Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - All present STAFF PRESENT. Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes of April 17, 2003 as written. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanion, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich Abstain: Kiser, Tucker Public Comments Postina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, May 2, 2003. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 SUBJECT: Islands Restaurant (P 1380 Bison Avenue Request for a Use Permit for an Eating and Drinking Establishment and pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages (Type 47: beer, vine & spirits) at a proposed restaurant to be located Within The Bluffs Center. Public comment was opened. Mr. Louis Jackson, Director of Real Estate Development for Islands Restaurant, representing the applicant, noted that they have no exceptions to the staff report and agree to and understand the findings and conditions. Master Reed Tucker, a resident of Big Canyon, spoke in favor of the restaurant as this is his favorite restaurant. He noted that alcohol service is not a big deal as this is a family restaurant and that his Dad might take him more often because he can have beer and won't have to drive far to get there. He noted his support of the application stating it is the 'best in the world'. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the Use Permit No. 2003- 011 (PA2003 -007) subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the . resolution. Chairperson Kiser suggested that the word 'items' be removed from condition 33, so that it will read, 'Full menu food service shall be available for ordering at all times that the restaurant establishment is open for business.' Commissioner Toerge noted that no hours of operations are listed in the findings. He suggested including, 'Hours of operation Sunday through Friday from 11 a.m. to 12 a.m., Saturday from 11 a.m, to 1 a.m. with the patio closing at 11 p.m. On condition 4, that should read February 25, 2003 as opposed to 2002. Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement to the changes. Mr. Jackson agreed to the changes in the conditions. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker SUBJECT: Abbondanzo Pizza Co. (PA2003 -074) 514 W. Balboa Boulevard Request to amend Use Permit 2002 -014 to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages (Type 41: beer and wine) for on -site consumption in accordance with the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO), and to permit the increase in seating from 20 to 3B seats in an existing full service, small scale restaurant. The 1l111111llllZl*VA Item 1 PA2003 -007 Approved Item 2 PA2003 -074 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May S, 2003 request includes a waiver of off - street parking requirements associated with the increase in seating. Mr. Campbell noted that staff has received six a -mails in support of the project and five voice mail messages from people that live in the area and are also in support of the project. Staff is recommending approval of the use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages but not recommending approval of the increase in seating. He then distributed pictures of the interior of the restaurant showing the seating arrangements. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the last operator did not have an alcohol license. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: Parking - during the winter seems like there a lot of spaces, during the summer it is terrible. During peak time during the summer regardless of whether there are 20 or 38 seats in the facility it looks as there will not be enough parking. • 1 look at this whole area and there are not very many commercial uses that do well and it doesn't seem like the parking problems down there have anything to do with intensity of commercial uses. • Parking seems intense from a residential standpoint, or we have a lot of visitors in the area. It's one thing to say that the parking does not meet the Code, which it . doesn't, but it is another to look at the actual demand for parking in the area. Ms. Temple noted that during the winter day, finding on- street parking is generally not a problem on the peninsula, even on weekends to some degree. However, streets are used heavily by residents so there can be competition for parking. In the summertime, it is first come first served. Whoever might be patronizing this facility is going to have to compete with everyone else coming to the beach or any other businesses they might be patronizing on the peninsula. Mr. Edmonston noted that the particular area where this establishment is proposed has been generally one of the last areas for parking to fill up. Due to the additional amenities at the pier and by 15th street with the public restrooms, that parking tends to fill up first. Parts in between where the project is located are slow to fill up. Public hearing was opened. Dennis Stout, representing the applicant, noted that this operation has struggled to maintain business. When the applicants purchased the business, they decided to get a beer and wine license and to increase the seating in order to be profitable. When they applied for the use permit for the beer and wine license they learned that the seating was limited to 20 seats based on a different use than they were going to be using the restaurant for. It was based on a bakery and deli permit. For a full service restaurant /bistro, the applicants need 38 seats. This is not a destination restaurant; it is more suited for the locals. They have both read and understand and • agree to the conditions and urge you to approve their request. