Loading...
PC MINS 20081030 Approved December 11, 8 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 4 before agenda item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the October 21, 2008 City Council meeting the Council approved the Highridge condo project as recommended by the Planning Commission. He also reported that the proposed Green Building Ordinance and Valero zone change request are scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 6, 2008. He noted that the Planning Commission's decision on the proposed St. John Fisher project was appealed and the hearing is scheduled for the City Council meeting of November 18, 2008. Director Rojas distributed nine items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and fifteen items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2008-00211): 5837 Crest Rd Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that staff felt all of the applicable findings could be made to approve the proposed requested CUP revision, and noted that the generator incorporates double wall fuel tanks and has been approved by the City's drainage consultant and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. He stated that staff recommends conditional approval of the requested revision to the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed emergency generator for Verizon Wireless. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there is adequate security fencing around the proposed generator. Associate Planner Fox answered that there is security fencing around the Cal Water property, where the generator is located. He also noted there is a condition that a locking fuel filler cover be included on the generator. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Aaron Cornish (representing Verizon Wireless) stated he was available for questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Cornish to review the security that will be in place for this proposed generator. Mr. Cornish answered that the generator will be locked and the California Water Service property is security by fencing and gates. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit revision as recommended by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-39, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00593): 5 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining the concerns that had been raised by staff and the Planning Commission at Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 2 the previous meetings. He explained the revised proposal before the Planning Commission and how it had been modified from the original plan. He stated that staff still believes the proposed project is too large and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore staff believes the proposed project will not be in character with the immediate neighborhood unless it is substantially reduced in size. He stated that in terms of architectural style, bulk, and mass staff feels the currently proposed design is more compatible with the style in the surrounding ranch style and split level homes, although staff feels further architectural embellishments would help to reduce the verticality of the exterior elevations. Therefore, while staff feels the project is compatible in style, it is still incompatible in terms of bulk and mass. He explained that staff was able to make the other necessary findings for the Height Variation and Grading Permit, however because staff felt the project was incompatible with the immediate neighborhood in terms of size, scale, bulk, and mass was recommending denial without prejudice of the proposed project. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there were any special considerations that should be given with respect to second dwelling units. Associate Planner Fox answered that the reason the Planning Commission is considering the second dwelling unit is because there are development criteria in the Development Code for second dwelling units, and if the proposal does not meet all of the criteria must become before the Planning Commission with a Conditional Use Permit. Laura Goddard (applicant) stated that she has completely redesigned the house to satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission and neighbors. She explained that the problem with her lot is the needed foundation and caissons and because of that she cannot build a small house, and that is a unique problem in this neighborhood. She also noted that it is very difficult to get construction loans for smaller houses on big lots. She stated she went over every single square foot of the home and the minimum size she can build is 6,300 square feet. She stated that she paid a lot of money for this land and she needs to put a house on the land. She also explained that the view to the north is the only view she has and she questioned how much her proposed house really impacts the neighbor's privacy, noting that she is also a private person and doesn't want to look into their property. Oliver Severios explained that his mother is the applicant and he will be living in the second unit when it is built and was available to answer any questions. Devlon Malin stated he grew up on Cayuse Lane and explained how the neighborhood is unique because of the rural atmosphere that exists. He stated that this massive structure does not fit into the neighborhood because of the size, bulk, and mass of the house. He asked that the Planning Commission not approve the house as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Malin about 22 Cayuse Lane, which is a 5,485 square foot home. He asked if that house appears larger than all of the others in the neighborhood. Mr. Malin identified the house and stated that 22 Cayuse does not look significantly larger than the other houses in the neighborhood, as it is a flat one story building as seen from the street. He stated that he didn't know how long ago the house was built, but has been there for as long as he can remember. LaVon Malin stated she is not against the proposed house, but is against the Variances needed to build the house. She did not think the lot is a view lot, as variances are needed to gain a view. She stated that the currently proposed residence looks into her windows and into her back yard. She also felt it was much too large for the neighborhood and is not compatible with the neighborhood. She asked that the Planning Commission not approve the project as currently submitted with the Variances. Diana Menjou stated that she and her husband are in favor of staff's recommendations of denial. She explained that the proposed residence will infringe on the privacy in the pool and spa area of her home. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Menjou if she understood that if she is not an abutting property, then privacy is not a consideration for the Planning Commission. Ms. Menjou understood, however she felt the proposed residence affects her directly and she wanted that to be known. Craig Washington stated that at the previous meeting he pointed out that the project was objectionable because of size, scale, neighborhood compatibility, bulk, and mass. He stated this new design has not changed much, as it is still a tall, boxy structure. He felt that to be more compatible with the neighborhood the house could be kept at driveway level with a garage built underground. David Moulding stated that the applicant has changed the design of the house but has not decreased the square footage and overall size of the house. Because of the restricted amount of building space on the lot, the house has been pushed forward and closer to the street. He also pointed out that this house is very vertical, while the rest of the houses in the neighbor are a California ranch style with horizontal lines. He therefore urged the Planning Commission to respect the style and type of architecture existing in the immediate neighborhood and reject this application. Laura Goddard (in rebuttal) again stated that she has done everything she can to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She did not think there were privacy concerns with the neighbors as she did not want to look into their properties. She stated that she has moved the house and cannot move it any further and keep any view. Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 4 Commissioner Knight stated that he had expressed concerns with the bulk and mass of the house at the previous meeting and has not seen much change in the bulk and mass with this submittal. He therefore agreed with staff's recommendation of denial. He felt that there were alternatives available that the applicant hasn't yet explored, and felt a smaller house could be built on this lot. Commissioner Tetreault understood the financial constraints the applicant discussed, but explained that the Planning Commission also has constraints in terms of the Development Code, which includes neighborhood compatibility issues. He stated that these neighborhood compatibility guidelines do not include financial hardships as an exception to the guidelines. As a Planning Commissioner he felt that he must follow the Development Code and the Guidelines, and therefore agreed with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Tomblin also could not support the project based on the bulk and mass and could not support the project as currently designed. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he had been concerned with the size, bulk, and mass of the house at the previous meeting and that this proposal has not done much to eliminate any of the size, bulk, or mass. He did not think it was within the authority of the Planning Commission to approve a house so out of character with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Lewis also sympathized with the applicant's financial constraints and agreed that financial constraints can not be considered when looking at a new development. Therefore, he could not support the project. Commissioner Gerstner also could not support the project, but felt that the problems with the design are solvable. Chairman Perestam also felt there was opportunity to redesign the project to make it more compatible, and that the Planning Commission is constrained by a November 14th decision deadline. He therefore would have to support staff's recommendation at this time. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-40 thereby denying, without prejudice, the requested Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. Zon2007- 00472): 27000 Freeport Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, reviewing the history of the project. She stated that since the last meeting the applicant has reduced the structure size by more than 700 square feet. Staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and felt Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 5 that the revisions made make the house compatible with the neighborhood, and was therefore recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Louis Tomaro (architect) discussed the approach he used in reducing the size and square footage of the design of the house last seen by the Planning Commission. He showed a rendering of the redesigned house. He stated that this new design will also open up the views for the side yard neighbors, as the house has been moved forward on the lot. He stated that this design has also created a bigger rear yard setback than the previous design and the building height has been lowered. He felt that this is now a house that fits in with the neighborhood~ even though it will be the largest in the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the overall roof height had been reduced. Mr. Tomaro answered that the roof height has been lowered eight inches because the building width has been shortened. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that in looking at the numbers for this house, one would think that there would be a problem with the size of this house in this neighborhood. He noted, however, that this neighborhood seems to support the proposed project and there has been very little opposition to it. He felt that the design is compatible with the neighborhood and that he can now support the project. Commissioner Tetreault was pleased with the amount of work done by the architect to reduce the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed project. He noted, however, that this house will still be 19 percent larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood and 140 percent larger than the average size home in the neighborhood. Further, the house will be located at a focal point of the neighborhood, as it is at the top of a rise which magnifies its appearance. He acknowledged that this is the largest lot in the