Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/2015 - Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers— 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, December 17, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand,Zak Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten; Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford, Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; Administrative Support Technician Traci Makinen IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS- None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3,2015 Recommended Action: Approve and file Commissioner Hillgren clarified his comments related to the Village Inn, in the minutes of December 3, 2015. He noted that no public uses should be allowed on the residential lot and that the only thing allowable would be the unpermitted kitchen, and, only if it is made fully compliant. He addressed the CUP and noted that an open mind should be kept as it provides opportunities for improvements that don't exist, today. It was noted that Mr. Jim Mosher provided written comments with suggestions for amending the minutes. Chair Kramer opened public comments. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Motion made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Secretary Koetting to approve and file the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 3, 2015, as amended. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: Kramer ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 TROESH RESIDENCE (PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten presented a brief overview of the request and addressed public comments received during the October 8, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. He addressed the variance requested, difficulties with topography, site elevation, setbacks, alternative designs, moving the house back twenty feet, access, parking, conditions of approval, requirement of a construction management plan, findings and recommendations. Page 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 Secretary Koetting asked whether any alternatives were being presented. Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that staff and the applicant worked together to generate various options for the project but that no change was made to the project. Commissioner Hillgren asked whether it mattered which street access was taken from. Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that it does not matter where access is provided. Commissioner Hillgren then asked whether parking was restricted on one side of La Jolla Drive. Mr. Van Patten indicated that there are no parking restrictions on La Jolla Drive; although, the practice has been that people park only on one side. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the lack of guest parking and asked about possible impacts. City Traffic Engineer, Tony Brine stated that people generally park on the south side of La Jolla Drive and that residents self-police themselves. He stated that he does not think staff can control the number of cars the owner would have. He added that the street is a two-way street and there are no parking restrictions on either side of the street. Commissioner Lawler referenced a letter from a resident concerned about property values and whether the property can be "rental stock", Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that whether or not the property will be rental stock, is not within the Commission's purview. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Craig Smith, Project Architect, representing the applicant, reported that the driveway was determined in accordance with Public Works standards and used the maximum slopes from the curb to the garage. He addressed the need for a variance, the retaining wall and provided information regarding comparable properties. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Smith reported that the property was purchased in 2013. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Smith addressed the depth and width of the driveway and reported that the owners park their cars inside the garage. Chair Kramer asked if the applicant has had any meetings with the neighbors and Mr. Smith reported they have had none. Chair Kramer found that to be troubling. Discussion followed regarding the width of La Jolla Drive and typical widths of streets such as Balboa Avenue. John Ogburn, 309 La Jolla Drive, referenced an email sent by various residents and Chair Kramer confirmed that all Commissioners have a copy. He commented on a City mandate to maintain the character of the community and stated that their street should not be compared to "the broader Newport Beach" and specifically, not the broader Newport Heights. He added that even the alleys are narrower than a typical alley on Balboa. He commented on his attempt to request a variance on his home and reported that he was told by the Planning Department, "not to bother applying". When expressing concerns about the subject project, he was told not to bother appearing. He stated he wants to ensure that everyone in the community is being treated the same and fairly and reported that 90% of the people in the neighborhood are opposed to the project. Additionally, he expressed concern that approval of the project will set a bad precedent. Discussion followed regarding other lots zoned R-2 in the neighborhood, the issue of access on two streets, and other properties in the City that have access on two streets. Commissioner Hillgren asked Mr. Ogburn if he could suggest an acceptable solution. Mr. Ogburn stated that he and other residents in the area believe that everyone has the right to use their property, as they see fit. He noted that the subject property is on Catalina and that for them to affect their neighborhood, is not proper or right. He added that he believed that access should be from the other street and offered that as a solution. Additionally, he noted that presently, there is a safety issue on La Jolla, with traffic. Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 Dana Anderson, 340 Catalina Drive, commented on the uniqueness of the area and expressed concerns regarding the possibility of the lot being divided in the future. She urged the Planning Commission to consider the neighborhood and act to maintain its uniqueness. She hoped that if she decides to build a large house on her property or sell it to a developer to do so, that she would be granted the same consideration. Reverend Joy Price and her husband, Gordon Sheldall, 337 Santa Ana Avenue, reported that their garage parking is directly off La Jolla and noted it is a difficult turn because of the topography of the driveway. If parking were to be added, across from her property, they would be unable to pull out of their parking lot without significant effort. Mr. Sheldall added concerns regarding safety and noted the need to maintain emergency access. Nathan Littrell, 345 La Jolla Drive, commented on his experience dealing with the City, when he remodeled his house. He expressed concerns regarding the proposed addition affecting his ocean view as well as on the City's treatment of the project in terms of conforming to the existing neighborhood. Jim Mosher referenced the proposed resolution and pointed out that Condition No. 10 looks similar to Condition No. 9. He noted that there is reference to a Condition No. 22, but there is no such condition on the report. Additionally, he opined that good arguments have been presented where the Commission may not want a project with a variance to be completed. He commented on the lack of parking and noted that people tend to fill up their garages with things other than cars. He suggested it would be appropriate to ensure that garages be used for parking. He pointed out inconsistencies in terms of allowing or not allowing parking in the driveway and made suggestions regarding setbacks. Greg Keeling, 325 La Jolla Drive, reported that the applicant has cut down City trees as part of their evaluation of the property. He noted that La Jolla Drive is a very narrow street and that getting out of his driveway and garage is very difficult. He opined that the subject project is not in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Keeling stated he has not met with the applicant. Discussion followed regarding existing condominiums and their ownership, the need to correct parking if the subject applicant were to turn his structures into condominiums with separate ownership. Gavin Sacks, 332 Catalina Drive, commented on the concerns raised by neighborhood residents and their opposition to the project. He addressed whether or not the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood noting that it would be 2.21 times larger than the average size of homes on La Jolla Drive and 2.1 times larger than the median home size. He questioned whether access can be granted off two different streets if the property cannot be subdivided or turned into condominiums. He opined that the applicant has no right to build a second dwelling because neither the existing residence nor the proposed residence is in conformance with the Code. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Zak confirmed there is no Homeowners Association within the subdivision area. He asked for clarification regarding the modification permit and non-conforming parking. Assistant Planner Van Patten provided clarification and reported that the house on the northerly half has a two-car garage which is currently sub-standard by nine inches. Secretary Koetting asked regarding a requirement to take access from Catalina Drive and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski identified the specific finding. She explained that without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a driveway off La Jolla Drive but would be required to take access from Catalina Drive, which is infeasible because there is an existing dwelling off Catalina Drive. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question regarding restricting parking in the driveway, Assistant Planner Van Patten reported there is a section in the Zoning Code that stipulates that a vehicle is only permitted to park in a front setback in a driveway that is twenty feet deep. He added that the property line for the subject property starts fifteen feet back off the paved street. Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 City Traffic Engineer Brine added that the plan that was shown with two cars parked in the driveway shows that fifteen feet of that is in the public right-of-way. Typically, the City does not allow parking within the public right-of-way. In this case, there is no sidewalk on that side of the roadway so staff does not have a concern with that. Assistant Planner Van Patten reported there were no design options that looked at access from the other street. Chair Kramer stated the Commission is being placed into a corner and noted that the applicant has other options which are not being considered. The Commission must consider what is being proposed. Commissioner Lawler referenced Finding A relative to consistency with the neighborhood, noted the project is not consistent, as the applicant is asking for two entry points and no one else has that in the neighborhood. Chair Kramer stated that he cannot make Finding A, either, and therefore, cannot be in favor of approval. Commissioner Zak noted there are two public access ways, which is allowed, irrespective of whether others have that or not. Additionally, he stated that the residents have not spoken to the variance being requested. He stated he is leaning towards supporting staff's recommendation. Vice Chair Brown agreed with Commissioner Zak and stated he is leaning towards approval, as well. Commissioner Zak commented on adding specific conditions, if there is interest in approving the project such as ensuring the garage is not used for storage or having an enforcement policy. He expressed concern regarding making sure that what is being designed is structurally correct and will not impact existing neighbors' homes. Commissioner Hillgren stated that Finding A is a challenge and reported he cannot make Findings D and E. He stated that the project is inconsistent in scale with what is existing, felt there were alternatives that could be evaluated, and felt the street was a real challenge without addressing off-street parking for the proposed home. Commissioner Kramer indicated he agreed with Commissioner Hillgren. Secretary Koetting opined that the applicant did not do enough homework to resolve the issues of concern. He stated they could move the house back or make it smaller. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry as to whether the items can be bifurcated, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that the decision needs to be as a "packaged deal" to accomplish what the applicant desires. Both components would need to be approved. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to deny Modification No. MD2015- 008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. AYES: Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler,Weigand NOES: Brown, Zak ITEM NO. 3 BALBOA MARINA WEST RESTAURANT(PA2015-113) Site Location: 201 E. Coast Highway Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, applicant withdrawal of the portion of the application allowing dancing, the project site, adjacent land uses, existing conditions, previous review of Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project by the Planning Commission, parking, outdoor dining, issues related to the design and operational elements, project-specific Conditions of Approval, concerns relative to noise, service and loading areas, restrooms, valet parking, results of acoustical Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 studies, noise mitigation requirements, lighting and glare, parking and coastal access. He reported that a letter was received from the attorneys representing the Linda Isle Homeowners Association. He stated that staff has not had time to review it, in detail, but staffs preliminary review of same does not change the findings and recommendations. He highlighted points made in the letter and offered responses to each of their issues of concern. Chair Kramer commented on the importance of this project. He asked for clarification regarding the number of boat slips, which Planning Program Manager Alford, provided. Discussion followed regarding monitoring of the eight, temporary boat slips and parking for the marina. Commissioner Hillgren noted that the Commission is being asked to approve a CUP without a user and asked for clarification. Planning Program Manager Alford acknowledged that it is more challenging, but noted that it is more appropriate, as the Commission will not be prejudiced by a proposed operator. The Commission is considering a land use and will need to make the required findings based on the design characteristics of the building and the related impacts of noise, parking, etc. He addressed the Conditions of Approval and reported that they will be carried over, regardless of who the operator is. Additionally, the City requires an Operator's License which is specific to an individual and does not run with a project site. If the proposed is approved, it will run with the land, regardless of a change in operators. Commissioner Hillgren commented on difficulties in considering a project without knowing the character of the operation and asked regarding the sound study. Planning Program Manager Alford reported that the Acoustical Consultant had the plans for the restaurant, the parameters for where the live entertainment would occur and the types of projected instruments and sounds. They used an existing restaurant in operation, with similar characteristics. He added that the restaurant used for the model was Cucina Enoteca in Fashion Island. He identified the location of the proposed valet parking and clarified elements included in the parking study. Vice Chair Brown expressed concerns with using a restaurant that is inland, as a comparison, when considering a restaurant located near the water in terms of the sound study. It was noted that the data used was the sound emanating from the restaurant. That data is then used in evaluating the actual site. Planning Program Manager Alford added that they needed an analog, the types of noise levels that would occur in the interior and the outdoor dining area of a similar restaurant. The data, is then plugged into a noise model which takes into consideration existing conditions at the project site, using all of the site-specific environmental conditions. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Dan Miller, representing Irvine Company, referenced previous consideration and approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council and reported that many of the issues of concern have been addressed. He commented on their efforts in terms of community outreach and noted actions taken in response to residents' concerns. He addressed building size, building height, parking lot lighting and installation of a landscape buffer to eliminate glare from cars. Additionally, he reported there will be no outdoor seating on the south side and that the south side windows will be fixed. Mr. Miller reported this is the third component of a large project, that it is a packaged deal, and that they will move forward with the project through the Coastal Commission process. He reported that the City will get twelve boat slips for the public to use and noted that the rules are set by the City. He addressed valet parking, determination of the operator and rules, and agreement with 93 of the 94 Conditions of Approval. He referenced Condition No. 90 and requested a modification relative to the width requirements of the sidewalk from the public docks to the restaurant, asking for an eight-foot wide rather than a ten-foot wide sidewalk, as they moved the walkway away from Linda Isle. Andrew Baccar, Vice President of Retail Architecture for Irvine Company, provided a slide presentation and addressed the site plan and building design. He clarified access to the restaurant, proposed landscaping, architectural materials, views, fixed windows, HVAC screening, use of low-reflective glass, metal and the types of seating areas. Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 Brief discussion followed regarding the availability of a materials board. Mr. Baccar offered to respond to questions from the Commission. Regarding the site plan, Secretary Koetting asked regarding parking for boat owners bringing equipment and supplies to their boats. Mr. Baccar identified valet parking and spaces for overflow. Secretary Koetting referenced the parking study and reported there does not seem to be enough parking for the marina and self-parking for restaurant patrons. Mr. Baccar reported there would be parking in Lot D and that there would not be an issue parking in Lot B. Boat owners could park wherever they liked. City Traffic Engineer Brine noted there was a Valet Parking Management Plan submitted as part of this project. Staff would like to work with the applicant in terms of the details of the plan. In response to Secretary Koetting's question regarding whether Sol is under parked, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that the overall parking design analysis included Sol Restaurant. Commissioner Hillgren expressed concerns regarding the drive up to the restaurant, itself. Chair Kramer expressed concerns regarding the operation of the service dock. Mr. Baccar explained the proposed operation including deliveries and the service dock. Discussion followed regarding parking deficits and conflicts with parking. Mr. Miller reported that the marina parking is mostly used in the mornings and afternoons, not in the evenings. Additionally, Irvine Company has extensive experience with parking in Fashion Island and Crystal Cove and other neighborhood centers. He noted that if parking does not work, the tenants get upset so that Irvine Company has to address it. He addressed employees parking off-site and noted that they have to make it work. Chair Kramer stated his concern that the operator be successful and noted a parking conflict with other uses in the area. Mr. Miller reported that Irvine Company also controls parking for Sol Restaurant and stressed the need to make it work in order for the operators to succeed. Sol Restaurant has a reciprocal agreement with Irvine Company to use their parking spaces. Eddy Beltran, Attorney with Jackson DeMarco, representing Linda Isle HOA, expressed concern that the project is avoiding the CEQA review. He referenced the previous Planning Commission meeting where this matter was reviewed and acknowledged the concerns of the Commission at that time regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)and whether the Commission would have additional review upon site development. He noted that at the time, the item was a concept and that the project as it is being proposed, at this time, will never see a CEQA review. He commented on the valet plan noting that the noise study did not take into account the valet operation and that the public should have the opportunity to comment on it. He addressed the closing of doors and windows and potential violation of the City's noise ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Torres reported receiving Mr. Beltran's letter an hour before the Planning Commission meeting and that staff did not have an opportunity to review it completely and fully. Planning Program Manager Alford responded to several points made in the letter. The CEQA for this project has already been approved through the MND considered by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. The project contemplated in the MND was much larger than currently proposed. He stated that CEQA review has been adequate with appropriate public review. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 In response to Commissioner Zak's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that the Coastal Commission does not necessarily review the MND, but will review the actual project. Mr. Miller noted that the public review period on the MND was extended for about a month and that the concerns raised by the HOA were addressed. Jim Jordan, Linda Isle resident, noted there were no perspectives showing Linda Isle. He expressed concerns that, without a tenant, there is no clue as to what the noise level will be from that tenant. He referenced Attachment 10, Section 3, and Item 4 relative to impacts on the general welfare of the community and hoped that the Planning Commission will act accordingly. Jim Mosher referenced written comments he submitted earlier and noted errors in the documents, including citing wrong sections of Code. He addressed the Land Use Designation and commented on loss of views, noise and parking. He believed there are many questions that are yet to be answered Bill O'Connor opined that the project is prematurely being presented to the Planning Commission and reported there has been no community input or outreach on the part of Irvine Company. He expressed concerns with negative impacts to the neighborhood and reported there was no settlement agreement. Additionally, he indicated that the matter needs further study and community input. Margo O'Connor expressed concerns regarding how the project will change the character of the community. She noted the size of the project and reported that the channel is very narrow. Additionally, she believed that the venue will be more of a nightclub than a restaurant and expressed concerns with parking, glare and lights and single-event noise. Ms. O'Connor commented on the status of Dover Bridge. Seychelle Cannes, Bayside Village Mobile Home Park, reported attending a recent Coastal Commission meeting regarding the Back Bay Landing project and stated they had a lot of concerns about building on the shoreline. She added that they want a full assessment of the project and a review of a 75-year impact of the life of the project. She expressed concerns regarding sea-level rise and felt that the project is too big and does not have enough parking. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to rebut. Mr. Miller noted that looking towards Linda Isle,there are a lot of boats that will block the view and noise from the restaurant. He reported that Irvine Company has had a number of community meetings, in the past, regarding this project. He added that they were at the point of generating a Settlement Agreement, but the Linda Isle association did not sign it. He noted that the issues are all the same as when the MND was reviewed and that they have addressed the issues. Mr. Miller reported that he read the letter from the Linda Isle attorney and stated that it brought up nothing new. As indicated by staff, these have been addressed and mitigated. Mr. Miller listed the various community meetings with Board Members and residents as well as their counsel. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, Mr. Miller explained their request relative to Condition No. 90. Brief discussion followed regarding the years the old Rueben E. Lee was built, closed and removed. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 2006 approving Minor Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030, amending Condition No. 90 to eight feet instead of ten. City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that Public Works is interested in maintaining that easement at ten feet because a twelve foot easement from Back Bay Landing and the Dunes comes down to the property and is intended to be a multi-use trail connection through the property. He commented on preliminary landscape plans and asked that the condition remain as is until after staff reviews detailed landscaping plans and allow the flexibility to change it to eight feet, if necessary. The existing condition provides that flexibility. Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 Chair Kramer noted the need to provide flexibility to the applicant and felt that changing it to eight feet is appropriate. Discussion followed regarding where the trail connects to the Back Bay. Planning Program Manager Alford explained potential connections. Chair Kramer noted this is not an approved trail system through the subject site and not in the Master Plan. He indicated support for the motion and suggested allowing sliding doors on one of the corners facing the channel. Planning Program Manager Alford noted the recommendation from the acoustical analysis relative to doors and windows. He added that the project is conditioned to require final noise control recommendations based on final site plans, architectural plans, and mechanical equipment plans prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Discussion followed regarding allowing the applicant to install a locking mechanism so that patrons cannot open doors or windows. Chair Kramer asked that Mr. Mosher's suggestions be incorporated into the resolution. Secretary Koetting requested that the motion include bringing the matter back to the Planning Commission, to review the final colors, materials and design. Commissioner Hillgren added that a review should also include the functionality of the back-of-house service. Secretary Koetting addressed the Police Department conditions and the service of food thirty-minutes prior to closing, noting that was not included. Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe stated that was not included because there is currently, no tenant. It can be addressed in the Operators' License. Secretary Koetting suggested they return for the Planning Commission review of materials and design, prior to the submittal of Building Permits. Discussion followed regarding the Coastal Commission process, the point at which the matter would return to the Planning Commission and the possibility of subsequently needing to return to the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the importance of reviewing the functional issues as it relates to back-of-house, the entry, the valet and potential noise issues. Mr. Miller stated it presents a"Catch 22"situation. He noted that they can show the Commission what they have done elsewhere in Newport and stated that it will be a high-quality building. He expressed concern that it will prolong the process and that they will be caught between two entities, the City and the Coastal Commission. Discussion followed regarding back-of-house issues and it was noted that Irvine Company takes those issues very seriously. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski explained the Planning Commission's role in reviewing the design of the project. She noted that the site is subject to a Site Development Review and noted that the City looks at it from a "big picture" perspective. She added that conditions ensure that the project must comply with City standards and does not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels that the project can be pursued and approved as is and not bringing it back to the Planning Commission, because of the level of details provided. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 2006 approving Minor Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030, amending Condition No. 90 to eight feet instead of ten feet, allowing flexibility to open sliding doors and windows facing the channel and incorporating Mr. Mosher's written comments. Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand,Zak NOES: None VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-None ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the January 7, 2016, meeting of the Planning Commission has been canceled. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that Back Bay Landing was approved by the Coastal Commission last week. The project will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as approval of the Coastal Commission modifications is required. ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Commissioner Weigand asked for consideration of the Holiday Schedule for next year to avoid potential conflicts with meetings in December. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported the usually, if a meeting is scheduled close to a holiday, it will be canceled. She recommended cancelling the meeting for December 22, 2016. Secretary Koetting commented on additional materials for items to be considered by the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Torres noted that Council has a rule and suggested implementing it for the Planning Commission. Additional materials are to be submitted no later than the Monday, before a meeting, prior to 5:00 p.m. Chair Kramer asked that the item be added to the next meeting agenda. Commissioner Weigand asked to consider the possibility of having a Police Officer attend future Commission meetings for increased safety. Discussion followed regarding the reason that January 7, 2016, was canceled. Chair Kramer asked that the Newport Dunes Resort CUP and the Village Inn Use Permit be moved to the Planning Commission agenda of February 4, 2016. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Chair Kramer and Commissioner Zak requested excused absences for the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2016. Commissioner Hillgren reported that he may be absent on that day, as well. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2016. Page 9 of 10