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 Brian Matejka, owner, noted the following: • Distributed a survey that he authored through talking to the patrons. • Locals desire a restaurant in this area as there is none available between the Balboa Village and Newport pier. • Patrons prefer wine /beer service. • 128 people gave their input on the survey and about 60% are within a quarter of a mile radius. • Patrons walk in or order take out. • Remodeled the business. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford noted that as a resident who would patronize this restaurant, the idea of having a small scale restaurant in that location is wonderful. She visited the restaurant and is impressed with the decor and the seating arrangements and is very much in favor of this application as it will be a service to the residents in the community to grant the additional seating that is being requested. Waiving the parking will not be a problem. It is a cute restaurant but nobody will come any distance away simply with the idea of going to that restaurant. The traffic will be from residents who are there already or renters who are within walking distance. This is a real benefit to the local community and she supports the application. • Chairperson Kiser noted that the waiver for the parking is not a particular issue with the restaurant being in the mid - Balboa area. During the highest traffic and parking times during the summer most of the patrons would be walk -in from the beach. With all the metered and parallel parking and lack of a lot of other large competing businesses in the area, he would be supportive of the application. Commissioner Toerge noted that in the conditions of approval, there is no limitation of hours. Because of its very close proximity to residences, and with a patio, they should be incorporated. He proposed 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week and the patio hours would be the same. He asked for the applicants' concurrence. Ms. Temple noted that this was an oversight. The hours were listed in the staff report but not in the conditions. Public comment was opened. Mr. Matejka noted that there may be a time when they want to serve breakfast. He asked that the hours be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Kiser noted that these hours were acceptable and will be added to the conditions. ( 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week) Public comment was closed. • Ms. Temple noted that condition 27 regarding the former resolution should be INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 eliminated as it does need to stay in effect, because that approved the increase in the floor area ratio. Chairperson Kiser noted that Section 4 of the resolution should state 'amendment' to Use Permit No. 2002 -014; staff agreed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the amendment to Use Permit No. 2002 -014 (PA2003 -074) to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages, to permit the increase in seating, to amend the hours to include 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., to eliminate condition 27 and to waive the off - street parking requirements subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the resolution and the changes to the conditions. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker ••• SUBJECT: John Crider (PA2002 -235) 107 101h Street Request for a Variance to allow a proposed single - family residence to exceed the established floor area limit and to provide less than the minimum required open • space. Included is a request for a Modification Permit to encroach into the required 20- foot front yard setback adjacent to 10th Street; encroach into the required 10- foot rear yard setback: and permit a carport and garage that do not meet the minimum interior dimensions required by the Municipal Code. Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner noted: • Condition of approval number one in the draft resolution (referring to the date of the plans) the full set of plans are dated 02/13/2003, the reduced set of plans that the Commission received has sheet number one dated in March. The plans are the same. • Presented pictures depicting the properly from various angles. Public comment was opened. John Crider, applicant, noted the following: • Primary reason to build a new home is space; the bedrooms are small. • To add on and remodel with the house sitting on the property lines, is a violation of building codes and is not a viable option. At Commission inquiry, he added: • He had remodeled the house with a lot of siding, brickwork, etc. • The size of the house is the same. • Some of the remodeling was done without building permits. • He was not able to remodel the way he would have liked: therefore he is planning on the demolition and new construction. •1.1.7:1 Item 3 PA2002 -235 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 Public hearing was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted that the request for the variance is understandable due to the small building envelope; the request for modifications of setbacks on all four sides of the property are needed somewhat. