Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 23, 2000 (i) . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, May 23, 2000 7:15 p.m. in the Conncil Chambers Planning ComInission proceedings are tape-recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia. met in regular session on Tuesday, May 23,2000 at 7:15 p.rn. in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. .Hun1ingtQo Drive with Chairman Pro Tem Huang presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner, Kalemkiarian MOTION It was moved by Commissio!,\er Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to excuse Commissioners Bruckner and Kalemkiarian from tonighfs.meeting. The motion passed by v9ice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member Sheng Chang Planning SerVices Manager Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner Candyce Burnett Assistant Planner Kenneth Phung Secretary Silva Vergel MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the. resolution. The IIlotion passed by voice' vote with none dissenting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Nicholson infOn:rn:d the audience that the,following applications were withdrawn. There will be no public hearing on these items. . MP 00-009, 2600 S. Third, due to General Plan and zoning inconsistency . CUP 00-007, n 07 S. Baldwin Ave., #B, due to concerns raised by staff . . TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON"PUBLIC HEARING MATIERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) None 1. MINUTES of5/9/00 Commissioner Sleeter said that the item no on page 5 should be corrected. Commissioner Murphy asked that the motion on the same page should reflect their requirement of driveway enhancements. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the Minutes of May 9th as amended. ' ROLLCALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Murphy,Sleeter,Huang None Commissioner Bruckner, Kalemkiarian THIS APPLlCATIONWASWlTHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT 2. PUBLIC HEARING MP 00-009 & ADR 00-012 2600S. Third Ave. Sanyao Int'l Consideration of modific::ations for a 4-unit residential condominium project. Commissioner Kalemkiarian arrived at 7:30 p.1D. 3. PUBLIC HEARING MP 00-010& ADR 00-016 1312 Golden West Ave. Sanyao Int'l Consideration of modifications for a 2-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. . Robert Tong, Sanyao Int'l, 14] E. Duarte Rd., said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 '123100 . . Commissioner Murphy aSked if they have considered any other designs? He was concerned with the redundancy of design. He did not want cookie-cutter units and he feared that soon the City would be filled with similar type units. He wanted more creativity in design. He realized that Mr. Tong is not the property owner but felt their concerns should be conveyed. Mr. Tong replied that he always makes an attempt to create different styles but his clients like certain architectural designs. . No one else spoke in favor of or m opposition to this item. Chairman,Pro Tem Huang closed the public hearing. Commissioner Murphy felt strongly about the redundancy issue. He thought that it is time to draw the line once and for all and send the message that they want to see different types of developments. He feared that R-3zoned properties would soon all look the same. He challenged the property owner and the architect to go back and redesign and return with a better and improved plan. He said that if they are asking the Planning Commission to approve this then he was asking them to redesign. As presented, he co1ild not support this project because in.hisopinion it did not secure an appropriate improvement. He suggested that staff and the architect work ort the design and iinprove it. Commissioner Sleeter concurred. Looking at the packet, all the projects before the Planning Commission look and have the same feeL He remarked that on one hand there is a big improvement because garages no longer are facing the street, but they are seemg the same designs over and over. He said that this particular architect has been very good in addressing the Planning Commission's concerns. Since Planning Commission is being asked to do ADR, he wanted to see more creativity. He did not mind with splitting the modification request and the ADR. He did not mind approving the modification and having them redesign and work with staff and return with a different look. Mr. Nicholson said that staffl06ks ateach project separately and coosidersthe merits of the overall design. This lot is 49' wide - very narrow - he was amazed that this architect was able to design a 2-unit project. He appreciated concerns raised by the Planning Commission but he was reluctant to get involved m trying to dictate architectural themes. He did not want staff put in such a position. Commissioner Kalemkiarian understooa the concerns raised by Commissioner Murphy and noted that the project has a very nice scale. This is one of the best design that he has seen, especially with the detail on the chimney. He could not justifY denying'the project Chairman Pro Tem Huang thought they should work on specific issues and direct that those items be addressed. Mr. Nicholson said that they show developers what the Planning Commission has approved in the past. StaffBharesthe concerns raised by the Planning Commission with developers and they try to get diversity in development. Commissioner Kalemkiarian said that this project is one of the better-looking developments. Comnlissioner Sleeter said the scale of the project is nice. He was tired of seeing projects with stucco and stone work. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3 5123/00 . . Commissioner Murphy envisioned what.the City would look like in ten years. He asked if this is what people are asking for oris it what is just being designed? He felt the applicant should redesign addressing the Planning Commission's concerns ifthey want their approval. Chairman Pro Tem Huang said that style is subjective and a personal preference. Commissioner Murphy found it difficultto believe that they all wanted the same looking project. Chairman Pro Tern suggested approving the modification and requesting that the plans be revised to address their concerns. Commissioner Kalemkiarian did not want to redesign. This is a nice project. They can always request variety on upcoming projects. One more project can't hurt. They can instruct staff to look for a variety of designs for projects that will be coming up. Commissioner Murphy thought they should delay a decision until the next meeting to allow the architect time to redesign. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, to delay the decision on his project and continue it to the next meeting to allow the architect time to,redesign. . The motion failed due to lack ofa second. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalenikiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve MP 00-010 & ADR 00-016 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Sleeter agreed with comment~ .madeby Commissioner Murphy but he stated that one project Cannot hlirtanything. He felt they have sent the message that they want to see a variety. He thought this is a well-balanced project. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kaleinkiarian, Sleeter,HtJang Commissioner Murphy Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Pro Tem Huang noted that there is a,five working41y appeal period, Appeals are to be filed by May 31,2000. Chairman Pro Tem Huang hoped that this message will be related to all architects. Commissioner Murphy remarked that he was not troubled by the design but by the redundancy. He was tired of the design. Arcadia Ci~ Planning Commission 4 5123/00 . . 4. PUBLIC HEARING MP 00-011 & ADR 00-015 401 S. Third Ave. Sanyaolnt'1 Consideration of modifications for a 2-unit residential condominium proje~. The staff. report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Robert Tong, Sanyao Int'l, 141 E. Duarte Rd., said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. He appreciated Commissioner Murphy's concerns. He realized that he had three projects scheduled for tonight's meeting but the first item was Tudor style. He bas a couple of other projects, both Tudor style that will be coming up. He remarked that he is not the only architect in the City and he diq not want to be singled out. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Pro Tem Huang closed the public hearing. Commissioner Murphy remarked that he did not feel any differently about this project. He suggested delaying the hearing to allow the architect to redesign. .At the request of Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Chairman Pro Tem Huang re-opened the public . hearing.' , In response to a question by ColIlInissioner Kalemkiarian, Mr. Tong said that this is a "California French" style design. Chairman Pro Tem Huang cloSed the public hearing. Commissioner Kalemkiarian said that the project offers nice features. He liked the turrets, the windows, the round porthole type windows. He suggested providing more accent colors to add depth. Although the style of the project is different, the colors are the same as the previous project and it makes it appear to be of the same desigrt. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve MP 00-011 &ADR 00-015 subject to the conditions listed in thestilffreport. ROLL CALL: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Huang Commissioner Murphy Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Pro Tem Huang noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed byMay 31, 2000. Arcadia City Planning ConuriissioD 5 S123tOO . . 5. PUBLIC HEARING MP OO-013 & ADR 00-009 l20Fano BenjaminZhu on behalf of the property owner, William Leung Consideration of modifications for a 3-unit residential condominium project. The staff. report was presented. - In response to a.question by Commissioner Murphy, staff said that the guest parking on the east side would have a landscape area off of the alley. Staff said that there are vine pockets that are to be landscapednexfto the driveway. The public hearing was opened. Benjamin Zhu, 95.6 Temple City, said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. These units will be apartments. With regard to the style, he commented that architects are dictated by their clients. He sUggested that the City come up with approved designs. Commissioner Murphy thought thatthe driveway and the parking area need relief. Staff said that the driveway would be either stamped concrete or decorative pavement. Chairman Pro Tern Huang thought that a.landscape area is needed along the south side of the dri,veway. He asked if they provide climbing vine or shrubs? Mr. Zhu said that if they could reduce the width of the driveway by]' they could provide landscaping. Mr. Nicholson said that he would prefer to see pockets rather than a continuous planter. Along the alley, staff requires planter curbs-instead of wheel stops. No one else spoke'in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Pro Tern Huang closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kalemkiarian said this is a nice project and he liked the color contrast. The low roof makes it really attractive. Commissioner Murphy thought that landscaping pockets along the west wall would be nice. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve MP 00-010 & ADR 00-016 subject to the conditions listed in the staffreport. ROLL CALL: AYES:. NOES: Commi~sioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Huang None Arcadia City Planning Commission 6 5/23/00 . . ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Pro Tem Huang noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by May31, 2000. THIS APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT 6. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 00-007 1107 S.,Baldwin Ave.,#B Marian Chen ConsideratioJ;! of a conditional use permit for a 1,484-sq. ft. coffee shop in a bookstore. 7. PUBLIC HEARING TPM oo-on 424 Diamond St. Yank Zhi Kang ( Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 2-unit residential condominium project. The. staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. TomKao, Tritech Assoc., said they are in agreement with all.of the conditions in the staff report. The ADR has already been approved. This is the subdivision of air space only. No one elSe spoke In favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Pro TemHuang closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve TPM 00-011 subjectto the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: A~S: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Huang None Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Pro Tem HUang noted that there isa ten-day appeal period. AppealS are t6 be filed by June 5, 2000. Arcadia Ci~"Planning Comniission 7 5/23/00 . . 8. PUBLIC HEARING MP 00-0]4 301 Joaquin Rd. John Sheng & Assoc. on behalf of the property owners, Michael and Sharon Hwa Consideration of an appeal of the Santa Anita Village HOA's denial of a proposed remodel of the existing residence. In addition, the applicant is requesting a modification to permit a 5'-6" southerly side yard setback in lieu of6'-6" required .for a master bedroom addition. The staffi'eportwas'preSented. Staff said that photos show that the front of the house is on Kingsley Dr. Existing front elevation faces Kingsley Dr. Chairman Pro Tern Huang asked if they are going to reorient the existing building so the front door would be on KingsleyDr.? He was confused with.the request,since t1).e front of the house seemed to be on Kingsley Dr. already. Mr, Nicho.1son said the applicant could better clarify that isSUe. He was not sure if the door on Kingsley Dr. was the primary entrance. Staff indicated that the applicant has put forth a good effort to address the concerns raised by the ARB. Theresolutionspecifically states that the front elevation must face the front property line but the zoning code does not address that issue. They do require a side yard modification. Chairman Pro Tem Huang asked if the orientation of the house was the only issue before the Planning Commission? Are the design and side yard modifications issues that they need to be concerned with? He asked when Reso. 5286 was adopted? Mr. Nicholson Said that the ARB was not aware of the side yard modification. When Planning reviewed their proposal, itwas rea1ized that a modification was necessary. No other issues are to be considered at this time. He indicated that the resolutions for all the associations. were reviewed and revised at the same time when it was determined that the original resolutions were unconstitutional The City reviewed the CC&Rs and reworded them. The public hearing was opened. John Sheng, 5926Temple City Blvd., Temple City, the architect of the project, saidthe original plan was to add 2,200 sq. tHo the existing house. They were advised by the ARB to reduce the scale so the house would be more compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. They revised their plans and eliminated the vertical elements that emphasized the mass. The location of the front door was discUssed at the March meeting. At that meeting, one member said that house at 80] Balboa faces the same direction. The other members concluded and commented that if the front door were to be placed on the Kingsley Dr. side, then the house would have to comply with the 300- angle requirement. The colors of the new home and the revised plan comply with that requirement. At the ARB's second public hearing on April 13th, the ARB voted unanimously to deny their proposal. Currently, the front door is 34' away from curb in addition to the 12' parkway. They will landscape beautifully to provide visual relief. ArCadia City..Plarming Commission 8 5f1.3/00 . . Chairman Pro Tern Huang asked where is the existing.entrance door? . Mr. Sheng responded that the front door currently faces Kingsley Dr. There is no door on Joaquin Dr. The elevation on Joaquin Dr. does not have the appearance of the front of the house. Mr. Sheng summarized the ARB's actions: :> The ARB asked them to reduce the mass and redesign. :> They did not reach a consensus with regard to the orientation of-the front entry )0> They asked them to reduce the angle. He.said that the ARB had different opinions with regard to the location of the front door. The front door currently faces the street side yard. They reduced the height to make it appear like a single story home. They converted the existing attic area and made it a bedr,oom. The roofline does not encroach'into the 300 angle ort either streets. Michael Hwa, 301 Joaquin, the property owner said then- house is too small for this family and it does notaccommodate their needs. As a property owner he is concerned with the neighborhood and would not want tDruin the,area with a building that would not be compatible. He said that he did not want to build a mansion here. They designed the house to comply with code. The entrancefucing Kingsley Dr. is existing and not something that they are requesting to change. They have a concrete walkway Kingsley Dr. to the entrance, which faces north. They do not want their new home to be out of character or incompatible with the' neighborhood. He plans pn hiring a landscape architect to heavily landscape both sides of the house. Shawn Chang, 405 Armada, said that he lives 5 houses away from the subject hoilse. He thought thatthis remodel would increase property values; He thought they showed their desire to work with the neighborhood by putting a bedroom in the attic area instead of creating an obtrusive second floor. He remarked that comer lots'are difficult to develop. . Julian Yip, 314 Joaquin, thought the revised plans are an improvement from the existing situation. This is one of the, nicer homes being proposed that he has seen in a while; It is a ranch.style home that is compatible in the Village HOA. He thought the proposed plans are in good architectural character andcompatiblevirith the neighborhood. " Laurie Thompson. 