Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06.19.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:36 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Ms. Sapetto. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Castaneda, TDC Planning (Comm. Shapiro arrived at 8:57 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Newton noted a typographical error on Page 22 of the minutes of the Planning Commisssion meeting of May 15, 1984. The correct wording should be: "Planning Commission." Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 15, 1984, with the aforementioned correction. No objections. So ordered. Comm. Newton note<l that Page 1, Paragraph 3, under C-POTENTIAL AMENDMENT, should read: "The current height requirement is 45 feet, which is considered to be excessive when it abuts residential property." (Minutes of June 5, 1984) Motion by Comm, Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the Planning Connnission minutes of June 5, 1984, with the aforementioned correction. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Strohecker noted that he was present at the Planning Commission meeting of May 15, 1984. Comm. Newton suggested adding additional wording to the third WHEREAS of P.C. 84-16: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that inclusion of compact car spaces in parking lots "with more than 20 spaces" will enhance the number of spaces allowable in each lot. Ms. Sapetto noted that the additional wording in P.C. 84-16 would be acceptable. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Connn. Newton, to approve P.C. 84-15 and P.C. 84-16. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cornms. Brown, Newton, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Shapiro Comm. Strohecker Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P,C, 84-17. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Brown, Newton, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Shapiro None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN Page 2 Ms. Sapetto gave staff report, noting that at the last Planning Commission meeting, staff had been requested to provide further information c'm the R-2 areas and R-3 areas in respect tb the impacts that would be made by changing the density designations. Ms. Sapetto noted that the thrust of the Commission's concern was how many lots would be affected that are currently zoned R-2. She noted that there are currently 422 lots in town which are less than 2400 square feet. These lots cannot be developed to R-2 standards because 2400 square feet is required according to the zoning code. She further noted that there are 369 lots between 2400 and 2999 square feet and 62 lots between 3000 and 3500 square feet. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Col!llilission had deliberated on whether a limit should be placed on all R-2 lots stating that they must meet the 25 du/a criteria to construct two units. To do this would effectively delete the ability of those two categories of lots, i.e., 2400 square feet to 3500 square feet. This would also delete the ability to build two units unless the du/a designation were to be changed. Ms. Sapetto noted that the concern for R-3 lots was not as major because the require­ ment is a multi-family designation and therefore is substantially less (1089 square feet). The present requirement is 900 square feet per unit. This determines the number of units that may be built on a lot. It was not considered to be as much of a change in R-3 as in R-2 to build to or up to 40 du/a. Mr. Castaneda addressed the Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission has almost settled in terms of the direction to take on the Land Use Element. One question still to be addressed is the density classifications to be used. Another issue is the zoning standard. He asked whether the density ranges should be altered; and, if so, should the zoning be changed in order to achieve consistency. Mr. Castaneda recommended that further discussion be undertaken on the issue of changing the density designations. Chmn. Izant noted that Mr. Castaneda had presented a document which suggested a ·variety of alternatives. He questioned whether Mr. Castaneda was asking the Commission to choose one of those alternatives. Mr. Castaneda replied that he felt enough direction had been given by the Commission to begin work on the document. The only issues which need to be addressed before commencement of the text and the Land Use Element map are the questions of the density designation and the zoning. He stated that it is necessary to have a definition of medium density. A definition is also necessary for high density. Public Hearing opened at 7:54. There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Chmn. Izant continued the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. Chmn. Izant noted that based on staff's information, 422 lots in the R-2 zone will not be affected because they are too small to build more than one unit on; therefore, changes in the density designation could have an impact on those lots. Chmn. Izant stated that consideration should be given to the dwelling units per acre for the R-2 medium density areas and the R-3 high density