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • Those small lots need small houses. • As this thing being illegal as it is, he is not in support of putting a legal big house on a lot where a small house should be. • He will not support this proposal as it is this evening. Commissioner Gifford asked that after the adoption of the last general plan, the City staff went through and rezoned all parcels on the peninsula that did not meet the new requirements for setbacks, etc., where you couldn't build on the lot what it was officially zoned for and reclassified it. Ms. Temple noted that staff went through the peninsula block by block and looked at all of the lot sizes. If the predominant lot size was such that most of the properties would allow a single family dwelling then staff rezoned them to R -1. If they were large enough to sustain the two family development, staff kept them at R -2. In this particular block most of the lots are large enough to have a duplex on it. It so • happens that this particular lot does not. Chairperson Kiser noted that the waiver of the requirement for a setback on the alley was acceptable because the alley is a full 20 foot wide alley; the other homes on this alley come to the property line. Commissioner Selich noted he does not have a problem with the application as is. The Commission has approved at least six of these half partial lot projects since he has been on the Commission. The house is not excessively large, 1700 square feet, and he looks at it in terms of the architecture and design. This design with the bulk and height is not going to be out of place with the other houses in the neighborhood and supports the project as submitted. This application is more an issue of how it fits in the neighborhood with bulk and footage. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the previous comments. The Council took up a matter on Little Balboa Island about three months ago and decided, as the policy making body, that the Commission should look at the totality of the circumstances, how the house fits on the lot and that the Commission shouldn't stick rigidly to the reasonable setbacks. They do not have a policy about little houses on little lots. They have a policy that seems to indicate that if you fit in bulk, mass and floor area wise with what is around you, that is where they are headed. The Council basically said to look at the overall design of the project. I agree with Commissioner Selich and therefore I support this project. Chairperson Kiser noted that after looking at the lot something has to be done to • build a house of quality. The design looks fairly open and the floor area to land area INDEX 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 ratio ends up with a 1.298 floor area to land area ratio. The typical lot in the block is a 1.375 floor area to land area, I do not have a problem with the size of the house. Commissioner Toerge noted that typically public notice signs are on the site. Do you know where they were located on the site? Ms. Temple answered that the person posting the property posted the property directly across the street. However, the Code does not require on -site posting. It does require that posting be near by. Staff determined that the posted notice was sufficient because you could see the posted sign from this property and you could also see the property from the location of the notice. Commissioner Toerge noted that anytime a variances to setbacks is requested, he likes to hear from the neighboring property owners. He drove to the site and did not see any signs on it and wonders if the neighbors were aware and know that there is an encroachment requested in the side yard setback that may potentially be to their detriment or benefit, but they are not hear to express their view. Ms. Temple answered that everyone within 300 feet of the property received a direct mailed notice; we received the notice back from the neighbor immediately next door. A new public notice with a copy of the staff report was delivered to that person's mail box. No correspondence was received on this matter. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to approve Variance No. 2002 -008 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -033 (PA2002 -235) based on the findings and conditions of approval with the following changes: condition 10, 'The structure shall maintain a right side setback of 4.5 feet at the first floor, 4 feet at the second and third floors and 3 feet for roof eaves. The structure will remain the same size, the setbacks will shift to comply with as much as possible the setbacks. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel sss SUBJECT: Mosun of Newport Beach (PA2002 -193) 4647 MacArthur Blvd. Request to permit two new restaurants with alcoholic beverage service and a night club /multiple use venue with alcoholic beverage service and live entertainment. Also included in the application is a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking. Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner gave a slide overview of the properties along with an aerial photograph of the general area. He noted the entrances, patio areas, queue area, rear of buildings, loading dock proposed to be an outdoor patio, and trash enclosure. INDEX Item 4 PA2002 -193 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 At Commissioner inquiry, it was noted that: • The aerial photograph was taken in May 2001 when the Coco's restaurant was opened and Tibby's was closed. • The applicant is not required to adhere to the GI policy as that relates only to City trees. However, if any trees are determined to belong to the City, the applicant would have to abide by the G 1 policy. Public hearing was opened. Chairperson Kiser noted that an e-mail had been received by the Commission from Capt. Tim Newman with an update of the crime statistics in police reporting district number 34. Brett Korman, STIR Architects, representing the applicant, noted that the applicants accept the conditions of approval; however, asked about condition number 48. He noted that they had proposed in the club /multi -use portion of the floor plan to be able to have corporate events during the day. They feel they have the opportunity to have seminars and lectures and other corporate uses during the day. We understand staff's concern with the parking during the peak times. The applicant would like to have the ability to come back and amend the operating hours for this nightclub /multi -use area if we can show that parking is provided through both on- site and off -site agreements with the landlord. • John Saunders, landlord and properly owner, noted that to the extent that the off - site parking is