229S. Alttira Rd., Chair of the Santa,Anita Village Architectural,ReviewBoard said that they unanimously voted to' deny this project.. She said that City Council Resolution No. 5286 section 3A approved by the Arcadia City Council clearly states the obligation of the Architecttiral review Board to safeguard -that any dwelling placed or maintained on any lot shall fuce the front line thereof.". In other words, the front must fuce the front. The wisdom of this architectural provision in maintaining harmony and compatibi1ity can be illustrated by considering the consequences of granting the applicant's request to nullifY section3A of this resolution. Exhibit 1, which shows the orientation of all properties in the subject vicinity evidences the consistency, compatibility and harmony, created when all homes face the front to front. This pattern was established at the inception of the Village and in this neighborhood shows no exceptions including the existing subject property. To allow a change in the orientation of the subject property creates a disruption of the symmetry of the neighborhood She distributed a plan indicating the Arcadia City Planitirig Commission 9 5123/00 . . directions thatthe homes are facing on the subject street. The darker arrow is the subject property oriented to the side set back. She noted that looking at Exhibit #2 - Facing the front to the front brings harmony and consistency to the width of the fronts of homes. The width of the applicant's property if the front is reoriented to the side creates a front house face width in excess of 80 feet. This is in stark contrast to the widths it would face along.Kingsley of a maximurnof 56 feet and the widths along Joaquin of a maximum of 52 feet. What is created is a significantly disproportionate width that is not harmonious or compatible to the neighborhood. Having the front face the front as provided in section 3.4 would resuh in the subject property having a front face width consistent with the neighborhood. Facing the front to the front also brings consistency in the greenbeh setback from the front face of the house to the street face. Along Kingsley the average of the nearest point of a front face to the street is approximately 47.5 ft. along Joaquin. Reorienting the .front face from 301 Joaquin to the Kingsley side yard setback creates a distance from the closest point of the subject front face to the street of approximately 24.S ft. The resuh. is a front face of a house that is almost'30 ft Wider than its neighbors setting - 22 ft closer to the street. This narrower distance is in. stark contrasUo its entire neighborhood. 'this is clearly out of harmony and compatibility and represents an undesirable . encroachment ofa'front entry on the public right of way. She went on to say that even if the ARB overlooked the infirmities as to these major negative consequences of permitting the reorientation, the design and the height of the front entry, window over the entry and the. towers are not in harmony with the historic style of the Village: She noted that the applicant cited 3 properties (all located out of this part of the Village) to justifY the request to overturn the ARB's denial. She subniitted photographs of the applicant's cited properties and the subject property taken from the front face.andthe side setbacks. The applicant did' not demonstrate a compelling reason for the ARB or the Planning Commission to grant an exception to section 3.4 <;lfthe Village resolution In summary, she said that City Council Resolution 5286 clearly s.ets forth the authority and legal obligation of the Village Architectural Review Board to apply section3.4 which states any dwelling placed or maintained on any lot shall face the front line th.ereof. This applicant-has requested an exception be made without a clear and compelling reason to do so. This project is out of architectural harmony and compatibility, which consequently negatively impacts the use and enjoyment of the neighborhood. No amountof materials or landscaping mentioned by the applicants would be able to mask the magnitude ofthe.mist8ke that would be made by granting this exception and the potential it creates for setting a precedence. AsquickIy as landscaping is installed it can be cutdown" altered or drastically trimmed and neither the ARB nor the city would have any legal recourse to require its replacement. Therefore, the Village Homeowners Association and the Village Architectural Review Board respectfully request that this application be denied. Bill Klipstein, 401 S. Old Ranch Rd., said he was present at both.meetings. He disagreed with the applicant?s comment that the ARB requested them to reduce the angle. They did.comment that the front elevation must Comply. Arcadia City Planning Commission 10 5123/00 . . Miles Nagaoka, 427 S. Old Ranch Rd., they have a long frontage due to the odd shape of the lot. The property faces east but the door faces south. The placement of the door does not determine which is the front of the house-the address does. All of the houses on Joaquin face that street. The door on the subject property is in an odd area. They have a unique quality and history in the Village and he wanted to maintain it. The homes in the Village are all ranch style homes. He was distressed that new