areas. Chmn. Izant asked for a rough estimate of how many lots are in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 Page 3 LAND USE ELEMENT A'MENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that there are roughly 9,000 parcels in Hermosa Beach, stating that this includes combined parcels. She further noted that by taking action in the R-2 areas, 431 parcels out of the 9,000 could be affected. Chmn. Izant recommended to the Commission that action be taken to increase the zoning to reflect one dwelling unit per 3,383 square feet. He noted that he would be willing to support such action if consideration were to be given to reducing the upper level limits in the high density areas. As far as the R-2 zoning, he felt that it would be appropriate to reduce it no further. Ms. Sapetto suggested that a mechanism for doing that would be to have a C.U.P. procedure for duplexes. There could either be a requirement for C.U.P. review, or the zoning code can be changed to require one unit per 1,742 square feet or two units on 3,384 square feet and above. This would arrive right at the 25 du/a mark. This would also achieve clarification and reduce questions that anyone might have. Ms. Sapetto stated that the cleanest way to amend the zoning code would be to require that there be 3,384 square feet for two units or a duplex. Comm. Brown noted concern for the lots in the R-2 areas which might be affected. Chmn. Izant questioned whether information was available showing how many lots out of the 9,000 were R-1, R-2, and R-3. Ms. Sapetto stated that such information is not available at this time. Chmn. Izant stated that one of the issues is the number of R-2 lots in the City. Comm, Strohecker stated that if an R-2 lot is standard size, it would normally be adequate to accommodate a duplex. He noted that there are duplexes in the City which occupy different sized lots. Comm. Brown noted that this action could have a tremendous impact on R-2 lots; but he further noted that the number of lots which would be affected is quite small. He expressed concern over bigger developers coming in and buying two lots to combine and thereby build more units. He felt that this would eliminate small investors. Connn. Strohecker pointed out that this raises the issue of affordable housing. Chmn. Izant disagreed with Comm. Brown's comments, stating that density is density, no matter who comes in and buys the lots. He noted that density can never be reduced; it can only be slowed down. Comm. Brown asked whether Chmn. Izant's concerns were basically over the 3500 square foot lots. Chmn. Izant replied in the negative, stating that his concern is broader than just the 431 lots. His overall concern is the reconciliation between the general plan and zoning. He noted the great difficulty that has been encountered in trying to redefine R-2 to low density. He noted that no lid is being put on low-density build-out. He noted that a major concern is reducing the build-out potential in the City. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners could examine the land use map for further clarification on zoning in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 Page 4 LAi'ID USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Comm, Newton noted that this proposal will be called downzoning by many people. She also questioned whether any amendments to the zoning code would also be made to the general plan. Chmn. Izant stated that this would depend on what the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council. The City Council would then determine the action to be taken, Comm. Newton asked: If this proposal were followed and recommended to the City Council that this development standard be added to the zoning code and that the general plan not be changed then the general plan need not be changed. She questioned whether this was a correct asstnn~tion. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that the Land Use Element would be no different than it is now. It would be the zoning code that would be chan g ed. Mr. Castaneda added that the changes would reflect the density parameters of the Land Use Element. CotnIII, Newton noted concern over the possibility that inconsistencies might still exist, Mr. Castaneda stated that the Land Use Element map would change, reflecting density changes. Chmn. Izant discussed the R-3 zones~ stating that currently ·.950 square feet is needed to build one unit if it were 40 du/a. He questioned whether the 950 square feet would need to be increased to 1,089. He asked whether the R-3 would then be in conformance with high density. Mr, Castaneda replied that it would be 36 du/a if it were 1,200 square feet. Comm, Brown felt that there is no such thing as a density range; but he did not disagree that an adjustment should be made on the R-3 dovm to 40 du/a. He noted that he wanted to be fair in this matter, Chmn. Izant noted that it is important to know the number of R-2 lots in the City. He questioned whether figures should also be obtained for R-3 lots. Ms. Sapetto recommended that the Planning Commission consider C,U.P. review for apartments in the multi-family areas so that they must conform with the 1,089 square foot requirement as opposed to 