required by staff recommendation, he would put this in the form of an easement or whatever form is required to make sure that it stays longer than his ownership of the properties. Chairperson Kiser asked if any parking study had been done of what these uses would require. Mr. Saunders answered: • That as his office is on the premises, he observes the parking lot quite a bit during the day. • He is very careful with his lessees as this is his livelihood; • He had visited this business at their previous address and looked at the parking requirement. • During the day when Coco's was opened, parking was adequate. • He has structured the lease for this new use occupancy at or less than what Coco's was using (restaurant space). • He feels confident there will be sufficient parking. • There have been numerous complaints about not having a restaurant there on site since Coco's closed. • Tibby's was allowed to have minimum lunches in the early '90's. • He has been a leaseholder since 1990 and purchased the fee land from the Irvine Company in 1992. • He then enumerated his ownerships referring to the aerial map pertaining to • the potential parking arrangements with nearby off -site lots. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 Commissioner Kiser noted that there would probably be parking by patrons on those non -owned properties as well unless there is some parking management plan to prevent them from doing that. Mr. Saunders noted that there is a system of easements that tie all five properties together for access and egress. If there was a parking plan, we would work something out. There has not been a problem in the past ten years with overflow parking. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted his concern with the project as proposed without enough parking and the request to waive some of the parking. He suggested that a parking study be done and a proposed off site parking agreement that ties the properties together and a parking management plan that ties in to the findings of the parking study for the Planning Commission to consider. Because of the nature of uses, I would not be comfortable passing this along with just a condition that a parking management would need to be adequate and approved by others. Ms. Temple suggested additional language for condition 14 that would add what would be necessary to do the off -site parking agreements that are the only tool • available to put the City in as a player on the long term maintenance of those agreements that must be approved by the Planning Commission. You could accomplish this and not need to amend the use permit further by adding to condition 14, 'These hours may be expanded to 6 a.m. to 2 a.m, upon submittal and approval of a parking management plan and related of -site parking agreements by the Planning Commission.' That way only the parking plan and agreements need to come back, not the use permit. Additionally, she noted that staff omitted a condition that would authorize the use of valet parking, which is appropriate for a use of this nature, so suggested an added condition to read, 'A valet parking is allowed upon approval of the Public Work Department.' At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the Planning Commission must approve off -site parking agreements. There is no way under the Code to do what the applicant is proposing. We can structure it in a way that only the parking agreements are subject to consideration. That would allow the applicant to go forward with the project, perhaps even get some of it under operation if they chose and then do a parking study with the uses on site and have justifiable case in that regard. Commissioner Selich noted that staff has the expertise to deal with the parking management plan. Since the parking agreement has to come back to the Planning Commission for approval then we might as well as have the parking management plan going back. I am in support of the project with the change to condition number 14 and the addition of condition number 50. 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the properties under the direct control of the property owner tend to be quite busy already during the normal week days. However, an off -site parking agreement does not have to be just with properties owned by this property owner. If he can find other properties that in Coto can be looked at and find both sufficiency and function to serve the use at the proposed hours of operation through off -site parking agreements then that would be something that could be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tucker referring to the aerial photo noted that the parking is fairly well utilized on all the properties. The applicant could theoretically not be able to show where he is going to get the parking spaces for operations during the week, but he may just come back and say he wants the right to run different hours on Saturday and Sunday. Ms. Temple answered that is entirely possible. Even absent the corporate activities, there could be weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, private parties, etc. to enhance the business on Saturdays and Sundays. My draft language would allow the applicant to only come back with the parking and not have to re- address the use permit. Discussion followed on conditions 49 and the proposed 50. They are based on the opening, of the multi venue /nightclub area only after 9:00 p.m. There are still parking shortages on site various times during the day, which the applicant and property • owner are saying that they could utilize on space available basis and that would be acceptable with a parking management plan. It gives the Planning Director the ability within that context to look at revisions to the parking management plan in order to assure that the operation is adequate. They could submit a parking management plan and if after a while we find it is not working right, we can bring it back at staff level. if it is not working for whatever reason, then it could be brought back for revisions. It was then agreed that in condition 48, wording would be, 'Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall obtain an approved parking management plan subject to review ........ Commissioner Gifford noted that the Planning Director has the discretion to require the preparation of a revised parking management plan and /or require a valet parking on an off -site location. Condition 50 says the valet parking is okay if there is a valet parking plan authorized or approved by the Traffic Department; who really approves it? Ms. Temple answered that the Public Works Department approves the valet parking plans. The Code requires the Planning Commission to authorizes the use of valet parking and that is what condition 50 is intended to do. Following a brief discussion, staff will rearrange the conditions to show authorization and then implementation of the parking requirements. Commissioner Gifford then asked about the language on condition 49 about, the • 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 applicant has Nahts to park. Ms. Temple noted that staff was considering the ones that he actually owns as he does not control the use of the parking without the agreements from other associated owners. Commissioner Tucker noted that the question is, how are those rights vested? He says he has the right to park, but this will go on forever. How are those rights demonstrated? How does one have the rights to park that the City recognizes? He may have the rights, but if he hasn't committed by way of a written agreement, then how? Commissioner Gifford added, or if the rights are committed by lease to lessees on pieces of property he does own. Following discussion it was agreed that in condition 49, the language shall be, "All parking on conjunction with this use shall be confined to the parking lots over which the applicant has wrHfen rights to park. If, in the opinion of the Planning Director,.....' Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Use Permit No. 2002 -193 With modifications to the conditions of approval. • Public comment was opened. Captain Tim Newman stated that the email he sent to the Commission reflects the most current information added to the staff report. Mr. Brett Korman, representing the applicant, noted that to be brought back to the Commission is the shared parking agreements as described. Not necessarily the parking plan, is that correct? Ms. Temple answered that the Commission's action tonight would: • Approve the use permit and authorize the use as requested on this site. • It would allow the operation of all the uses within the hours of operation recommended by staff in the staff report. • It would further authorize that an expansion of the hours of the multi use venue /nightclub area to the applicant's requested hours upon submittal of a parking management plan and related off -site parking agreements, all subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. • The information provided in the parking management plan would provide the facts as to the appropriateness of those agreements. • Just the portion of the parking management plan necessary to support the expansion of the hours needs to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Tucker asked about condition 18 and following a brief discussion it 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 was decided that it would read, 'No background music shall be allowed in outdoor areas.' Condition 30 should say 'nightclub'. Public comment was opened. Captain Newman, at Commission inquiry, explained condition 23 reference to 'VIP' rooms. This condition does not address concerns of a banquet room where a group would go for a gathering, rather the Police Department's concern is the creation of inner perimeters inside a business. The police can not inspect what you might expect people to do within those rooms. For a public safety employee they would not be able to get into the room without going through some layers of whatever 'vip' controls are in place by the establishment. We have run into similar problems in other locations and we want to avoid our inability to access areas. If we can't see, we can't inspect and have no real ability to control whatever activity might be going on. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich as the maker of the motion, agreed to the previous suggested changes to the conditions. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker SUBJECT: Discussion of Agenda - Addition of Consent Calendar Give direction to staff on whether addition of a Consent Calendar is desired, and, if so, identify the categories of applications which should be considered for inclusion on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • Supports the addition of a consent calendar to the agenda. • Supports a code amendment so that beer and wine ABO use permits do not come to the Planning Commission either as the Commission sees so many things that they do not need to be involved with. • He would like to discuss the mechanics as to how the consent calendar would be determined, which he proposes is a recommendation by the Planning Director to the chairman. If they agree an item should go on the consent calendar, then it will. • The Commission has a fair amount of items over the course of the year that really do not need any time and it would be nice to 'tee them up' at the front of the meeting and move along. Commissioner McDaniel agreed and noted that anybody can pull an item off the consent calendar. • At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the City Manager determines what 12 INDEX Item No. 5 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 is placed on the City Council's consent