Loading...
PC MINS 20080108 Approved February 12, 2008 ,x/ CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES �( PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Gerstner suggested hearing Agenda Item No. 4 prior to Agenda Item No. 1. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1 and one item for Agenda Item No. 2. He also reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council heard a General Plan Initiation Request for changing the zoning and land use designation for the Valero station, which will be before the Planning Commission in the near future. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Selection of a date for a site visit to Marymount College Commissioners Ruttenberg and Karp recused themselves from this item and left the dais. Director Rojas gave a brief staff report, asking the Commissioners if they wished to have a formal adjourned meeting at the Marymount site, and if so, staff was recommending the meeting be held on January 19th to compliment the public meeting that staff has already noticed. However, if the Commission doesn't feel they need to see the silhouette as a group, appointments can be made with the college staff to view the silhouette. The Commission agreed to an adjourned meeting on January 19th at Marymount College. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation, Grading Permit, Site Plan Review, Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00179): 5329 Bayridge Road Commissioners Ruttenberg and Karp returned to the dais. Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Gerstner recused themselves from hearing this item, and both left the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She explained the changes made by the applicant as a result of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at the last hearing. She stated that staff continues to have concerns with the bulk and mass of the project, as the entire side yard is taken up with the project. She discussed the concern of view impairment from 5338 Bayridge Road, and explained that there is no difference in the view impairment, and staff feels the proposed structure still causes significant view impairment. She explained that staff was recommending the Planning Commission either adopt the appropriate Resolution of approval if they feel the applicant has adequately addressed their previous concerns, or deny the project with prejudice and adopt the appropriate Resolution of denial. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify the total size of the newly proposed project. Assistant Planner Kim stated that the project, as proposed, is 4,359 square feet. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Louis Tomaro (architect) briefly discussed the changes made to the project, including lowering the building, adjusting roof slopes to bring the roof height down, and adding screening and opaque windows to the back part of the deck. He stated that the neighbor at 5338 Bayridge Road has submitted a letter of support for the project, as the Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 2 area of the best view for that neighbor is no longer an issue for the neighbor. In regards to bulk and mass, he noted that he has lowered the grade of the lot to match the existing grade of the neighbors house, therefore the house will no longer tower above the neighbors house. He also noted that the building steps in considerably. He felt that the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting have been addressed in a positive manner. Susan Semelka (applicant) discussed the changes made, noting that the proposed master bedroom and bathroom have been severely compromised and much of the second floor ocean and coastline view is,now blocked due to the proposed opaque glass and panels that have been proposed. She stated that she has taken dramatic and costly steps to accommodate every single input, and can't imagine a credible argument why this project cannot be approved. She felt that the mitigation is so severe relative to the local precedent, that she asked the Commission to consider whether the project must be limited to 20 feet. She did not feel the Development Code was being applied consistently in regards to her project. She noted that for a similar project approved on Basswood Drive the staff report states that the view above 16 feet is impaired of the sky and the Santa Monica Mountains. She felt that this set precedence that these mountains are not a protected view, however staff felt in her case that the Santa Monica Mountains are a protected view, and questioned the consistency. She also noted that the house at 26133 Basswood which is currently under construction has similar setbacks and privacy issues as her project, yet this was approved with no bulk and mass or privacy concerns by the Planning Commission. She showed several slides of homes in the community where there is a two-story home built next to a one-story home, which is similar to what is being proposed. She asked that the same application of the Development Code that allowed for the approval of 26133 Basswood be consistently applied to her project. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to explain their view of the difference in bulk and mass impacts with regards to this project versus the Basswood project. Director Rojas explained that without the complete analysis of the previous Basswood project in front of him it is difficult to compare project impacts, as both could have a similar design but it is not known what is next to the project, thus the context of the project and the details of the analysis for each project is needed to accurately compare them. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that superficially it appears the projects are similar in terms of size and circumstances, however he noted that he does not have the original power point presentation or the minutes of the meeting to help understand the scope of the Basswood project. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Knight recalled that there were possibly two other large structures of similar or equal bulk and mass on the same side of the street that were similar to the one being proposed on Basswood Avenue, and staff agreed. Commissioner Knight referred to the project on Basswood and noted that the Santa Monica Mountains were blocked below 16 feet and therefore not a protected view, and it was the sky that was being blocked by the structure above 16 feet in height. Therefore, the two projects are not comparable, because this proposed project on Bayridge Road is blocking the San Gabriel Mountain view by the portion of the project above 16 feet in height. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if they had any privacy issues with this project as currently proposed. Assistant Planner Kim answered that there are currently no privacy issued identified by staff. Vice Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing to ask the applicant further questions for clarification. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the slide taken from the living room at 5541 Elmbank and asked Mrs. Semelka to explain what the dotted yellow line in the picture represents. Mrs. Semelka explained that the dotted yellow line represents where the ridgeline of the Santa Monica Mountains is and the view impairment. She noted that this property on Elmbank was not mentioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp stated that property owners should be allowed to develop their properties to the maximum allowed by Code without impinging on their neighbors, however this property has a very small buildable area. He noted that the neighborhood is in transition, and there are other two-story houses within the neighborhood. He felt that the current house is functionally obsolete, and denying this project would essentially be saying that the house cannot be improved and would be denying someone the pleasure and enjoyment of their house. He felt that this project has little or no impact to the neighborhood and common sense should be used to approve the project. Commissioner Tetreault stated he is struggling with the view issue. He did not think the Planning Commission set a precedent that the San Gabriel Mountains is not a protectable view, and that it has been established that the Commission has not been inconsistent previously in holding that it is a significant view. He stated that this project will take away the mountain ridgeline from a neighbor, which is above 16 feet. He also understood that the neighbor whose view would be impacted doesn't appear to mind Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 4 losing this view. He stated that he has previously expressed his frustration in that it doesn't seem fair to preserve a view which a property owner doesn't care to preserve. However, the Municipal Code dictates that nine findings must be made in order to grant a Height Variation, and one of those findings states that the proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. He noted it doesn't say anything about that required finding being waived by another property owner. Because of that, he could not make the necessary findings to approve the Height Variation. Commissioner Ruttenberg addressed the question of whether or not a view can be waived, and he felt it could be waived. He felt that the question is the term "significant view impairment" and questioned if the term "significant" as used in the Code was subjective or objective. He did not have any trouble interpreting it subjectively because that's the way one maximizes its effect by providing the views people want more than the views the City dictates they should want. He also had no issue with privacy, as he felt efforts have been made to satisfy any concerns. He stated that his concern has always been the bulk and mass and size of the home, and he continues to have concern with that issue. He discussed the home on Basswood that the applicant brought up, and noted that it is very important that the City be consistent with its decisions. However, without all of the information in front of him for the Basswood project he was unable to know and understand how that decision of approval was reached. He stated that he was uncomfortable approving this project because of the size and that it may be something that the City Council will have to decide. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments regarding the view ordinance. He felt that the proper decision was made on Basswood Avenue based on the elements of the code that apply to what is a protected view above 16 feet, and that the decision made was consistent with the Code. He felt that this project creates a significant view impact to the one neighbor, and was also concerned with the bulk and mass of the project. He stated he was hoping to see a much greater variation or redesign of the project, as this project is still much too large for the neighborhood. He felt that there is a design that can increase the square footage and meet the applicant's needs without having to be as bulky and massive. He added that the bulk and mass are apparent not only from the street, but from the neighbor's property. He felt that the privacy issues have been addressed. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that his concerns with bulk and mass as well as privacy have been adequately addressed with this redesigned project. He noted that with the issue of privacy, it may have been over done. He stated, however, that he still has concerns with the significant view impact and the necessary finding that must be made. He did not think that significant view impact was at the discretion of the neighbors, as neighbors change. He was therefore could not support the project. Commissioner Tetreault added that the current view ordinance language is something that he would like to eventually see reviewed and revised, as he felt there should be a Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 5 way that a view holder can waive his view protection rights. He noted that this was just something he felt the code currently does not allow. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-1 thereby denying, with prejudice, the requested Height Variation Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review; and approve the Extreme Slope Permit, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Karp felt it was unfair to the applicant to deny with prejudice so that they could not submit a revised plan for a period of one year. He felt that if the applicant wanted to submit a radically different plan, they should be able to do so before the one year period. Commissioner Knight moved to amend his motion to deny the proposed project without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-1, as amended, was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Karp dissenting. 2. Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (ZON2006-00209): Chairman Gerstner and Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report. He gave a brief history of the project and explained the scope of the project. He noted that this project will result in 7,190 square foot structure. He reported that the applicant met with his neighbor and ironed out the issues that they had. As a result of the meeting, the applicant reduced the parapet roof over the garage, which also satisfies the adjoining neighbor and lessens the overall mass and appearance of the proposed garage. He stated that staff believes the proposed structure size is well within the size range of the other homes on Nautilus Drive. He added that staff believes for compatibility, this home should be compared to the other residences on Nautilus Drive, as they are of similar size and design. Therefore, staff continues to believe the proposed residence meets the neighborhood compatibility findings. He displayed a map showing the closest twenty residences to the project site, as requested at the previous hearing. He noted that the staff report tabulates the average size of these residences. He also noted that many of these homes are not within the same zoning district as the project site. He showed several photos taken on Nautilus Drive to show the scale and size of the existing homes. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and is recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he had met with the applicant at his home and spent some time there looking at the plans. He stated that he did not learn anything more than was in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 6 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had any background on how these homes on Nautilus Drive came to be built. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that most of the homes were built at the same time as part of a sub-division. Director Rojas added that he does not recall a zone change needed to build the homes, but did recall the homes being built together as a separate sub-division. Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify the-finding and conclusion on circle page 48, finding 2., Senior Planner Alvarez clarified that there is no view blockage based on the other findings, and the 2.6 foot reduction of the garage parapet doesn't affect that analysis. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they have done a view analysis from the vacant lot. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that he has not done a view analysis from the actual vacant lot. Commissioner Knight asked if staff felt that was a significant omission. Director Rojas answered that an assessment of the view from the vacant lot is necessary as views from vacant lots are protected. He explained that the view analysis performed from a vacant lot is a little different. He stated that staff would go to the area of the lot where a home could be built, outside of the setbacks, and assess whether there will be any significant view impairment caused by the portion of the project over 16 feet in height. He added that, based on the staff site visits that have been made to the other homes in the neighborhood, staff can make the determination of what the view impact from the vacant lot would be at this point, but an additional site visit can be made if so requested by the Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked if the legal owner of the vacant lot was notified about this project and the public hearings. Director Rojas answered that the owner of record was sent a notice of public hearing. Senior Planner Alvarez displayed a picture of the vacant lot and estimated where the view would be from if the lot was developed. Vice Chairman Perestam noted that there could be a problem with the current impervious surface percentage of the front setback area of the lot, and asked staff if a condition could be added to address the issue. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that staff could add a condition to address the concern. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 7 Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jerry Duhovic (applicant) felt he has addressed all of the issues raised at the last meeting, and has made a very reasonable proposal. He discussed the visibility of his project in relation to Palos Verdes Drive South, showing on a picture what he felt will be visible from that street. He also showed a picture that demonstrated that the views from the vacant lot discussed are already blocked by an existing home. He also showed pictures to demonstrate how the newly designed addition will look in terms of height and bulk and mass. He did not think the addition will create any new or additional bulk and mass with respect to the residence. He stated that his home is currently the smallest home on the block, and with the addition it will be the third largest home on the block. He stated that he will be well within the prescribed limits and tolerances for lot coverage, and that almost 1,000 square feet of the proposed 1,975 square feet will be under existing eaves. He concluded by asking that no consideration be given to the opposition recently raised by Mr. Moss, as he has no ownership interest in the house. Rudy Moss stated that he is an investor in the area. He stated that he has no objection to this proposed addition if the City wants to allow him to build it. He referred to a property on Nautilus, explaining that it at one time had a view of the Trump golf course, but no longer does because of vegetation that has been allowed to grow. He stated that he has the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th trust deeds on the neighboring house and the house is currently worth $10 million. However, that worth will significantly decrease if this proposed addition goes forward because it will block so much of the view from the residence. He asked that the Planning Commission delay any decisions on this property until the court case for the Colgrove property is heard in March. Jerry Duhovic (in rebuttal) stated that Ms. Colgrove is involved in litigation with the federal government and the property may be seized, however he has seen no documentation that shows Mr. Moss has any financial interest in the property. He discussed the vacant lot, and showed on a slide how the views from that property are already blocked by the Real home and his existing home. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight left the Planning Commission meeting at this point. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the house neighboring the vacant lot most likely obscures most of the view from the vacant lot, and asked why it is today that we would be concerned with an addition to the applicant's home when there may not have been any consideration as to the view impairment caused by the original construction. Director Rojas stated that his recollection was that these homes were graded down and therefore were built without a height variation, meaning no view impacts were assessed when they were built. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Lewis agreed with staff's recommendation that this project should be treated as its own neighborhood, therefore he could make the necessary neighborhood compatibility findings. He was troubled by the failure to do a view analysis from the vacant lot, and since the code gives staff the discretion to do the analysis from several points on the lot there is a small chance that view analysis would be helpful to the Planning Commission's analysis. Other than that, however, he was able to make the necessary findings for privacy, bulk and mass, and neighborhood compatibility. Vice Chairman Perestam felt Nautilus Drive is over-built and using today's standards these houses would not have been approved. He was concerned that there is an over- built street. He therefore was going to oppose the project, because he did not think there were any limits in the neighborhood. He stated that he would oppose the project on excessive bulk and mass. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he was opposed to the project. He felt that this addition would create a home that is too large for the lot size. He referred to the proposed homes on Nantasket Drive, and the City Council's decision that in a neighborhood of 1.5 acres, five new homes of between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet was too many. He explained that on Nautilus Drive there are already five homes on 1.5 acres and the City was being asked to increase the size of a home. He stated that his opinion is that the City Council thinks that amount of building on that small of an area is too much, as reflected in their vote for the homes on Nantasket Drive. He felt that this neighborhood is built out and that no additional square footage should be added to any of the homes. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he believes this cul-de-sac is its own neighborhood and should not be compared to the homes on Forrestal Drive or in the Seaview Tract. He did not think the Planning Commission could impose different rules on this street than those imposed on the other neighborhoods in the community. He found it difficult to tell the property owner of the smallest house on the street that his proposal to make his home almost the same size as another home on the street, and significantly smaller than the largest home on the street, can't be done. He stated that there are neighborhood compatibility standards and findings that must be made, and even though the houses on this street are very large and massive, he felt he was able to make the necessary findings for this proposed project. However, he was concerned about moving forward with this project without getting a formal view analysis from the vacant lot. Commissioner Karp assumed that the owners of the vacant lot received their public notice regarding the addition and the hearings and that if they had any concerns staff or the Planning Commission would have been notified. He did not think the size of the house was an issue and that the applicant has me reasonable demands to lower the profile. He noted that most of the additional areas will be under an existing roof, and was in favor of the project. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 9 Chairman Gerstner was also in favor of the project. He noted that the area is already zoned, and this is not a zone change issue, as is the Nantasket proposal. He stated that properties have been purchased on this street with the expectation of being able to build within the rights of that zoning. He felt that the house, as proposed, fits within those rights. He stated that the question becomes neighborhood compatibility and view. He was satisfied with the view issue, but did share some of Commissioner Tetreault's concerns, and questioned if there was a way of conditioning the approval such that staff does the analysis, and should they determine it is acceptable, the application can be approved. He felt that the proposed addition is compatible with the neighborhood and the applicant has addressed reasonable concerns. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Planning Commission has the power to approve the project with the condition that a view analysis will be done on the vacant lot and if the Director feels there is a significant view impact, it will come back to the Planning Commission. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission could not add such a condition to an approval, as the Commission must be in a position to make off of the findings before approving the project. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Planning Commission has the power to approve the project, ask that it come back on the Consent Calendar with a view analysis, and when it comes back if any member of the public or Planning Commission wants to discuss the findings, it can be taken off of the Consent Calendar for discussion. Director Rojas felt that was an awkward approach to the situation. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if it were possible to vote separately on whether or not the Commissioners felt there was a view issue from the vacant lot and then vote on whether or not to approve the project. Director Rojas answered that would be a decision for the Chairman. He also offered to clarify staff's position with regards to the vacant lot. He explained that from the site visits that staff has performed in the neighborhood, including a site visit adjacent to the vacant lot, as well as the approximate location of where the best view vantage point exists on the vacant lot outside of the required setbacks, staff feels that the proposed project would create a view impact to the vacant lot. However, staff does not feel this view impact would be significant. Given that, Director Rojas stated that the Planning Commission can rely on this determination or direct staff to do an actual view analysis from the vacant lot. Commissioner Karp felt that if the owners of the vacant lot felt there was a view issue they would be at this meeting. Commissioner Tetreault replied that this issue goes back to view being subjective and that it is not for the property owner to determine, but rather staff or the Planning Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 10 Commission. He added that there isn't much speculation on his part as to how a house will be built on this lot, noting that the garage will most likely be on the ground floor and the living area on the second floor. Therefore he was not worried about this addition creating a significant view impairment for that lot. Chairman Gerstner stated that he was comfortable, from the Director's representations, that there will not be a significant view impairment caused by this proposed addition. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-2 thereby approving the Height Variation, Site Plan Review°and Grading Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked about Vice Chairman Perestam's concern regarding the impervious surface on the lot, and asked if that should be a condition of the motion or if it should be handled separately. He noted that according to the plans it is currently at approximately 57 percent. Director Rojas answered that it should be addressed in the motion as an added condition. Commissioner Lewis amended his motion to include a condition that fifty percent of the front setback be landscaped, per the City code requirements, seconded by Commissioner Karp. The motion to approve the project as amended was.approved, (4-2) with Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Perestam dissenting. 3. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2007-00580) Commissioner Karp moved to waive the reading of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of November 27, 2007 Commissioner Karp left the dais, as he wished to speak on a matter addressed in the minutes. Commissioners Karp and Ruttenberg recused themselves from the portion of the minutes related to Marymount College. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 11 Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was not present at this meeting and would not be voting on the minutes. Director Rojas explained that there was still a quorum to vote on the minutes, as Commissioner Tetreault was going to abstain and not recuse himself and Commissioners Karp and Ruttenberg would only be recused from voting on the Marymount item and not the minutes in general. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jack Karp stated that he objected to the minutes as written and were misleading and inaccurate by omission. He asked that on an issue as important Marymount, that the minutes be more inclusive and detailed. He distributed a written correspondence detailing the comments by CCME during the public hearing Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Karp if this was the document as prepared for the presentation at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Karp answered that it is. Chairman Gerstner asked if the document has been changed in any way. Mr. Karp answered that to his knowledge the document has not been changed, and asked that this document be made part of the minutes. Jim Gordon felt that the change in the nature of the minute taking has inappropriately been applied to this EIR process. He was very concerned with the omissions in the minutes, and gave several examples. He felt that for this very important subject the minutes should be all inclusive. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner stated that it was his personal opinion that he would like to see the minutes at least cover or hit on the issues that each of the speakers spoke on. Commissioner Lewis felt that it sets a terrible precedent to, on any given project, invite different views of the minutes and add them on at the end. He felt this would create a garbled record. In his view, the purpose of the last meeting was to spot issues that the EIR consultants have to address. Therefore he did not think it was not as important what position the speakers took as much as the issues raised. Chairman Gerstner agreed that the transcript should not be added to the minutes, as it cannot be verified that what is on the transcript is what was said. He agreed with Commissioner Lewis in regards to the purpose of the last meeting. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 12 Commissioner Lewis suggested adding a statement at the end of the minutes which says that there was significant discussion from the public regarding the inaccuracy of the minutes and letters were submitted on certain dates, and whoever is reading the minutes are urged to consult those letters. Vice Chairman Perestam felt that the decision should be that the Planning Commission understands the concerns and comments and in the future when there is something of this significance, there will be an effort to have more accurate and detailed minutes. He did not think that the minutes should be changed at this point in time. Commissioner Tetreault stated that his understanding that the official record of the meetings are the video tapes, which are available on the website. He felt that having verbatim minutes would create a mountain of paper that nobody would review, and the minutes would become so burdensome they would be useless. He also felt it was the Commission's obligation to approve the minutes. He felt that if people wanted to have a more thorough record of what they said in the minutes, there is not a lot of harm in that. Director Rojas stated that since the Marymount item represented comments on the EIR which will need to be responded to, the Commission can direct staff to give a little more breadth and scope to the various speakers captured in the minutes. He noted that to do that will take a little time, and therefore the minutes from this meeting will not be available as soon as they otherwise might be. Vice Chairman Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Chairman Gerstner felt that this issue was important enough, since the meeting minutes will be part of the EIR, to have staff review the tape and the minutes and augment them where needed. Vice Chairman Perestam withdrew his motion. Chairman Gerstner moved to direct staff to take another look at the minutes to confirm that all of the salient points of the speakers were addressed or noted, and bring the minutes back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting for review and approval, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Approved, (3-1)with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. PRE-AGENDA The pre-agenda was discussed and approved, with the addition of the minutes of November 27, 2007. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes January 8,2008 Page 14