950 square feet. She noted that this would reduce further build-out. Chmn. Izant noted concern over the issue of build-out potential. Ms. Sapetto stated that, as long as she has been with the City, there has never been a thorough assessment of how many units there are per lot. Chmn. Izant felt that the potential build-out could be several thousand, not the 600 that has been mentioned in the past. Ms. Sapetto felt that this was not a fair statement. She felt that consistency between the general plan and zoning would put a lid on this problem. Ms. Sapetto stated that in R-2 there has not been as much condominium development as in R-3; consequently, duplexes have remained unaffected throughout this entire period PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 Page 5 LAND USE ELMENT .AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) because they have never had a discretionary review, and two units can be built on lots of 2,400 square feet or more. Therefore, these have been allowed to slip by. There has not been a stop on the development of duplexes or two units on a lot. She noted that there has been a decrease in the development of apartments in the multi­ family areas. She noted that the condominium developments have conformed to the general plan and that there has been a reduced density. She noted that apartment buildings are now on the upswing, though, and are being regarded as financially feasible. Apartment buildings in the multi-family zone can build more units than condos. She suggested that the Commission do one of two things: Either require a C.U.P. for apartments in the multi-family zone so that there is a discretionary review and thereby must conform to the requirement of 1,089 square feet per unit figure. C)Y -l\l (.,(,{;_;)'~~ J.\1....!L X\..O ~t\\;J, .. U \\···1 1/'"'i.<'\._·.\v:';; l)-::"'t{"'() Ct ~\,(, ..1z.~ i,1Ct 1 .. ,(i f;;/°"t {~ t '-i t ·, ·' Ms. Sapetto stated that in the R-2 zones the Commission could recommend reducing the build-out to 3,384 square feet for two units. Comm. Brown stgted that he could support 40 du/a in R-3. M~. Sapetto stated that in order to make apartments more attractive, developers must be allowed to build more. This would necessitate leaving the 950 square foot per unit designation in the code. This again would raise the question of density. She noted that mechanisms must be provided for to make apartments financially feasible. She stated that another alternative is giving the developer a density bonus. Comm. Brown did not object to 40 dwelling units per acre in the R-3 zone; but he did state that he did not approve of having a required C.U.P. on R-3 apartment dwellings, Ms. Sapetto noted that an advantage of the G.U.P. is that there would be some measure of design review, Connn. Brown suggested 1,500 square feet as the limit for R-2, for the sake of uniformity. Chmn. Izant concurred with Comm. Brown. Comm. Strohecker questioned whether Comm. Brown and Chmn. Izant were proposing that both the zoning code and general plan be c~anged. Comm. Brown and Chmn. Izant both responded in the affirmative. Chmn. Izant further stated that he would support 1,100 in the high density areas, moving it up from the 1,089. Motion by Conun, Brown to make R-2 medium density 1,500 square feet per unit with an equivalent density of 28 dwelling units per acre; also that R-3 be moved to 1,100 square feet per unit which would be equivalent to approximately 37 dwelling units per acre. Motion seconded by Comm. Newton. Comm .. Strohecker asked whether Ms. Sapetto could give an example of a project in town • which would reflect dwelling units per acre. Ms. Sapetto replied that the boatyard project will be 79 units, which represents between 22 and-23 dwelling units per acre. Comm. Brown discussed the issue of apartments. He noted that developers will come in and choose to build condos over apartments. He felt that there should be some PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 Page 6 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) type of mechanism to make apartments more attractive. Ms. Sapetto noted that the apartments would need to be affordable if they were to be given more than is allowed by the general plan. Mr. CastQneda noted that attorneys differ in opinion on the topic of density bonuses, Chmn. Izant felt that economic incentives favor condominiums, even if the du/a were set at 45, Comm. Brown noted that the issue is always ultimately parking. (Comm. Shapiro joined the meeting at 8:57 P.M.) Chmn. Izant reiterated the discussion that had taken place thus far on this issue. Ms. Sapetto noted that this is a reconnnendation for staff insofar as direction to take, Chmn. Izant concurred, stating that this would not be the last vote taken on this issue. (Vote on motion by Connn. Brown) AYES: Col!Ulls. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn, Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None TANDEM PARKING Ms. Sapetto gave staff report, stating that at the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 3, 1984, Chmn. Izant asked staff to look into amending the parking standards that pertain to tandem parking in order to make them more restrictive. He suggested that tandem parking be allowed only after basic parking requirements have been met. The Commission asked staff to look into this possibility. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recommends that abolishing tandem parking would not be an effective method to control parking abuses. However, if the Commission determines that other considerations warrant looking into this alternative, a Resolution of Intention had been provided. Ms. Sapetto stated that currently tandem parking is allowed to fulfill the minimum parking requirements only if the parking spaces a re locat e d o ff of an alley or on a privat\e .drive (a private -drive is defined as one h aving a min imum length of 21 feet). While tandem parking is not preferable to traditiona l par kin g , it does provide the only alternative for deve l opments on s mall lot s a nd walk streets. Once aga in, the City is faced with trying t o deal fai rly with subs tandar d lots . Ex is ting developme nts will not be affected. Howe ver, future developments might b e hard-p re ssed t o meet t he requirements if they are located on a walk stre et or a s ubstandard lo t. Ms. Sapetto noted that it is d ifficult for walk s tr eet developments to meet the required parking provisions when the lots' only p ublic access consists of an alleyway. This difficulty becomes an imp ossibility if tand em parking is removed as an alternativ e . Ms. Sapetto stated that the problem arises again in the northern end of the City: there are approximately 200 lots that have an area less than 2,200 square feet and yet are zoned R-2 or greater and occur in medium and high density areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -..TIJNE 19, 1984 TANDEM PARKING (Cont,) Page 7 Ms , Sa p etto noted th at the Commission did not su gg est the tot al abol i s hment of t a ndem park ing , Rather, it was suggested that tandem parking be al low ed only af ter the bas i c minimum parking requirements b ad been met. In other words, it ma y be used in add it i on to traditional parking but not in place of the s a:m e. This, h owev e r, i s where t he problem manifests itself. For many dev eJ.opmen t s, tan d em pa r king is the on ly mea ns by which they are able to meet the mi nimum p ar kin g stan d a rds. If tl;d1Loption i s d i sallowed as an a cc ep table method to meet basic parkin g r equiremen ts, many develo pments will be restricted. Ms, Sapetto concluded by stating that the result of removing tandem parking as an alternative would effectively limit development to one unit per lot in the areas described. While this might decrease density, the City must decide whether or not thi s is an unfa i r application of parkin g standards. The utilization of tandem parking i s a l ready limited to priv ate drives and a l leyways. Staf f does not feel that this type of parking c r eates additional problems; ratber, it provides a solution to an a wkwa rd situation by allowing a developer to utili z e a p roperty and still meet parking re quirements. Chmn. Izant questioned whether tandem parking would be allowed in a residential underground garage. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, Chmn. Izant noted that previously tandem parking was allowed in commercial common garages, Ms. Sapetto stated that that was correct, but noted that it was not allowed in residential. Chmn, Izant questioned whether there is anything in the code that specifically forbids tandem parking in connnon residential garages. Comm. Newton asked for the rationale of allowing tandem parking on an alley but not on a street. Ms. Sapetto stated that on a street, traffic would be stopped when a car is trying to get out of a tandem parking space, An alley is not as heavily tr av er sed as a street, though. She noted that on the smaller lots, alleysare somet ime s the only access. She further felt that the issue here is one of density. Comm, Newton again questioned the rationale behind the use of tandem parking in alleys, but not streets. Ms. Sapetto noted that alleys are considered to be secondary access routes. Chmn. Izant stated that, statistically, the odds of interfering with traffic on an alley is less than that of a street. Comm. Brown felt that the problem could best be remedied by reducing the density build-out, as has been discussed previously. Comm . Brown q uestio ne d whether Cbmn . Izant had any particular cases of a bu s e in mi nd in reg a rd to t he issue o f tandem parking in the City. He stated that if t h e tand em pa rkin g has b e en abused only by a f ew people, it ·wouldn't be fair to do away with it f o r ot he r s who h ave not abused the privilege, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 TANDEM PARKING (Cont.) Page 8 Chmn. Izant concurred with Comm. Brown, but stated that he did not agree with staff's examples of the abuse, He stated that he had two motivations for suggesting this issue be looked into: He felt that the public is not adequately protected against tandem parking in R-3 zones where common garages are used. He noted that there has been some abuse of the tandem parking in regard to the commercial areas, noting that the commercial code states that commercial parkin g requirements must first be met before tandem parking is allowed. He