Loading...
PC MINS 20021022CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 pproved November ,. , 0 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Long at 7 06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Director/Secretary Rojas led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ATTENDANCE Present Commissioners Cote, Duran Reed, Lyon, Mueller, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Long. Absent- Chairman Cartwright was excused Also present were Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement Rous, Director of Public Works Allison, City Attorney Lynch, Senior Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Long suggested moving Item No. 1 on the Consent Calendar to the end of the agenda Director/Secretary Rous asked if Agenda Item No. 4 could be moved to be heard after Agenda Item No. 2, as the City Attorney and Director of Public Works were present for that item The Planning Commission unanimously approved the agenda to hear items 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, and 1 COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rous reported that at the City Council meeting of October 15, the appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding CPH's request to modify the split lots was continued to November 19. Also, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request to convert commercially zoned property to residential. He also reported that a date had not yet been set for the planned point workshop with the City Council. Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two items of correspondence relating to Agenda Item No 4 and a copy of the minute corrections from Commissioner Mueller. Commissioner Cote reported that she and Vice Chairman Long would be attending the upcoming General Plan Steering Committee meeting Commissioner Tomblin reported that he had a discussion with Mr Ortolano Sr regarding his project as well as discussion with Mrs. Montoya regarding a future project that may be before the Planning Commission Commissioner Duran Reed reported a discussion she had with a neighbor regarding foliage and views and that the neighbor had filed a view restoration application Vice Chairman Long reported that he had received an e-mail from Mr. Cirtolano Jr which he forwarded to staff. None 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 136: 6610 PaDoz Verdes Ofte Souh / York Long Point Commissioner Cote recused herself from the item, as her residence is in close proximity to the Long Point property. Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report He explained that the item was a time extension request on behalf of the property owner. He stated that the request was to extend the existing entitlements for the Monahan project that was approved in 1991 by the City Council. The applicant was requesting a one-year time extension, to extend the project's entitlements to September 11, 2003. He explained that the applicant was requesting the extension so that while the Coastal Commission is considering the current application that was approved by the City Council in August, the entitlements can remain valid in the event that they choose to develop the Monahan project. He explained that staff has indicated in the recommendation, that if the Planning Commission grants the time extension request, it be granted for one year or until the Coastal Commission approves the Destination Development project. He stated that in the event the Coastal Commission approves the application, the Monahan project will no longer be valid. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if the current appeal to the Coastal Commission would affect the Monahan approval Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 2 Senior Planner Mihranian answered that the current appeal was only for the Destination Development application. Commissioner Tomblin asked if any other appeals to the project had been filed that may affect the time extension Senior Planner Mihranian answered that there were three appeals to the Destination Development application filed with the Coastal Commission, however none of the appeals affect the Monahan entitlements. Commissioner Mueller noted this was the eleventh request for extension of the entitlements, and asked if there were any other limitations which may expire, such as the EIR. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that when the Monahan project was approved in 1991 there was a condition in the approval stating that the Planning Commission could grant extensions of the application, which was based on the Code at the time He noted that at that time the Code did not put a limit on the number of times an extension could be granted. Vice Chairman Long noted that, in continuing to grant extensions, staff was relying on the Code when the CUP was issued Senior Planner Mihranian clarified that staff was relying on the Monahan conditions within the CUP which were drafted in 1991 based on the ordinance in effect at the time. Vice Chairman Long asked what the current Ordinance allows for extensions. Senior Planner Mihranian answered that currently an application may be extended one time up to one year. Vice Chairman Long noted that extensions could be granted provided that the Planning Commission determine that there is an unusual hardship not of the applicant's own making He asked staff what the unusual hardship was in this situation Director/Secretary Rojas felt that was a question for the applicant to answer. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that the applicant was not present and he had received a message from Mr. Mohler that he was stuck in traffic. Commissioner Duran Reed referred to a letter from Mr York dated August 24 asking for an extension of conditions C-2 through C-4 of the Conditional Use Permit and asked if that was also to be considered by the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 3 Senior Planner Mihranian explained that the request is for a one-year extension on the Conditional Use Permit applications, including Conditions C-1 through C-4, which must be renewed every 120 days Vice Chairman Long noted that the applicant had still not arrived and asked if staff had been advised when the applicant was expected to arrive. Senior Planner Mihranian replied that the applicant had not indicated when or if he would be at the meeting. Commissioner Mueller asked if the Planning Commission could extend the approvals for a period of less than one year Senior Planner Mihranian answered that the Planning Commission could give an extension for a period of less than one year. Vice Chairman Long suggested continuing the discussion at the end of the Agenda to allow time for the applicant to arrive The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. NEW BUSINESS 4. Height Variation No. 899, et.al: 3787 CcaOheoghts Driive / Mr. and Mrs. ssirl Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that as part of the Planning Commission's approval of the project there was an adopted condition (Condition No. 37) that requires the parties involved in the distinction of a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Coolheights Drive to execute an agreement with the City to dedicate certain portions of their property to the City. He explained that as part of the conditions, there was a stipulation that the agreement would have to be executed within 60 days from the date of the approval of the Planning Commissions August 27, 2002 decision, resulting in a deadline date of October 28, 2002 He stated that Mr Ortolano Jr. had sent an e-mail to staff and the Planning Commission indicating that as of October 13th the agreement had not been transmitted to him nor the neighbors involved in the agreement Therefore, he requested a consideration of a time extension of the 60 -day limit. In response to Mr. Ortolano's request, if the Planning Commission finds that additional time is necessary for the neighbors to review the agreement, which was transmitted to the neighbors on October 17, the Planning Commission may wish to interpret the 60 day limit as working days rather than calendar days, which would extend the deadline from October 28 to November 19. Commissioner Mueller asked if the Planning Commission could opt to do nothing and not grant the request, thereby allowing the deadline date to pass. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that not granting the extension request was an option the Commission may consider Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Cote asked for clarification on how the Development Code addressed calendar days versus working days. She noted that everything she saw in the Development Code referred to calendar days She asked staff if they could give an instance where working days were used rather than calendar days. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Development Code does refer to calendar days, however staff felt that for this situation there might be room for interpretation He could not recall any time when working days had been used Vice Chairman Long asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to grant an extension. City Attorney Lynch answered that the Planning Commission could not grant an extension, as it would change the condition Commissioner Lyon asked if the applicant could proceed with the development of his property in accordance with what the Planning Commission has already approved, or must he wait until resolution of Condition No 37. City Attorney Lynch responded that the applicant may continue to proceed with the development of his property. However the design of the turn around may be critical in the preparation of construction plans. Vice Chairman Long asked how many more calendar days would 60 working days provide Senior Planner Mihranian answered that there would be an additional 22 calendar days City Attorney Lynch stated an instance where staff does consider working days in a decision when a deadline occurs during a time when City Hall is closed during the holidays In those instances staff applies the deadline as the first business day following the city's closure of holidays Vice Chairman Long asked if there was a 15 day appeal period which began 5 days before City Hall closed for the holidays, would it then be extended 10 days after City Hall re -opened. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff has done that in the past. Commissioner Mueller noted that the parties involved had received the agreement on October 17 for their review and asked staff if they felt that there was a reasonable amount of time between then and the deadline of October 28 for the parties involved to review the document. City Attorney Lynch felt that it was a reasonable amount of time Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 5 Vice Chairman Long opened the public hearing. Joe Nassin 5910 Los Verdes Drive (applicant) felt that the Planning Commission decision of August 27, 2002 should be respected and not changed. He did not feel there was any reason for a time extension, as the agreements drafted by the City Attorney are relatively short and simple and could be reviewed and signed within a few hours He stated that in the five years since he first submitted his application to the Planning Department, the Ortolano family has created many problems and delays and he did not feel they needed more than 10 days to review the agreement Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Nassin if he would be able to commence development regardless of the decision on the cul-de-sac so as not to cause him additional delays Mr. Nassiri responded that he could commence development. Ralph Ortolano Jr. 3778 Coolheights Drive stated that the Planning Commission made its decision on August 27, 2002 However, none of the parties involved received anything from the City until 10:00 p m on October 17 He stated that he faxed his response back to the City Attorney the very next day. However the first he has heard