Loading...
PC MINS 20110426 Approved May 4 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin, Absent: Commissioner Knight was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their April 19 meeting the City Council denied the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a proposed project at 21 Cayuse Lane, agreeing with the Planning Commission that the applicant's property is a sloping lot and not a pad lot. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Ed Shea updated the Commission on the status of the privacy wall that separates Villa Capri and Golden Cove, noting the Planning Commission's decision has been appealed to the City Council. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00331): 6530 La Garita Drive Director Rojas noted this is a continued item from the February 8t" meeting, where Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault were not present. He noted that Commissioner Gerstner has not yet arrived, and asked Commissioner Tetreault if he had reviewed the tape of the meeting and/or reviewed the minutes. Commissioner Tetreault stated he reviewed the staff report, however he did not review the minutes or the tape of the previous meeting. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project, showing the original application that was before the Commission and explaining the current redesign of the project. She stated that staff feels the modified project meets all of the required findings and can recommend approval of the modified project. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Salpi Manoukian (Designer) stated she and the owner have reviewed the staff report and are pleased with the recommendations made by staff. She stated that after the February meeting she heard and understood the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy and massing, and listened to the recommendations of the Commission in regards to articulation. Therefore, the plan was changed to accommodate all of these concerns. These changes include lowering the overall building height, a decrease in the addition size, a completely redesigned second story, and an increase in all of the setbacks. She asked if a window could be added to the west side of the master bathroom, similar to the window on the front of the house. Commissioner Leon asked if the additional window would be above eye level. Ms. Manoukian answered the window would be above eye level. Steve Watson showed a diagram he made which he explained represents the loss of privacy to his residence due to the proposed second story addition. He explained that anywhere he stands in his backyard he will be able to look up and see at least two of the three windows. He showed a drawing of his house and the current house compared to the proposed house which he explained shows how the proposed addition will be too massive and overbearing. He explained the new structure will permanently block the only source of natural light to the west end of his home. Finally, he pointed out that there is the potential for an additional 850 square feet of ground floor expansion on the property which would not require a Variance. He pointed out that the silhouette understates the project's mass and that the silhouette is incomplete. Ned Morimoto (6517 Certa Drive) discussed his view impairment concerns, explaining that he believes the proposed project impairs his far view of the ocean, which is a consideration in future improvements to his home. He stated that the ocean view is seen from his living room as well as the outside patio. He indicated that he would be available to city staff at any time, so that weather is not a factor, in order for staff to perform additional analysis of height and view from his residence. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 2 Tony Nafissi (6525 Certa Drive) stated he completely agrees with the comments made by Mr. Watson and Mr. Morimoto. He added that this addition will change the appearance of the neighborhood and questioned how this addition will affect his property value. Curtis Watanabe (6531 Certa Drive) stated he is opposed to the project, as his privacy at his rear facing bedrooms and anywhere in his backyard will be severely impacted. Chairman Tomblin asked if planting foliage along the fence line would help reduce the privacy impacts. Mr. Watanabe felt planting would help slightly with the privacy concerns, but did not think it would help with the bulk and mass issues of the house. Lindley Ruddick asked that the Commission deny this variance on the basis of excessive mass and bulk when viewed from the surrounding streets and homes. He stated that after the re-flagging of the project it was very difficult to distinguish any changes to the mass and bulk and only by viewing the plans did any changes become apparent. He noted that when entering the neighborhood from Lomo Drive onto LaGarita ones eyes are immediately drawn to the flags that outline the proposed structure. One gets the same view when leaving Acana Road or Ella Road. He felt the proposed structure, as outlined by the flags, towers over the adjacent single story homes, and the incongruence will become even more apparent if the structure is actually built. He stated that the bulk and mass will be accentuated by the relatively small setback from the street, the relatively narrow lot, the minimal setbacks from the adjoining properties, and the projection over the garage. As a result, the proposed structure is out of place in this neighborhood. He did not feel the surrounding neighbors are opposed to a residential expansion at this address, but questioned the need for the Height Variation, as he felt the house could be expanded without the need for a second story. Debra Yokum (28074 Acana Road) stated she has a view of the applicant's property from her kitchen and two front bedrooms. She stated she opposes the expansion because of neighborhood compatibility and privacy. She noted there are no two-story houses on LaGarita or Acana, and based on the size of the lots, a single story ranch style home works well in the neighborhood. She stated this also gives the neighborhood an open feeling and complete privacy. She felt a two-story, twenty-one foot tall structure is completely out of character for the neighborhood and the rear portion of the home continues to appear bulky and massive from her view point. She stated the trees on LaGarita and Acana are cut down to sixteen feet on a regular basis and a twenty-one foot tall structure in a one-story community destroys the appeal of the neighborhood. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the Height Variation. Diane Hayden began by stating she agrees with everything Ms. Yokum said and therefore will not repeat it. She discussed the bulk and mass of the proposed project, Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 3 showing the area next to her home without the silhouette and again with the silhouette, and then filled in to represent the view once the structure is built. Paul Hayden stated the newly revised plan for the second arguably mitigated some concerns on mass and bulk, however if anything the privacy issues in his backyard are worse than they were before. He explained that right now his backyard is completely private and there is not one window from any surrounding house that can see into his backyard. When a yard has complete privacy, he felt any impairment of that privacy renders that yard not private and there are no degrees of reasonableness of an impairment on these facts. He stated that if his backyard could be seen from the windows of a few other houses, then adding this addition might create a small impairment of privacy, but it would not be considered significant. He did not think that such a finding could ever be made on facts such as this where the backyard starts out completely private. He explained the proposed project will have windows that look out over his backyard and will be able to see his entire yard. He also pointed out that he will be able to see windows but he won't be able to tell if someone is looking at him through the window, and he felt this is as significant an impairment of privacy as one can possible have in an existing private back yard. John Bohannon stated he agrees with everything that has been said by his neighbors. Salpi Manoukian (in rebuttal) stated there is a distance of 15 feet between the second story addition and the building on the east side of the property. She also noted that his property is two feet higher than the applicant's property. She therefore did not think the second story addition would look massive from Mr. Watson's property. Regarding the neighbor on the west, she felt the applicant has gone out of his way to give up area on the second story in order to create articulations that would control the privacy issues. She stated if is not legal and she cannot design rooms without a window. Chairman Tomblin asked if the opaque window is designed to be openable. Ms. Manoukian answered that it will be openable, explaining that it is a small 4 by 4 window that looks towards the side yard. Commissioner Leon asked if there will be an ocean view from the proposed second floor of this house. Ms. Manoukian answered there may be a view but she is not sure. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the February 8th meeting minutes have been made available to him and he has reviewed those minutes. He felt that after reviewing the minutes and this current staff report he has prepared himself adequately to take part in this discussion. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 4 Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if there are currently any two-story homes beyond the radius staff identified when looking at neighborhood compatibility. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there a couple of two-story homes on Lomo Drive and there are two-story homes on Ella Road. She noted the majority of the homes in the neighborhood to the south of the applicant are two-story homes. Commissioner Lewis stated that he could not support a second story addition at this location, noting he could not make the findings that no ocean view would be blocked as a result of this project, that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood, and that no privacy impacts to the neighbors would result. Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the proposed project without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he was conflicted, as he felt the applicant has made a good faith effort to redesign the project to lessen the impact. However, he is also troubled by the breadth of the neighborhood opposition to the project and also felt there are some privacy issues that need to be further addressed. Commissioner Leon stated that there have been neighborhoods before the Planning Commission that are interested in growth and development within the neighborhood, and the Commission has respected that view and allowed more leniency associated with second story additions and reasonable privacy. In this case, he felt the neighborhood that wants to remain at a single story ranch type home and he felt it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to honor those views. Vice Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Lewis' comments, except for the neighborhood compatibility issue. He noted there is a two-story home within the twenty closest homes and this would not be the largest home in the neighborhood. He felt there has been quite a bit of articulation added, and the house is within the setback requirements. However, he did feel there are some adverse view impacts and was troubled by the privacy issues. He felt the case made by the neighbor with respect to the privacy in his backyard was fairly compelling. He also noted, however, that building codes require a bedroom have an openable window for emergency egress. He pointed out that this is a fairly small lot, and to get the additional square footage the applicant wants would be fairly difficult without going to a second story. Chairman Tomblin noted that in this area of the neighborhood it appears that the lots are much narrower than in other areas of the neighborhood, and that the existing two- story homes in the neighborhood are on these wider lots. He felt putting a second story on this narrower lot creates almost an imposing situation. He understood how staff made their findings, and was having trouble not supporting staff's recommendation. However, he also saw where this proposed addition will cause some problems and it has to do with the much narrower lots. He therefore supported the motion. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 5 Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion that the public hearing is closed and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of denial without prejudice to be presented at the next meeting on the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Chairman Tomblin stated that he would like to continue the public hearing to give the applicant one last chance to redesign the project, but realized that there is a May 15th deadline to make a decision on this application. The motion to deny the project without prejudice and that a Resolution reflecting this decision be brought back on the next Consent Calendar was approved, (4-1- 1) with Chairman Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. 2. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00252): 6480 Palos Verdes Drive East Director Rojas stated this item was first heard at the March 22nd meeting, where Chairman Tomblin was absent. He asked the Chairman if he had read the minutes or watched the tape of that meeting in order to participate in this public hearing. Chairman Tomblin stated he would abstain from the discussion and not vote on this item. Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, giving a history of the project, explaining the original submittal and explaining the changes the applicant has made to the project since the last meeting. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the Height Variation and Grading Permit, and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Charles Boag (17 Diamonte Lane) stated that the neighbor most affected by this project, Mr. Kenworthy at 3071 Deluna Drive, could not attend the meeting and had asked Mr. Boag to let the Commission know this. Mr. Boag stated that, in general, he approves of the project but he still had some concerns with the guest house being so close to his house. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Emenhiser complimented the applicant and the neighbors for working together to find a solution and felt the applicant has done everything the Commission and staff as asked of him. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 6 Vice Chairman Tetreault acknowledged that quite a bit of work has been done on this project and felt the overall impact of the structure to the neighbors, after the foliage has been removed, will be reduced. PC Resolution 2011-019, thereby conditionally approving the project as presented and conditioned by staff, was approved, (5-0-1) with Chairman Tomblin abstaining from the vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009-00403): 29403 Whitley Collins Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation application. She noted that the ridge line and overall height of the home is not changing, however the height variation is required as the home is over 16 feet in height from the highest elevation. She stated there are no view impacts in this neighborhood, staff did not identify any privacy impacts, and there was no correspondence from any of the neighbors regarding the proposed project. She stated staff was able to make the required findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tomblin opened the public and there being no speakers, he closed the public hearing. - Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-20 was approved, thereby approving the project as conditioned by staff, (6-0). 4. General Plan update — proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining this is similar to the four other areas discussed at the March 22nd meeting. He explained the proposal before the Commission is to adjust some land use boundaries on the Land Use Map to be consistent with the Zoning Map. He noted that the current Land Use Map is not parcel specific, however the adopted Zoning Map is parcel specific. In updating the new General Plan and updating the General Plan Land Use Map, given the new technology, the new Land Use Map will be GIS capable and will be parcel specific. In going through the process staff has discovered that the original General Plan had hazard designations in locations that were not the same as those shown on the Zoning Map. Therefore, staff is proposing to make the new Land Use Map the same as the existing Zoning Map. He explained that one of the main questions staff has received from the public is how this will affect their property and is staff now imposing a hazard designation on the property. He explained that all staff is proposing is to implement what is already on the property and making the General Plan Land Use Map the same as the regulations already imposed on the property. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 7 Commissioner Leon understood the intent, but asked if there would be a problem not having the parcels displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map so that the General Plan is general as opposed to specific, and allowing the Zoning Map to show the parcels and be more specific. Deputy Director Pfost stated that if that is the direction of the Commission there can be a General Plan Land Use Map without parcel lines. He noted, however, that parcel lines help identify what the General Plan land use designation is on a property, and one will know that designation as well as the zoning designation. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked, if we already have a more precise zoning map, why we have to have a different map in the General Plan. He felt that having different maps may make people think there is significance to them and they should fight for the differences. Deputy Director Pfost explained that you have to have a General Plan Land Use Map to go with the General Plan, adding that the General Plan map is the basic underlying map and the zoning map gets into more specificity. Staff is suggesting making the hazard designation consistent with the zoning so that there is the same land use designation in the General Plan as in the zoning designation. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if the open space hazard designation is exactly the same between the zoning map and the proposed General Plan Map. Deputy Director Pfost stated currently there are huge differences, but the goal is to make the maps the same. He added that the zoning map is the adopted map that is enforceable today and staff is attempting to make the hazard designation on the General Plan map match the designations on the zoning map. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked, in what is before the Commission, if there are any differences that can be discerned between the two maps. Deputy Director Pfost did not feel there would be any discernable differences, but added that at the last meeting that was an issue that was expressed by one of the Commissioners. He explained that in the staff report he discussed that staff would like to put a note on the General Plan Land Use Map indicating that the hazard designation is a general land use designation and the zoning map is a specific identification and one can move the zoning boundary line through a process identified in the Municipal Code without having to update the General Plan map. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked which map staff would use if a property owner were asking about their property and there was a difference between the two maps. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff would refer to the Zoning Map, as the Zoning Map is the adopted map and is parcel specific. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 8 Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if what staff is proposing would have any impact on a parcel owner depicted on the General Plan map. Deputy Director Pfost answered that a property owner would not be impacted any more than they already are by the existing zoning map. Commissioner Gerstner understood that staff has to make interpretations when looking at these maps, and with that he felt there are differences between the two maps. He was concerned that by approving this map for the General Plan, he's saying that he agrees this map is correct and the hazard lines are in the correct positions. Director Rojas reminded the Commission that staff will be recommending to the City Council at a future date a Code amendment to increase the adjustment of the line by property owners from 30 feet to 100 feet. Commissioner Leon expressed his concern that as we go through this process where the Zoning Map has to be consistent with the General Plan property owners will go ahead and get the geology for their specific lot and move and amend where that line will be on the Zoning Map. He felt that there will then be a number of proposed revisions on the Zoning Map but no revised Zoning Map. He would hate to see the General Plan so precisely define that it will be incorrect in five years, which was why he was in favor of not having the lot line on the General Plan map. Chairman Tomblin asked which map is the controlling map when there is a conflict and which map is used to make a decision. Deputy Director Pfost answered that it depends on how it is set up. He explained that it is usually the General Plan Land Use Map, as the General Plan is the overall document and the Zoning Code implements the General Plan. However, given the issues that have been expressed, staff could put language on the General Plan Land Use Map that indicates the hazard designation boundary is generally and the Zoning Code is the specific line that should be used, and if you want to change it there is a process in the Municipal Code that allows you to change that line. He added that this process is currently in the Municipal Cove and over the past thirteen years staff has processed four of these line adjustment requests. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Lance Bowling (2625 Colt Road) stated he has already addressed in concerns regarding changes to the General Plan in a written communication which is part of the staff report. He stated that he has several additional comments to add to that statement. He stated he is still concerned that the methodology and criteria to be used in correcting ambiguities and making "slight changes" to the General Land Use Map are not adequately stated or explained in the public notice or the staff report. He referred to page 4 of the staff report referring to Area F and would like to know where this Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 9 previously unidentified area referred to in the report is. Referring to page 5 of the staff report and the discussion to allow up to 100 feet, and stated he supports this idea. He felt this recommendation should be incorporated into the final changes and updates to the current General Plan. He added that over the years the zoning maps have been changed. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Bowling if he has copies of previous maps showing these changes. Mr. Bowling stated that over the years the line on the zoning maps to the hazard area has changed, and he has old zoning maps to show this change. Commissioner Gerstner thought it would be helpful to give copies of these maps to staff. Mr. Moore (1 Bridle Lane) stated he received the public notice and understood he is on the list of affected properties. He questioned how he is affected, as he is probably 70 to 80 yards away from the closest line in Area E. He stated he was not sent a notice about Area F, and feels he is much closer to Area F than Area E. He also referred to the fee required to request a change to the Zoning Map, and questioned how this fee came about. Richard Ceman (5 Bridle Lane) stated he is affected by this change and he is not really sure where this line runs on his property. He was concerned that it will cost him quite a bit of money to try to justify whether or not some arbitrary line is located on his property. He stated that if he wanted to develop his property further down he does not know where this line is located and questioned as to how this is determined and what qualifications are used in making this determination. He stated he would like to know specificity and if staff does not have specificity how do they go about doing this. He asked that there be a consideration for anyone that seems to be impacted in an adverse way and a remedy that doesn't cost the property owner money. Linda Hanson (17 Stirrup Road) stated she lived in this area in 1974 when this map was drawn and felt that it was very political. She stated that all of the brown area on the map is tax exempt because it is unusable property. She stated that the new line goes directly through her garage, which leaves 17 Stirrup Road completely in the brown area. She questioned what hazard is on her property. Janet Schoenfeld (6 Coach Road) explained she received a notice, however after meeting with staff it was determined that her property was not actually affected by these proposed changes. She stated she shares many of the same concerns as Commissioner Gerstner. She questioned if an OH hazard is a standardized designation and is it the same on every map. She explained that changing lines and designations on anyone's property does not sit well with her and she felt she was pretty representative of the basic City property owner. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 10 Deputy Director Pfost stated that some residents may have received notices even though they are not on affected properties. He explained that staff did their best estimate to determine which properties the existing Land Use Map was affecting and to notice those properties regarding the proposed changes. However, since there are no parcel lines on the map, staff may have included some properties in the notice that are not actually affected. Mr. Bowling asked staff to explain their methodology on how this is done and where he would look in the Code to explain how staff comes up with the OH designations and is there a set of criteria. Deputy Director Pfost explained that in the Municipal Code the OH zoning designation does have criteria and indicates what one can and cannot do in that zone. Vice Chairman Tetreault clarified the question by asking how the area originally was designated as OH and what was the methodology used when putting this line on the map. Deputy Director Pfost answered that when the General Plan was created in 1975 there were many factors used in defining hazard areas, however he could not answer how it was defined as to exactly where the line would be placed on the map. Shortly thereafter the Zoning Map was adopted, which is parcel specific, and was intended to mirror the General Plan. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they knew what the tax implications are in having this designation on your property. Director Rojas answered that staff does not have any information on taxes and what the criteria is for assessing taxes, and suggested that staff would have to pursue those questions with the County Assessor's office. Commissioner Gerstner noted one speaker's question regarding the $2,300 fee to adjust the line on the Zoning Map and how that fee was decided. Deputy Director Pfost stated that there are currently two processes in the Municipal Code to adjust the line. He explained that one can adjust the line up to thirty feet through an Interpretation Procedure, and to move the line more than thirty feet requires a zone change. He added that the City Council sets the fees for these processes. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if they are asking that the zoning on these parcels be changed in any way. Deputy Director Pfost answered that staff is not asking that any zoning designations on these properties be changed. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 11 Chairman Tomblin asked if any action the Planning Commission takes on this item change or alter what a property owner can or cannot develop on their property. Deputy Director Pfost answered that there would be no change. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if any action the Planning Commission takes on this item will prevent a homeowner from rebuilding their homes if they are destroyed due to some catastrophic event. Deputy Director Pfost answered that this proposed change would not affect the property owner's right to rebuilding their home if it was destroyed. Chairman Tomblin asked if this proposal would alter the rights of a land owner to dispute where the OH boundaries are on their property. Deputy Director Pfost answered that a property owner will still be able to dispute these OH boundaries on their property through the process outlined in the Municipal Code. Chairman Tomblin discussed the idea of the City looking at each property and verifying the placement of the boundary lines, and asked staff if this was feasible. Deputy Director Pfost explained that for the City to do this proactively there would be budgetary as well as policy issues involved. Director Rojas added that such updates and changes to the Zoning Map would require a Zoning Map amendment which can be initiated by the Director or the Planning Commission. The City Council has to agree on the initiation to start the process. He added that the Zoning Map amendment is currently not before the Planning Commission, however if the Planning Commission were to take the position that they don't want to update the General Plan Land Use Map until a city-wide assessment of the entire Zoning Map is made, that recommendation can be made to the City Council. Chairman Tomblin noted that where some of the speakers may feel that something is being taken away from them, in fact these restrictions may already be in place. Director Rojas agreed, adding that what is before the Planning Commission has nothing to do with any changes to the actual Zoning Map. Chairman Tomblin asked if the Planning Commission could then ask that the specific parcel lines not be included on the General Plan Land Use map. Director Rojas could see the benefit to doing that as it may steer the concern away from the General Plan and have people focus on the Zoning Map. He added that would be in addition to the statement in the General Plan that the Zoning Map controls in terms of the depiction of the lines. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 12 Commissioner Gerstner stated that he could generally support changing the General Plan maps to be more in line with the Zoning maps, but with less specificity without the parcel lines and with added language that there is a procedure in the Municipal Code to amend the location of these lines. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt any issues involved with whether or not decisions on land use will be made based upon the General Plan can be handled through language in the General Plan. He therefore did not see a problem with having parcel lines on the map as he felt it gave a better sense of where these hazards are and provides another source of information to the public, along with the language that no land use decisions will be based upon the General Plan maps. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to adopt staff's recommendation to approve the proposed land use change to the General Plan as depicted. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Lewis noted that because of the location of his property he has been advised by the City Attorney to abstain from the vote on this item, and will do so. Commissioner Leon moved to accept staff's recommendation with the modification that the parcel specific lines be removed from the General Plan Land Use Map, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was approved, (4-1- 1) with Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting and Commissioner Lewis abstaining. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of March 22, 2011 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (5-0-1) with Chairman Tomblin abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 10, 2011 The Commissioner reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 26,2011 Page 13