wanted to be certain that this same thing does not happen in regard to the residential areas. Secondly, he mentioned the case of a person who had built a condo in an R-3 zone. There were four units. He had two guest parking spots and was fulfilling the parking requir·ement by the use of tandem parking; but he wanted to put garage doors on the tandem parking spaces. The Commission had agreed at the time, that if those were really to be guest parking spots, garage doors should not be put on them. He felt that if this were to happen, the tandem spots would become nothing more than storage space. He felt that this could be a potential abuse. He felt that it is inappropriate to allow tandem parking to be used to fulfill the basic parking requirements. Chmn. Izant noted that the issue here is only to decide whether or not to hold a public hearing on the issue of tandem parking .and whether or not the rules should be changed. Coinin. Shapiro noted that, in the example given by Chmn. Izant, the applicant stated that he was putting garage doors on the guest parking spaces because he was required to do so by the Building Department. Comm. Newton stated that she would like to hold a public hearing on this issue of tandem parking in the City. Comm. Brown asked what the code currently says in regard to tandem parking. Chmn, Izant stated that the code states that all required off-street parking spaces shall be directly accessible from a street or driveway except where the required number of residential off-street parking spaces is four or more. One half of such required spaces may be tandem. No tandem spaces shall be permitted except where access is from an alley or private driveway. Comm. Brown felt that a public hearing is not necessary to clarify the wording already in the code. He questioned whether there was a mechanism by which guest parking spaces could not have doors. He felt that this issue would be better addressed in the building code. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would discuss this issue with the Building Director. Public Hearing opened at 9:23 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Chmn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 9:24 P.M. Comm. Brown questioned the rationale for holding a public hearing on this issue. Ms. Sapetto stated that if the Commission feels that the issue of tandem parking is adequately addressed in the code, there would be no reason to hold a public hearing on changing the code. Comm. Brown felt that the wording in the code is adequate. His only concern was the question of the doors. He felt that this could be a potential abuse and suggested further examination of that issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 1.9, 1984 TANDEM PARKING (Cont.) Page 9 Comm. Brown noted the high cost of ho1ding public hearings, and stated that he felt there are not enough abuses to warrant holding a public hearing. Chron. Izant stated that he would propose at a public hearing that one sentence be changed, that being that tandem parking may be used in residential areas only after the basic parking requirements have been met. He felt that this additional wording in the code would remedy any potential problems. Comm. Brown felt that this would be a clarification, but not much more so than is already contained in the code. Comm. Shapiro stated that he would support a public hearing on the issue of tandem parking, but noted that a major item to be considered is the property rights of the owners. He noted that he would like to see a provision for additional setbacks. He noted that the only way people with small lots could build would be to use tandem parking. He questioned whether these people would be able to ask for variances if they could not meet the parking requirements. This way, they would not be losing the property rights that they originally purchased. Chmn. Izant noted that the issue is only whether or not to hold a public hearing on tandem parking. He further stated that actual decisions would be made during a public hearing, not at this time. Comm. Brown questioned the number of citizens who would come to a public hearing on this matter. He felt that there probably is not enough interest on this issue. He noted that he felt it is necessary to examine the building code before deciding whether or not to hold a public hearing on the matter. Comm. Strohecker felt that tandem garages are almost always abused. He stated that he would support a pub.lie hearing on the issue, Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, for further discussion on the issue of tandem parking by way of holding a public hearing. 'Comm. Shapiro noted that he would like to see ~ public notice sent out to those people whose lots would be affected as pointed out in the staff report. He further noted that he would consider this as part of the motion. Comm, Newton felt that every lot in the R-3 area would be affected because everyone could propose an additional unit for their property if it could be accommodated by tandem parking. Ms. Sapetto stated that to comply with Comm. Shapiro's suggestion would be extremely C!.os-+/~ and time-consuming for staff. She suggested putting in the public notice a more precise definition of those who would be affected, Comm. Shapiro stated that he could accept staff's recommendation. Chmn. Izant also noted that he could support finer language in the public notice. Comm. Brown also concurred with staff 1 s suggestion, but noted that more information should be analyzed before coming to a decision to hold a public hearing. (Vote on Comm. Strohecker's motion to hold a public hearing on tandem parking.