back from her was tonight He stated that he is perfectly willing to work with the City, however he cannot force the City to respond to him in a reasonable time frame Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Ortolano if he has had a chance to clarify some of his issues with the City Attorney and it there were still outstanding issues Mr. Ortolano Jr. responded that he met with the City Attorney for ten minutes before the meeting, and felt that there was more discussion needed Joan Ortolano 3776 Coolheights Drive stated that she is an attorney and is used to reviewing legal documents, and was able to read the documents and come to a conclusion within a day. However her neighbors are not attorneys and Mrs Farooq has asked her to convey to staff that she and her husband need more time to read and understand the document. She felt that it was only fair to allow the parties involved to have the time they need so that everything is done correctly. City Attorney Lynch stated that, even though she was delayed because of a family emergency and was out of town for a week, both she and Mr. Cruckshank delivered their documents to the City on the 17th and Mr. Mihranian hand delivered these documents to the parties involved. She apologized for the delay She wanted to make sure all of the affected parties have the ability to review and understand the document She felt that giving the respective parties additional time for review was prudent, as it would not hold up Mr. Nassiri's project. Given the fact that how this review comes out will affect whether or not a hammerhead or a cul-de-sac is built, she supported the additional time. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 6 Vice Chairman Long closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked if granting an extension would, in any way, impede Mr Nassiri from moving forward with his project or create any problems with any other type of deadlines Mr. Nassiri might have. City Attorney Lynch answered that the extension would not hold up Mr. Nassiri or stop him from moving forward with other aspects of his project Commissioner Tomblin, therefore, did not see any problem with interpreting the 60 days as 60 working days, and allowing the deadline to therefore be November 19, 2002. Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she had reviewed the interpretation procedure for a permit application and saw three ways in which the Planning Commission could modify or interpret the conditions: in the case of uncertainty, ambiguity, or to further define the conditions of approval. She saw no uncertainty or ambiguity in the conditions of approval, however she noted that the conditions of approval could be further defined. She agreed with the City Attorney that the Planning Commission should provide the parties a little more time, until November 19, to review and understand the documents Commissioner Mueller stated that when the Planning Commission made it's decision in August he was concerned that it would be difficult to get all of the parties involved to sign the agreement. He supported the original decision that the documents be signed within 60 calendar days, as it was clear that the Planning Commission was trying to put a limit on the decision to help the applicant get moving on the project He felt it would be nice for the parties to have more time, but it was difficult for him to understand why the documents couldn't be read in just a day or two He noted that the applicant could proceed with other parts of the project, but understood the applicant's reluctance to do so. While it may seem somewhat reasonable to allow the interpretation to be 60 working days, he felt that it seems to stretch the interpretation of the Development Code He felt that a shorter extension may be reasonable. City Attorney Lynch stated that the Planning Commission could not change the condition and the interpretation would either have to be 60 calendar days or 60 working days Commissioner Mueller stated that he was still leaning toward the option of taking no action, which would put the pressure on the parties to read the agreement and take an action on it. Commissioner Lyon stated that he could see both sides of the situation. He felt that the document was quite simple, yet agreed that all parties involved should be careful to make sure this was done correctly and that all parties are entitled to sufficient time to review the document to their satisfaction. He felt that the working day interpretation was a way to get around a more complex situation, and he would support the interpretation. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 7 He encouraged all of the parties to work expeditiously towards a resolution and not wait until the last day to get it done. Commissioner Cote noted that at the August 27th meeting she had voted against the motion associated with the case because she was concerned that what is now happening would happen She felt that staff's suggestion of an interpretation of 60 working days might allow the parties time to work out their differences and have a signed agreement. Vice Chairman Long stated that he never for a moment thought that the parties involved would easily agree on the subject document He felt it was very wrong to abdicate a decision on what should be done to public property to the whim of three property owners, and felt the Planning Commission was now at the mercy of those three property owners He felt a time limitation period in a City ordinance or in a condition was akin to a statute of limitation, and did not feel the Planning Commission had the authority to grant extensions. He further felt that there was no ambiguity involved, as a deadline is a deadline in calendar days, unless specified otherwise. He was not persuaded that the City, except in very unusual circumstances, treats its time deadlines in working days. He felt that engaging in such an interpretation, the City is bending it's own ordinances and statutes in such a way