neighborhood, but pointed out that most of the lot is not buildable. He stated that he has mixed feelings about this project. Commissioner Knight also appreciated the efforts of the architect to reduce the square footage and add elements to reduce the bulk and mass. However, he agreed with Commissioner Tetreault that this is a very prominent home on the street and he still did not think the design is compatible with the neighborhood. He felt that the design needs to be scaled down as it is too bulky and massive for the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he had a lot of problems with the house when it was first before the Planning Commission, as he felt it was much too large for the neighborhood. He felt that the way this redesign has pulled the house closer to the street and further away from the hillside has helped the appearance of the house. He felt that this has helped the neighbors continue to have most of their views. He Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 6 acknowledged that this house is still quite large, but felt he could support the current project. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. He also felt that the space between the homes helps with the mcmansion concerns. He also felt that, in looking at the actual footprint of the proposed project, it is not too much larger than the footprint of the existing homes. He therefore could support the proposed project. Vice Chairman Lewis appreciated the amount of work that went into this redesign, but felt that this may still be too much house, not in terms of the actual square footage but more from the apparent square footage. He stated that he is currently leaning towards denial of the project for that reason. Commissioner Knight stated that, if the project is approved, he would like to have some type of restriction on the fountain element shown on the plans. He felt that the fountain would contribute to a more grandiose affect to the entrance of the house. Director Rojas noted that the Code limits the height of fountains in the front setback to 42 inches. Chairman Perestam felt that this is a case where the Planning Commission is defining a neighborhood, explaining that between this house and the large house down the street the Planning Commission is defining the maximum for this neighborhood. He felt that the landscaping for this property is very important, noting that the trees on the right hand side are critical to soften that side of the house. He stated that he is in support of the project, adding that this is a maxed out combination of size, bulk and mass for this neighborhood. Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing. Louis Tomaro stated that the fountain was more of a water feature and will be no higher than 42 inches. In regards to the setbacks, he explained that he thought it was best to move the house forward to alleviate some of the setbacks in the back, and in doing so the side setbacks came a little closer. He pointed out that there is a 10 foot 6 inch setback at the very closest point at the west side of the building to the property line. He also felt that the courtyard alleviates some of the mass of the house. He also noted that, because of the way the lot fans out, the majority of the mass of the house is in the back part of the lot. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned that, while the Planning Commission tonight may say that this residence is the maximum size for the neighborhood, years down the road when another resident is applying to build a large house on their lot this house may Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 7 be used as the base line and the new house will be 10 percent larger than this one. He was concerned that this house is a focal point in the neighborhood and will stand out. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that there is nothing special about this particular lot that should accord it the extra consideration it is receiving at this hearing, and therefore he felt he could support the project. Commissioner Knight stated that when he said the house is too large and bulky, he was not suggesting that the house has to match the average size in the neighborhood. His concern was more that the jump from the average size of 1,900 square feet all the way to this proposal of 4,300 square feet is too large. He felt that a very nice home could be designed and be much closer to compatibility with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt staff's recommendation and approve the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review as conditioned in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. In looking at neighborhood compatibility, Commissioner Tetreault felt that approving this project then means that this house is compatible with the neighborhood, and is now defining what this neighborhood is. Therefore, any other home will be measured against this house in terms of compatibility and other homes can be as large as or larger than this house. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that this has been a difficult application and the Planning Commission is obviously split, but suggested that the Commission does not disagree overall by all that much, and are failing by just a small amount on one side or other of the line. Commissioner Knight acknowledged that the Planning Commission has approved large homes in smaller neighborhoods, but that these homes tend to be down below the grade or not very prominent in the neighborhood. This property is in a very prominent location on the street and he felt this house will tower over the others on the street. The motion to approve the Height Variation and Site Plan Review, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-41 was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. 3. Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Sign Program, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2002-00216: 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explained the new information in terms of signage, lighting and drainage as written in the staff report. He displayed a revised first floor plan, roof plan, and elevations. He explained that for the reasons discussed in the original August 12th staff report, staff recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. On September 23rd a group of project opponents submitted comments that challenged the Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 8 traffic impact analysis and raised other issues. Therefore, before the Planning Commission takes action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, he wanted to address the four main issues in the submitted comments. He brought up each of these issues and explained, as discussed in the staff report, staff's response to these issues. In conclusion, based on tonight's discussion and the staff reports of August 12th and September 23rd, staff believes all of the necessary findings to approve the revised project can be made and is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolutions certifying the mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approving the project. Commissioner Knight referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the discussion that the drainage will have to the NCCP area, however his understanding from one of the Conditions of Approval is that drainage will be directed to Crest Road. He asked staff to clarify. Associate Planner Fox explained that drainage will be directed to Crest Road. He clarified that the impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are the result of either direct removal of habitat on the site and brush clearance off site and the drainage improvements would have occurred in the area where there is to be the brush clearance. Commissioner Knight noted the two entrances to the building, and noted a concern that people may tend to park on the street close to the corner. He asked staff if the traffic study looked at that situation. Associate Planner Fox answered that the traffic study did not look at that specific situation, however the Public Works Department has restrictions on how close cars can be parked to a corner. Commissioner Knight asked that Public Works review this plan and ensure that whatever restrictions they have are put into place. Associate Planner Fox stated the Planning Commission can ask that the Traffic Engineer look at parking along both frontages. Chairman Perestam asked staff if red curbing the first 150 feet down Crest Road had been considered and if any consideration had been given to the ability to turn onto Crest Road to get in line to make a left turn onto Hawthorne Blvd. had been specifically looked at by the Traffic Engineer. Associate Planner Fox answered that the red curbing was not specifically looked at by the Traffic Engineer, but the re-striping of Crest Road and the length of the left turn pocket was part of the evaluation. Charles Belak-Berger (architect) stated he has been working with staff to resolve the outstanding issues with this project. He realized there are still some issues outstanding Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 9 and he will continue to work closely with staff to resolve those issues. He noted that one of the more specific outstanding issues is the driveway turn and how best to accommodate that. He stated he will do whatever needed to facilitate that left turn on to Crest Road. He stated that he has read the conditions of approval and has no objections. John Kendall discussed the different entrances off of Hawthorne Blvd. and the distances from the intersection. He stated that this proposed entrance is less than half the distance as the others and was concerned that this would create a traffic hazard. He cautioned the Planning Commission that they should know what they're doing before approving the project and that all information in the traffic report is accurate. He felt that the traffic report is obsolete, as it was done many years ago. David Bray hoped the Planning Commission understands the dismay and trepidation of the neighborhood over the building in general. He understood the constraints the Planning Commission is under, given this is a commercially zoned area and that if this project goes to the City Council on appeal the issue will be one of the rights of a view in an open view area versus those of the rights of the owner to build. He felt that the best solution for this property would be for the City to purchase the land, re-zoning, and/or some combination of donation of this property to the conservancy. Daniel Hess was concerned that the Planning Commission may approve the construction of an office building on a lot that is surrounded by a nature preserve and has been undeveloped for over 40 years. His concerns include the project's increased safety risk and congestion, the obstruction of long established public and private view corridors, and that the project creates a serious geologic risk as it requires the removal of thousands of cubic yards of fill dirt. He was also concerned that the project will create irreversible environmental damage and permanently displaces plant and animal wildlife. He felt the project acts in a manner inconsistent with the General Plan which provides that the City's vistas are a significant resources to residents and visitors. Charles Belak-Berger (in rebuttal) stated he will do what is in the best interest of the people utilizing Crest Road. He did not think the impact of a small office building would be very significant to the traffic flows of the intersection. In regards to the views, he noted that he has brought down the height of the building substantially as requested by the Planning Commission. He felt that what is being proposed for the property will cause little impact and is a good use for the lot. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff what other types of commercial uses can be placed at this site, given the current zoning. Associate Planner Fox answered that this zoning would allow a bank or other financial institution, medical and dental offices, or an art gallery or exhibit space or other similar uses. Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 10 Commissioner Knight stated that he has seen many times cars that speed down the hill at Crest to catch the green light at the intersection, and asked staff if there are special circumstances in which additional mitigation is needed, such as a warning sign when people leave the property to try to make this as safe as possible. Associate Planner Fox was sure there are things that could be done, however he would defer that to the Traffic Engineer. He noted that is why condition No. 18 is in the conditions of approval, and if the Planning Commission would like to ask the Traffic Engineer specific things to consider, he•suggested these be included in the condition. Commissioner Tomblin explained that he was uncomfortable approving this project without first seeing the traffic study and the recommendations of the traffic engineer. He felt there could be major problems at the intersection and could not support the project without first seeing this study. Chairman Perestam requested that the traffic engineer look at the possibility for the need of red curbing at Hawthorne Boulevard as well as Crest Road. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that decisions on the safe parking and traffic issues is best left to the Traffic Engineer, who is better equipped to make these judgments. He felt that if the Planning Commission were to approve this project tonight as presented, and the Traffic Engineer felt that it cannot be done safely, or if it can be done safely with major modifications, the project will come back to the Planning Commission. He was concerned that in this process the Planning Commission might give false signals or directions to the Traffic Engineer, which would be inefficient. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to approve staff's recommendations as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight referred to the south elevation and explained that he felt there is an overabundance of signs on this side of the wall, and he would like to see one of the signs removed. He would also like to see a screening of the interior lights under the garage. Vice Chairman Lewis was not opposed to the screening of the lighting, however he did not agree with the suggestion to remove one sign. He pointed out that the signs are not lit and they are modest in size. He therefore agreed to amend his motion to include screening of the interior lights under the garage, which Commissioner Gerstner seconded. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was not present at the last meeting when this item was discussed, however he has reviewed the minutes and felt he was able to discuss and vote on the proposed project. He commended the City for the efforts that have been made to purchase open space throughout the City for the purpose of preserving it through perpetuity. He stated this particular piece of property was not Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 11 purchased by the City and is private property. This property is zoned for development and an application has been submitted for a project that is consistent with the zoning of the property. In discussing the traffic study, he asked staff if the Traffic Engineer will review this project if approved at tonight's meeting. Associate Planner Fox answered that the Traffic Engineer will review the project once approved. If the Traffic Engineer has serious concerns which will impact the project, the project will come back to the Planning Commission for further review. Commissioner Tomblin explained that his concern was the scope of the traffic study. He felt that the problems on Crest Road start on Crest Road coming down the hill before it crosses Hawthorne Boulevard and without knowing the scope of the traffic study and how far up Crest Road the report examines, he was uncomfortable with approving it. Associate Planner Fox pointed out that given the assumptions of the traffic study that was done, the average daily number of trips for this site is eighty, which is very low. He noted that is projected to generate eleven peak hour trips and that with such a low number of trips he did not think the study would have to go out very far before those trips become absorbed in the general pattern of traffic. He explained that in terms of CEQA the applicant is only responsible for mitigating impacts that he creates or adds to. Chairman Perestam suggested amending the motion to include a revision to condition No. 18 so that it will specifically address the left turn lane and red curbing. Vice Chairman Lewis accepted the revision to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Perestam also suggested amending the motion to amend condition No. 36 to change the maximum height of the freestanding light fixtures to 10 feet. Vice Chairman Lewis accepted the revision, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Perestam reviewed the revisions to condition No. 18, noting that this should include red curbs, deceleration lanes, warning signs, and restriping of the left—turn pocket on Crest Road. Director Rojas reviewed the amendments to the motion, which included the revisions to condition No. 18, an amendment to include the screening of the garage lighting, an amendment to modify condition No. 24 to address an extended fuel modification if needed, and to modify condition No. 36 to address the 10 foot height of the freestanding light fixtures. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-42, thereby certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the revised project and adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-43, thereby Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 12 conditionally approving the requested Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit and Sign Program as modified was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 5. Planning Commission December meeting schedule Director Rojas explained that with the heavy schedule before the Planning Commission it may become necessary to add a second meeting to the December schedule, and suggested adding a meeting on December 11tH The Commission and staff discussed the possible applications and agendas that will be before the Planning Commission and the need for the extra meeting, and agreed to select Thursday December 11th as the date of an adjourned Planning Commission meeting to serve as the second Planning Commission meeting during the month of December. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of September 9, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner recused and Commissioner Ruttenberg and Chairman Perestam recused from voting on Item No. 3 (Marymount College). 7. Minutes of September 23, 2008 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tetreault recused. 8. Minutes of October 9, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of November 1, 2008 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 30,2008 Page 13