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 TANDEM PARKING (Cont.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Brown None Page 10 Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to adopt P.C. 84-18. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm, Brown None FRONT YARD SETBACKS Ms. Sapetto gave staff report, stating that at the April 3, 1984, meeting of the Planning Commission, Chmn. Izant expressed concern over the parking situation in Hermosa Eeach. In particular, he pointed out that many car owners violate City code when they pa-rk in driveways and tbeir cars extend over the sidewalk. He suggested that perhaps front yard setback requirements could be increased so that an average sized car would be able to park on a resident's driveway without intruding upon the public domain of the sidewalk. The Commission asked staff to look into this possibility. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recommends that increasing front yard setback requirements would not be an effective method to control this parking problem, However, if the Commission determines that other considerations warrant looking into this alternative, a Resolution of Intention had been provided. Ms. Sapetto noted that, undoubtedly, Hermosa Beach has a severe parking problem. There are several things to consider, however, when approaching the issue of increasing front yard setbacks. Currently, with the minimum se t back, many of the smaller lots in Hennosa Beach suffer a severe decrease in the developable area. There are approximately 250 lots on the north side of the City that have an area of less than 2,200 square feet. The decrease in developable area created by requiring larger setbacks would constitute a hardship for these substandard lots by limiting the feasible scale of development. The City must work within the parameters of the existing situation: substandard lots exist and, while the City can prevent their occurrence in the future, their property rights are equally important as standard size lots, Ms. Sapetto stated that anotber possible resul t of requiring larger setba_cks would be the conversion of garages into "bootleg" apartment s. If a home-owner can sat_isfy his/her parking requirements by utilizing the driveway , then the garage becomes unnecessary as a structure for parking. The tempt_ation exists to turn a redundant building into a revenue-generating apartment. This would create more demand for parking and less provision for its supply. Ms. Sapetto concluded by stating that ·while s t aff shares the desire to ameliorate the parking problem as expre.ssed by the Planning Commission, she felt that requiring larger setbacks would unfairly limit development on small,:i.r lots, and perhaps result in an increase of "bootleg" apartments with the concomitant exacerbation of an already critical parking problem, Chnm. Izant noted that he did not agree with staff's arguments concerning the people in the north end with 2,200 square feet. He did agree with the argument concerning the bootleg apartments, though, He noted that he did not have as much support on this issue as he bad previously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 19, 1984 FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Cont.) Page 11 Connn. Brown agreed with staff's recommendation to reject the Resolution of Intention to look at the issue of front yard setbacks. Comm. Newton felt that people would be reluct ~~t to tear do'Wn older structures with the knowledge that they could not build to that point on the lot again. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Connn. Brown, to reject the Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing on front yard setbacks. AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS Ms. Sapetto noted that the City Council had voted to retain a seven-member Planning Co111I11ission; however, new commissioners have not yet been appointed. Ms. Sapetto also suggested that the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 3, 1984, be moved to July 31, 1984. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Newton expressed concern over an unscreened satellite antenna at 1731 Pacific Coast Highway. Ms. Sapetto noted that she would check into this matter. Chmn. Izant .noted that Critter's had complied with the fencing requirement around their satellite antenna, but he felt that the screen seems to be lacking somewhat. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would discuss the Critter's fence with the Building Director. Connn. Strohecker noted concern over the weeds located at Gould dual property, Motion by Comm. Brown to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. No objections. So ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meet · g of June 19, 1984. Chairman Date /