that creates a bad precedent to bend the rules He did feel however, that in this case there were some extraordinary circumstances that might justify extending the deadline slightly. He noted that the City Attorney's presentation of the draft agreements to the parties were delayed approximately one week, or seven days, by emergency circumstances. He felt that in these very exceptional circumstances, the Planning Commission could interpret the 60 days to be a period of 60 calendar days, assuming the City Attorney was able to complete presentation of the agreements within a reasonable period of time He noted that the City Attorney, in her opinion, presented her agreements seven days late In light of that, he felt it was inherently within the Planning Commission's power to grant an extension of 7 days. Commissioner Lyon moved to interpret thefts peNad fin this case to be 60 working days, with the understanding that the parUes Mvoimed work WRh the C ky Attorney in an expeditious manner. Commissioner Cote asked the City Attorney if the Vice Chairman's interpretation to allow an additional 7 days was a valid interpretation. City Attorney Lynch felt that it was an appropriate interpretation Vice Chairman Long stated that he was not inclined to give the parties involved a large amount of additional time and felt that an additional 7 days was adequate and fair. Commissioner Lyon stated that he was not aware that the Planning Commission had the legal option to select a time period other than 60 calendar days or 60 working days. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 8 City Attorney Lynch stated that she preferred the approach of 60 working days or 60 calendar days, however given the fact that the interpretation was being used in the way it was, she was comfortable with this interpretation. Vice Chairman Long suggested that in the future similar conditions be written so that the time limit is 30 days from the date the agreement is presented, rather than 60 days from the day of approval. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if the Planning Commission could further innumerate the condition to require all three parties to present all of their concerns to staff by a date certain. City Attorney Lynch stated that that would be possible, but to ask that all concerns be submitted by October 25. Vice Chairman Long was concerned that if information was submitted one day late, then even though the information was submitted late the issues would not be resolved, and the condition would have failed to be met. Commissioner Duran Reed agreed that that may be a problem. Commissioner Mueller stated that he would like to second Commissioner Lyon's motion. Commissioner Lyon liked the Vice Chairman's rationale and did not realize that the seven-day extension was a possible scenario Commissioner Lyon amended his motion to extend the Ume period 7 days beyond the original 60 -day time period, thereby estaNishing the deadflne as November 4, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Cote. (6-0) Commissioner Tomblin stated that he voted for the original motion in August and felt that the three parties have the means and the ability to make a decision in a timely manner He supports the Planning Commission's original decision and also supported the interpretation that staff offered the Planning Commission to help resolve the issue Commissioner Duran Reed encouraged the parties to work together to have this issue come to a close. She felt this decision was an exception and should not be made a regular habit. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.35 p m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:45 p.m. at which time they reconvened Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS 3. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2002-0 342 Revision V to CUP No. F06): Golden Cove Center — Unit 229 Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report. He explained that according to the Development Code a health/fitness studio is not a permitted or conditional use within a commercial neighborhood zone. In November, 2001 the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement determined through the use determination that the use is no more intensive than other uses permissible in the center, and allowed the applicant to submit a revision to the CUP. He explained that when looking at the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, staff felt the site was adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, the use will not disturb other properties and units in the complex, and there is an adequate amount of parking to support this use within the center at all times during the day Further, staff did not think the use would adversely affect the traffic pattern around the center Staff did not think the proposed use was contrary to the General Plan, and that the applicant would be providing a service to the community that is not readily available at the moment to the majority of the residents on the west side of the City. Therefore, staff felt all six findings for the Conditional Use Permit could be made and was recommending approval of the application. He noted that Condition No. 14 should not be included in the Conditions of Approval, and asked the Planning Commission not to consider this condition Commissioner Duran Reed discussed the number of persons in attendance at the studio that were being considered in the future plans of the applicant as well as the parking requirements and asked staff if there were enough parking spaces to cover this type of use now and in the future. Assistant Planner Luckert stated that currently there are 25 excess parking spaces, and noted that the majority of the staff report analysis was based on a need for 12 parking spaces Director/Secretary Rojas added that in looking at the current proposal there appears to be enough parking spaces for the use now and in the future. However, staff does not know what the overall parking demand