatibility. He felt that even given the best case scenario, the lot looks almost unbuildable. Mr. Rodin responded that the Planning Commission will have to make the decision that it is unbuildable, and refer that decision to the City Attorney, as it is a legal lot. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp began by assuring the residents of San Pedro that the Planning Commission does listen to their comments and opinions and takes them into account when making their decisions. He did not think this was a buildable lot, as the Planning Commission is being asked to waive the height requirements, grading requirements, setback requirements, and the traffic engineer was unhappy with the proposal. He stated that he would recommend denial with prejudice. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Karp's comments, as he did not see any way to build a home on this piece of property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff what the effect would be if the Planning Commission were to determine this lot unbuildable. Director Rojas explained that the question before the Planning Commission is not whether the lot is buildable, but whether the Variances can be supported and the findings to grant the Variances can be made. He felt that the issue of whether or not the lot is buildable is one that should go before the City Attorney. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked what the Planning Commission's obligation is in allowing a building on a buildable lot, and does it have to be something that is financially feasible. Director Rojas answered that, based on previous conversations with the City Attorney, the City would have to allow the property owner some use of their property, however it does not have to be a use that works out profitably for the property owner. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he is not an architect, and is not qualified to give guidance on how to design a home for this challenging lot. He stated that he is very concerned about approving a home without a garage, especially considering the location of the lot. He was willing to recommend denial without prejudice to allow the architect another chance at the design of the residence, but was not sure if even that would be helpful. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 11 Vice Chairman Gerstner was not willing to say the lot is unbuildable, but the criteria for building a house make it very difficult if not impossible. He noted that the existing building can be renovated, and therefore there is a viable use for the property. Commissioner Perestam agreed that the property is more suited for something that is not residential, such as an office building. He felt the most logical next step would be to discuss possible uses with the City Attorney. Chairman Knight stated he was reluctant to make a decision that a property is unbuildable, as he did not think it was within the purview of the Planning Commission. He stated that it was within the Planning Commission's purview as to whether or not the necessary findings could be made to approve or not approve a project. He agreed with the staff report and was a little taken aback that the project was even before the Planning Commission, as the traffic engineer felt the plan was unsafe and materially detrimental to the public welfare. He stated that this is not a negotiating table, especially when it comes to public safety. Commissioner Lewis agreed that it would not be proper to determine at this time if this is a buildable lot or not. He felt that what would assist the applicant would be to make a decision at this meeting regarding the current proposal. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-06 thereby denying the requested Variances, Height Variation, and Grading Permit as recommended by staff with the amendment to deny with prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed that it was not within the purview of the Planning Commission to decide whether or not a lot was buildable. He also could not make the necessary findings and agreed with staff's recommendation of denial, however he felt the architect could submit another design for the house that is significantly smaller or submit a renovation to the existing building, and therefore did not agree that it should be denied with prejudice. He added that he would be very prejudicial, however, against anything that isn't significantly different in design from the current proposal. Commissioners Ruttenberg and Perestam stated they could support the motion if it were made without prejudice. Commissioner Lewis moved to modify his motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-6 thereby denying the requested Variances, Height Variation, and Grading permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0). 4. Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2005-00647): 26133 Basswood Ave Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Lewis stated that he lives in the Grandview area, and even though he is not within the 500-foot radius he felt he had a conflict of interest, and recused himself from the public hearing and left the meeting. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the applications. He noted objections from the neighbors regarding privacy and neighborhood compatibility, and reviewed staff's findings. He concluded by stating that staff was recommending conditional approval of the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Knight noted that according to the plans the garage is remaining, but asked staff how much of the garage will be changed. Associate Planner Fox explained that there is a balcony proposed over a portion of the garage, however all of the walls are remaining. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Miles Pritzkat 304 Vista Del Mar, Redondo Beach (architect) stated that he has read the staff report and agrees with the findings and conditions of approval. He noted that the Mahajans who live next door added a second story addition with findings made by the staff and Planning Commission that are very similar to the findings for this project. He asked that the same application of the Code that allowed the Mahajans to build their second story addition be consistently applied to this proposed addition. Nina Neumann 26133 Basswood Avenue (applicant) stated that her neighbors have been very supportive of this project. She stated that it is very important to her to be a good neighbor, noting that she has removed trees to open the neighbors view at the expense of her privacy. She explained that she would like to expand the home so that she and her husband could expand their family. Chairman Knight asked Mrs. Neumann if she had read and agreed to the condition in the staff report regarding the foliage that needed to be trimmed and maintained. Mrs. Neumann answered that she was aware of the condition and agreed to that condition. Balrai Mahajan 26139 Basswood Avenue stated he will lose approximately 75 percent of his view because of this proposed addition. He stated that he is not against the addition and building of a second story, but requested it be redesigned in such a way that he does not lose as much of his view. Miles Pritzkat (in rebuttal)was sympathetic to the loss of view, and explained that he had made every effort to design something with minimal view blockage to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 13 Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam noted that there is a hedge on Mr. Mahajan's property that is blocking the view of his upslope neighbor at 26147 Basswood Avenue, and asked staff if they could require the Mahajan's to trim their hedge as a condition of the applicant trimming their foliage. . Associate Planner Fox answered that Mr. Mahajan does not have an application before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission only has the ability to place conditions on the Neumann's property. He explained that the neighbors would have to file a View Restoration application for the hedge on Mr. Mahajan's property. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-07 thereby approving the proposed Height Variation and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Ruttenberg supported the motion, explaining that the affect on Mr. Mahajan's view is to the portion of the addition under 16 feet, which is not a:protected view. Chairman Knight agreed, adding that in terms of neighborhood compatibility he was able to make the necessary findings to support the project. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-07 was approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Minutes of November 28, 2006 Chairman Knight noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted clarifications on pages 13 and 14 of the minutes. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (3-0-2) with Chairman Knight and Commissioner Perestam abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 6. Minutes of December 12, 2006 Commissioner Ruttenberg noted clarifications on pages 6 and 9 of the minutes. Commissioner Perestam noted a typo on page 10 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 14 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of February 13, 2007 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:13 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 15