calendar. Chairperson Kiser noted his support that the decision be made by both the Planning Director and the Chairman. Ms. Temple answered that is a good way to start and that after a period of time it would fall into a set pattern of what stayed on consent and what didn't. Initially that would be an advisable means. Anything that actually requires a legal notice of public hearing can not go on a consent calendar, so that relieves a big burden. It can be determined up to an hour before we need to send the agenda to the printer. Commissioner Tucker asked about the concept of modifying the ABO so that beer and wine licenses will fall under the Planning Director's authority? Commissioner Gifford asked how that would work as they are seen in the context of a use permit. What would fall out? Ms. Temple explained that the City makes certain uses subject to the approval of a use permit. The Code defines who approves the use permit and it is either the Planning Commission or the Planning Director or staff. The suggestion in the staff report was made only for items that have no testimony or little discussion at the • Commission. If the Commission is interested in this at all, we might want to look at are there locations in the City when any ABO would still want to come to the Planning Commission; would there be any aspects of the internal layout such as the presence of a distinct bar area even if only with beer and wine, that would say that should be dealt with by the Planning Commission. If we did amend the Code in this regard, we could also set up criteria where the Planning Director would be required to refer that permit to the Planning Commission, or not. It is a judgment call. If there are certain things you are seeing on a fairly regular basis that really don't need your time, we can look at downscaling them because you always have the right to call those approvals forward. In order to change the approval authority for ABO Use Permits, it requires a code amendment. Chairperson Kiser suggested starting with the consent calendar first and then give a little more thought to Ms. Temple's suggestion about whether there are any kind of criteria whether it be neighborhood, configuration, etc. that we should look at the ABO before we put it on the consent calendar. Commissioner Tucker noted that for Fashion Island he would be inclined to say not only beer and wine, but alcoholic beverages could go with the Planning Director approval. Once again, we have the opportunity at any point in time to call it up and turn it into a full blown hearing. We are going to see everything that is coming through. My inclination is to think about this within the next few weeks. I would like to see the routine matters go quickly, it will take time to talk about the ones that do, but in the future we end up getting out of here earlier some evenings. I don't think we need to talk about some things that are just here. If • they are on the consent calendar, I don't think anybody will pull them. 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 Following a brief discussion the following items would qualify for the consent calendar. • Approval of minutes • Initiation of General Plan Amendments • Initiation of Zoning Amendments • Substantial compliance determinations • Review of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for consistency with General Plan The following items were removed from the suggested listing for now: • Appeals of Planning Director interpretations of the Zoning Code • Appeals of Planning Director Approvals • Appeals of Use Permits approved by Planning Director and accessory Outdoor Dining Permits (legal notice given) Chairperson Kiser asked how long it will take to get this in play. Ms. Temple answered within a month, as she is going on vacation and will not be here for the next cycle. Chairperson Kiser noted these matters if seemed routine would be placed on the • consent calendar and if the current Chairman had a problem with something, he or she could pull it off. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to place a consent calendar on the Planning Commission agenda as discussed. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Tucker No: Selich s *x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on April 22nd discussed revisions to the standards of review for Modification Permits: approved the Code Amendment regarding Granny Units, sustained the Commission action regarding Thai del Mar, sustained the Commission action regarding the Ensign Variance on Ocean Boulevard with one added condition related to maintenance and reconstruction of the access driveway and approved the General Plan LCP and Zoning Amendment on Agate Avenue. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. • c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan 14 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that there has been no meeting since March 24th. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that the last meeting was April 18th; on April 24th a draft LCP was submitted to members of the Planning Commission, Harbor Commission, GPAC members and EQAC sub - committee and the California Coastal Commission. Comments are to be returned on or before June 6th. Extra time has been added due to the meeting dates of the GPAC, to the end of June. Individual comments are to be sent to the LCP committee so that the Commission will not have to get together. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple distributed on updated listing. Commissioner Selich requested that items 1, 3, 6, 8 and 12 be removed from the fist. Commissioner Gifford requested that items 4 and 5 be removed. • h) Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Toerge is excused from the meeting on May 22nd and Ms. Temple will be out of town. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 15 INDEX Adjournment