will be once the new buildings are constructed and the center completely operational. Therefore, staff was suggesting that if the Pilates studio wishes to expand to a long-term use in the future where they extend the number of classes or students, that it be analyzed through another revision. Commissioner Tomblin asked if employee parking could be stipulated to the back of the center to help mitigate any parking problems in the front Director/Secretary Rojas stated that could be done Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Tomblin asked if the project met the architectural design features of the shopping center and if there was anything the Planning Commission needed to be concerned about in addressing the issue. Assistant Planner Luckert answered that this design fit in within the renovation plan of the center. Commissioner Mueller asked staff to clarify Condition No. 12 regarding hours of operation. Assistant Planner Luckert stated that Condition No. 12 was taken directly from the original Conditional Use Permit for the center, and the hours represented were the operating hours of the Golden Cove Center. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the Center is allowed to operate between 6 a.m and midnight, however this particular use would be allowed to operate specifically from 8 a rn to 7 p m He noted that a modification should be made in the condition to make a distinction between the operating hours of the center and the operating hours of the Pilate studio Commissioner Mueller noted that a condition should be added that limits the noise level to 65 decibels. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that such a condition could be added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if banners were permitted at Golden Cove. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that temporary banners are permitted with the approval of the Planning Department. Commissioner Mueller asked if there will be any classes or sessions allowed on Sundays. Assistant Planner Luckert responded that staff will not allow sessions on Sundays, and staff will clarify that in Condition No 15 Commissioner Duran Reed asked what type of "specialty classes" were being planned and if they were Pilates based. Ms Tabarez explained that all the classes would be Pilates based Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 11 Ofie Tabarez 32664 Nantasket Drive (applicant) gave a brief overview of Pilates. She explained that the studio she was proposing was a state-of-the-art fitness center that will cater to the needs of both business clientele and the residential community of Rancho Palos Verdes and the surrounding areas and will bring a level of service and professional fitness trainers unmatched in the area Commissioner Cote noted that the hours of operation would be set in the Conditional Use Permit, and asked Ms. Tabarez if ending classes at 7 p.m. would be in line with her long term plan Ms. Tabarez answered that she would prefer having the operating hours of 8 a.m to 8 p m. with the last class ending at 7 p.m. or 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday Commissioner Mueller noted the location of the studio to the adjacent homeowners and was concerned with the potential noise levels. He asked the applicant if she was comfortable with the 65 -decibel limit on the noise from the studio. Ms Tabarez answered that a 65 decibel level was fine Commissioner Mueller asked the applicant if the air conditioning proposed for the facility would be adequate or if she felt the doors would also have to be opened Ms. Tabarez answered that the air conditioning should be adequate, however she was not sure as she had not yet seen the specifications for the air conditioning. Commissioner Mueller asked if any activities would take place on the balcony. Ms Tabarez stated that the balcony would be a waiting area for entrance and exit of classes so that students would not have to stand in the hallways. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the patio would be used as a break area for the employees. Ms Tabarez did not think it would be and noted that she was proposing an office area where employees could take breaks. Clifton Dates 4163 Via Marina, Marina Del Rey read a statement on behalf of Arlene Block of 29127 Avenida Anillo Ms Block discussed Pilates and the program and how it has enriched her life. She encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project Vice Chairman Long closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cote was satisfied with the 65 -decibel sound limit and that the hours of operation had been clarified, and supported the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Lyon supported the project. Commissioner Mueller was also satisfied with the hours of operation and felt that it was a good use for the space at Golden Cove He was concerned about the noise level and the close proximity to the neighbors and felt it was important to include the limit of 65 decibels in the conditions of approval. He also felt it was important to clarify the days of operation in the conditions of approval, specifying that there are no classes on Sunday He was concerned with the balcony, and felt a condition should be included to restrict the activity on the balcony and that all classes will be conducted inside the facility Commissioner Duran Reed was concerned about the noise level of the music and wondered if it would be reasonable to add a condition requiring that the doors be kept closed during operating hours, thereby reducing the noise level. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the CUP for the Golden Cove Center has a condition that says all uses in the center shall not exceed 65 decibels and that noise monitoring shall occur once the entire center is occupied Therefore, he suggested adding a condition stating that noise levels generated by the Pilates Fitness Studio shall not exceed the maximum level of 65 dba, as specified in Condition No 41 of the PC Resolution. Said use shall be included in the noise analysis which is to be performed for the Center as specified in Condition No. 41. Commissioner Duran Reed felt that the Pilates Studio was a welcome addition to the Golden Cove Center and supported staff recommendations, but would like to add a condition that the balcony doors remain closed during operating hours Commissioner Tomblin supported the project, and felt that a condition should be added to restrict employee parking to the rear of the building Commissioner Lyon did not feel it was reasonable to require the balcony doors to remain closed, as the noise level would already be controlled at 65 dba. Commissioner Duran Reed was concerned that there are residences immediately adjacent to the proposed project that could be affected by the music Vice Chairman Long asked staff if the Planning Commission could re -visit the noise issue if it proves to be an issue Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it could be brought back before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Long suggested using the existing noise regulation in place for the Golden Cove Center and if, upon future review, it was determined that the noise level was too loud, the Planning Commission could look at additional conditions such as closing the doors Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 13 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the noise analysis would most likely not happen for another year He noted that construction at the site was allowed until 7 p.m. and suggested a condition that the doors remain closed between 7 p m and 8.30 p.m. Vice Chairman Long felt this was a good project He felt the operating hours of 7 a.m. to 8 30 p.m were reasonable. He suggested specifying that there be no amplified music outside of the building. He agreed that the employee parking be restricted to the back of the building and that it should be specified that there will be no classes or organized activity on the balcony. Commissioner Mueller moved to accept the staff report with the following changes: 1) The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. and al@ class shall end at 8 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday with no c9asses on Sundays. 2) The noise will be limited to 65 decibels. 3➢ all amplified sound and music shall be indoors only. 4) All activities, including classes, shall be conducted inside the facility. No such activities shall be permitted on the baicony. 5) Employees shall be required to park in the back of the Golden Cocke Shopping Center. 6) Condition 14 shall be deleted, as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Lyon. Commissioner Duran Reed suggested amending the motion to include the requirement that the balcony doors remain closed during the lours of 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., seconded by Vice Chairman Long. Commissioner Mueller felt it might be an appropriate condition, however the overriding condition was the condition regarding noise level He noted that it would be possible for the applicant to close the doors and turn up the volume of the music to exceed the maximum noise level. Vice Chairman Long agreed that the amendment may be more restrictive than necessary, but felt that at least during the review period it may be prudent to be very cautious about the noise levels Commissioner Cote wanted to clarify that by stating the doors shall remain closed, that people could still go in and out of the doors. Director/Secretary Rojas answered it meant the doors could not be propped open Commissioner Lyon felt the amendment was overly restrictive, and as long as the noise condition is not violated he saw no harm in having the doors open or closed. He was concerned that it was a restriction that could be added later, but could not easily be removed. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this particular use does not have a six-month review, however the Golden Cove Center as a whole will have a six-month review He stated that a big part of that review would be the noise. At that time, if it was Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 14 determined that noise was not a problem, the condition regarding the doors could be removed. Vice Chairman Long asked if the Planning Commission could add a condition to require a six-month review for the Pilates studio Director/Secretary Rojas answered that a six-month review could be added to the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Long suggested amending the amendment to add a condition that there be a six-month review for the Pilates studio. Commissioner Duran Reed accepted the amendment to her amendment of the motion The amendment to the motion failed, (2-4) Frith Commissioners TomMin, Cate, Lyon, and Mueller dissenting. Vice Chairman Long proposed an amendment to the motion that a condition be added requiring a six-month review. Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment to the motion The amended motion to adopt P.C. Resolution Mo. 2002-028 thereby approving, as amended, Revision '13' to Conditional Use ParmK Mo. 206 was unanimousiy approved, (6-0). 