homes are changing the nature of that history and the qualitY of living in their neighborhood. Bob Cheney, 42 Cabrillo,said they could place the door on Joaquin and still have the same amount 'ofsquare footage as proposed. Tony Henrich, 431 N. Altura, President ofthe Lower Rancho HOA concurred with the ARB'.s denial of the subject house because it violates the harmony. This house faces Joaquin and thought that reorientation would set a precedent. Pam OIenader, President of HOA, said the photo board that they submitted illustrates that none of the homes have their front doors on the opposite side of their street address. Most homes in this area . are "L" style homes which is typiCal in the Village HOA. The ARB requested revisions and some were made. She feared that. this would set a precedent. In rebuttal, Mr. Sheng, said that the submitted photo board could not apply to this house. If they put the door diagonally, it would be less compatible with the neighborhood. To put a wrap around porch would reduce the interior space and there would not be sufficient room for the living room. Currently, there is no overhang or porch behind the bushes next to the front door. The living room faces Kingsley Dr. The garage faces Kingsley Dr. and is located to the left of the house. A bedroom faces Joaquin. The living room faces both streets. They reduced the height along Kingsley Dr. to comply \\lith the 300 angle. He thought that landscaping and boxed' hedges along the walkway would remain. They do'not have the landscaping plan yet but willwork with the ARB when they have one. Shawn Chang felt the ARRwas being unfair. They should not ask the owner to reorient the house, especial\y,since both the living room and dining room are along Kingsley Dr. It would be very costly to reorient.that situation. . No one else spoke in favor of or in.opposition to this ,item. Chairman Pro Tem Huang closed the public hearing Commissioner Murphy stated thatthis.is clearly not a rebuild but a major remodel. And because it is a remodel he did notthink that the Resolution could apply. Chairman Pro Tem Huang agreed. He looked at when the resolution was adopted and when the house was built. The house was built prior to the resolution, therefore, it was grandfathered. When comparing to other remodels, this is moderate. It is not a mansion. The architect has attempted to make changes to make the home less massive. . Commissioner Murphy drove by the home. He would have never suspected that the address of this house was on Joaquin had he not known that fact. There are a number remodels in this area and the proposal is much superior than most ofthese remodels. They are not changing the orientation. The door is already on Kingsley Dr. He did notthinkorientation was an issue. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11 5123/00 . . Commissioner Kalemldarianthoughtthe proposed house Is beautiful. As long as they comply with the 300 angle, they can construct a house. He felt that landscaping would add to the property and help with the scale of the house. Commissioner Sleeter agreed with the comments that. were made. He could not see orientation as an issue. The entrance is currently on Kingsley Dr. Commissioner Murphy felt that a landscape plan should be submitted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve the appeal MP 00-014.and approve the requested modifications and direct staff for prepare the appropriate resolution subject to the conditions in the staffreport. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conimissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Huang None Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Pro Tem Huang noted that there is a five. working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by May ,31 st. NON-PUBLIC'HEARlNG ITEMS 9. PUBLIC HEARING DETERMINATION That the proposed Capital Improvement Program for 2000-2001 is in conformance with the City's General Plan. Mr. Nicholson presented the staff report. MOTION It was moved by Conimissioner Mtitphy, seconded by Commissioner Sleetermakiilg the findings that the CIP program for 2000-2001 is in conformance with the City's General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, HUang None Commissioner Bruckner MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Chang snmmarized the actions taken by the City Council. Arcadia City Planning Commission 12 SflJlOO ~ . MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ ';" Commissioner Murphy felt that the current guest-parking requirement for multiple-family zoned property.is inadequate. He did not think that .5 guest parking for each unit is adequate. They will see the ramifications of this deficiency several years from now. He thought a study should be conducted into increasing this requirement. Chairman Pro Tem Huang wondered if the Planning Commission wanted to direct staff to look into this matter? Commissioner Sleeter remarked that they are discussing an item that is not on the agenda, although, he agreed with Commissioner M~hy that this is an issue that is long over due for action. Mr. Nicholson was surprised to hear that this was an issue or a problem. Staff has never heard of a complaint and they would hear'abolit it if people were unable to find parking. Staff~has already been directed to review the muItiple-family requirements. Their study can include a survey from surrounding cities. . Commissioner Murphy asked that staff try to get the word out regarding this issue. MODIFICATioN COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Murphy recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. mTY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Nicholson informed the Planning Commission of upcoming agenda items. ADJOURNMENT 945~ ~.l1JJ~ Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Armdia City Planning Commission 13 Sl2lillO