5. Criteria for establishing insurance reguirements Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission had directed staff to suggest criteria for triggering the need for the Planning Commission to require insurance on projects and to check with other cities comparable in topography or geologic conditions to Rancho Palos Verdes to see what they do in these types of situations. He explained that staff had done the research, contacting 12 coastal cities in 3 counties, and none of the cities contacted require any proof of insurance or indemnification as a condition of a planning approval, nor could they recall such a condition being placed on a project He explained that the staff report covers what staff had researched for the Planning Commission to discuss whether it wants to adopt a policy requiring proof of insurance. He noted that because this is not required in the Code and is a departure from normal practice, it is a policy issue that the City Council needs to provide direction on. He stated that if the Planning Commission determined that they would like to have this happen, the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to endorse the recommendation Vice Chairman Long stated that when a party is added as an additional insured, it is typically not a large cost. He stated that it should be specified that whatever the policy limits are, they apply separately to each particular project Secondly, there should be Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 15 completed operations coverage He explained that many additionally ensured endorsements are drafted in such a way that the property owner is covered only during the period of time the contractor is on site. He felt that it was important to have coverage that covers loss after the contractor has left the site He stated he would strongly support a policy that requires someone who is developing their property to demonstrate adequate insurance. He felt that the one changing the land and changing his property in a way that poses risk to his neighbors should bear that risk, as opposed to being entitled to impose that risk on his neighbors. He recognized that many other cities do not require insurance, but felt that if the insurance is reasonably commercially available the City should have such a requirement. Commissioner Lyon stated that Chairman Cartwright has strong feelings on this subject, and suggested that the Planning Commission defer discussion and a decision on the subject until he is in attendance Vice Chairman Long felt that this was an important enough issue, that if the Planning Commission were to make a recommendation on way or the other to the City Council, he agreed that the issue should be discussed when all members of the Commission are present. Commissioner Tomblin supported continuing the item to a meeting where all Commissioners were present. Commissioner Cote stated that she would like to hear some information from the City Attorney regarding the subject of insurance and if the City should become involved in a matter between private property owners. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the City Attorney does not typically attend Planning Commission meetings, and when input is requested from the City Attorney the response is normally through a written opinion. However, he stated he would contact the City Attorney regarding the subject and her availability at a future meeting Commissioner Lyon felt that as an additional framework for discussion it would be wise to separate the insurance requirement into two parts: insurance during the period of construction and secondly, insurance requirements that extend beyond that period that would protect the third party from property damage Commissioner Duran Reed noted that Rancho Palos Verdes had procedures in place for items such as view restoration and view preservation that other cities did not have She confirmed with the Planning Director that he and a member of his staff recently gave a seminar to other cities regarding those procedures. She further noted that our city served as a model for others, and that although other cities may not have any requirements for insurance, she did not feel that the Planning Commission should make that a basis for outright dismissal of the subject. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Mueller supported the idea of continuing the matter until all members of the Commission are present. He felt that it was interesting to note that none of the cities contacted by staff required Insurance as a condition of approval. He felt it might be a lot to ask an applicant developing their property to provide something that none of their neighbors ever provided He was reluctant to suggest that this issue be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Lyon moved to continue the item to the next Manning Commission meeting or a subsequent meeting, if in the Director's judgment it was more convenient to have the City Attorney present at a facture meeting, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (6-0) CONSENT CALENDAR (CONT) 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 136: 6610 Pa�osVerdes Drive South (continued) Vice Chairman Long noted that the applicant was not yet present at the meeting. Since the staff report had already been presented, he asked if Commissioners had questions for staff Vice Chairman Long asked staff to clarify why this application was allowed to have unlimited extensions when the current Ordinance allows for only one. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that at the time this CUP was approved the Ordinance did not specify a set number of extensions Therefore, a condition was drafted that did not specify a set number of extensions He explained that staff's position was not that the old Ordinance currently applies, but that the condition of approval is still valid and the condition of approval rules over the current Ordinance Commissioner Lyon stated that the Planning Commission was being asked to either approve or not approve a time extension He stated that if the Planning Commission approves the time extension, the applicant is being granted the opportunity to fail back to that approval, if he so chooses, within the next year He felt that by denying the time extension the Planning Commission was saying they did not want to see the project ever developed as it was originally approved in the early 1990's. He felt it was almost an academic issue as he could not imagine a developer falling back to that original plan Commissioner Mueller suggested shortening the time extension to something less than one year He asked if staff was anticipating a decision by the Coastal Commission within six months Director/Secretary Rojas answered that he would expect a decision from the Coastal Commission within six months. Vice Chairman Long asked when the Monahan entitlements expire. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 17 Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it expired on September 11, 2002 Therefore, if the Planning Commission does not grant the extension, the entitlements are expired He explained that the applicant has suggested to staff that if for whatever reason the Coastal Commission denies the current project, the applicant would like to have something to fall back on He explained that the applicant may not want to build what was approved for the Monahan project, but could submit a revision to that approved Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Mueller asked if the Planning Commission could grant a six-month extension and grant another extension, if needed, six months from now. Director/Secretary Rojas answered there was no problem doing that, as long as the Planning Commission was consistent with the original Condition of Approval He noted that the condition read that extensions could be granted of up to one year. Vice Chairman Long stated that to grant the extension the Planning Commission must make the finding under the prior existing Ordinance that there is an unusual hardship not of the applicant's own making, which he was having trouble with. He felt that the applicant made their own hardship Nonetheless, he felt staff has persuaded him that the Planning Commission does not need to make the finding under the prior Ordinance, as power to grant the extension was given under the CUP's conditions of approval. He therefore was inclined to favor another extension. Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the one-year extension, as requested by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner ` ornbll n. Commissioner Mueller asked to amend the mcUon to approve a sox-rnontfh, rather than one-year extension. He explained that Gobs raasoMng for that was to (deep the applicant thinking there was always a chance the extension couPd be denoed and this would keep the applicant moving forward on the prgact. Commissioner Tomblin did not disagree with Commissioner Mueller's idea, however from a practical standpoint if the Coastal Commission were to deny the project, he felt that the applicant would be under tremendous pressure to come back to the Planning Commission within that six-month period Commissioner Lyon agreed with Commissioner Tomblin that twelve months was more appropriate. He felt that if this application were to be denied by the Coastal Commission, the City would want the applicant to modify the Monahan project in a manner that would make the City happy as well as being viable to the applicant. He felt that if the applicant didn't have time to do that, everyone would be the loser. He therefore would not accept the amendment. Commissioner Duran Reed agreed with Commissioner Mueller and stated that she would like to see this project move along and felt this would be one way to help it keep �1 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 18 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that if a six-month extension were to be approved, that would retroactively apply to September 11, making the expiration date march 11, 2003. He felt that date was cutting it too close with the Coastal Commission decision. Vice Chairman Long moved to amend the amendment to allow for an eight-month extension rather than a six-month extension. Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment. The amendment to the motion to allow for an Sight -month review rather than a one-year extension passed, (3-2) with Commissioners Tomblin and Lyon dissenting. The motion to allow an eight-month extension to the existing Monahan entitlements passed, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Cote recused. 1. Minutes of September 24, 2002 Vice Chairman Long noted that Commissioner Mueller's changes had been e-mailed to staff and a copy of them had been distributed to the Planning Commission Commissioner Duran Reed noted a change under communications on page 1 of the minutes. On page 3 of the minutes, she felt there was a discussion left out regarding the view that was being discussed and asked the Recording Secretary to listen to the tape to clarify that discussion. On page 6 she noted a typo in the first paragraph On page 10 she made changes to the 7th paragraph to more accurately reflect what she felt was said Commissioner Cote noted a clarification on page 6 of the minutes. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Lyon abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Lyon proposed adding an item to a future agenda discussing the interpretation of walls as discussed in the Development Code. He felt the language in the Code was misleading or inappropriate because it does not convey the proper intent of the Code. He explained that the current code specifies that two walls that are nearer than three feet to each other are considered one wall. He felt that in looking at an upper and lower wall the only thing that mattered was the front face of each wall, therefore the Planning Commission should be considering the front face of both wails rather than the distance between the front face of the upper wall and the rear face of the lower wall. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 19 Vice Chairman Long felt that Commissioner Lyon's suggestion was an excellent one and suggest that staff put a copy of the minutes regarding the wall at Rue de la Pierre in the staff report, so that the Planning Commission will know what exactly triggered this issue Commissioner Duran Reed felt it might be helpful to have the City Attorney talk to the Planning Commission at some future meeting regarding how the Planning Commissioners should conduct their site visits, as well as refraining from providing their opinions on proposed projects ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10 55 p m Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 20