Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 26, 1960 . ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE Annexation 17-A & 14 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 1960 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., January 26, 1960 with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Norton, Stout and Wall in ABSENT: Commissioner Michler OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jess Balser: City Attorney James A. Nicklin Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz: Planning Secretary L. M. Talley The minutes of the meeting held January 12, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed zoning of Annexation No.. 14 and Annexation No. l7-A, north of Lemon Avenue as contemplated by Resolution No. 353; property located west of Baldwin Avenue and south of Duarte Road. The Planning Secretary read a letter received from Mr. J. W. Bernard, which indicated disagreement with the Planning Staff recommendation to zone Annexation 14 property as R-3 and R-l. The letter outlined reasonS for taking exception to the staff recom- mendations as follows: 1. At the time of annexation to the city the commission classified this property as Zone C, PR-3 and R-l as a tapering-off area to the major development of C zoning to the north; the writer felt that no change in the area has altered this basic principle. 2. The C zoning of this property hinged on certain conditions all of which have not been accomplished, because the property owners felt these could be completed when the property was actually developed. 3. The letter referred to the public hearing on December 8, 1959, at which time the recommendation from the staff classified the corner three lots as C-3 & D, the two southerly lots as CO & D in the front portion, the rear portion R-l and the 2 small lots at the southern I end of the property to CO & D. . The property owners involved in Annexation 14 were in accord with the recommendation outlined at this public hearing; they knew of none nor heard any objections to thm recommendation. The commission members Page One January 26, 1960 \_- ' them~elves at this meeting did not express any opposition to the tentative recommendation contained in this report. The letter requested the commission's reconsideration of their lat- est recommendation and a return to their ol::iginal recommendation. The City Attorney was asked to summarize a lengthy report on the history of Annexation No. 14, outlining the Planning Commission and City Council proceedings leading up to the final date of Annexation; it substantiated the zoning of C-l, providing certain conditions were accomplished. Mr. Bernard the writer of the above letter came forward and stated he felt the condition that threw the property owners off course, and the reason they did not execute the deeds for the alley was that the purpose of an alley at the time of annexation was to serve as a buffer and separation from the County territory. The property owners did not wish to get themselves tied with alley dedications if it eventually wouldn't make any difference whether or not there were an alley. Mr. Henry Shatford, 410 Drake Road, At.torney, represented Sophia Johnson, owner of property located at 1601 S. Baldwin Avenue. The property is about 630 feet deep, and is undeveloped; he felt this property is destined in the future for commercial expansion. Mr. Shatford could not understand the thinking of the commission in suggesting that 180 feet of the westerly portion of this parcel be zoned &-1, because it serves no useful planning purpose. He desired that this entire parcel be no less than R-3. The chairman ordered the public hea~ing. The chairman stated he felt that since no time limit had been set up for the conditions being met for C zoning of the property in Annexation No. 14, consideration should be given and a time exten- sion be granted to these property owners of perhaps 6 months. Per- haps in that time the people involved might be able to accomplish all of the required conditions imposed for granting of a C zone for the area. The City Attorney stated that six months might be a rather short time in which to accomplish these conditions. He thought that one year would be a more desirable time limitation. He continued that it might also be more practical to break the pro- perty down into similar or harmonious areas, and let the areas come ply accomplishing their change of zone. Commissioner Stout stated he felt that the conditions set up on the Annexation 14 .propex:ty are still sound; that the use of an alley is still good planning. Commissioner Norton agreed that to extend the time for possible com- pletion of the required conditions for C zoning seemed fair to him, and he would recommend dividing the area into parts for convenience to the property owners and the staff. Commissioner Davison agreed to R-3 zoning in Annexation 14, but granting one more year to fulfill C-l zoning requirements. He also Page Two January 26, 1960 /--- endorsed the individual area idea instead of a group consideration as more desirable. Commissioner Forman wished to clarify which areas would be considered as units" the three Camino Real lots, would be one unit and the Johnson parcel would be considered another. It was determined that this would be the separation of the area for unit consideration. He agreed with Commissioner Stout that an alley is a desirable facility behind a commercial zoning, part~cularly during the racing season. Commissioner Wallin concurred with the other commissioners. Mr. Beauchamp, 870 W. Duarte Road, stated that he checked with the Los Angeles County Engineer's Office, and the corner of Golden West and Duarte Road was zoned C-2 in 1938, making it a C-2 zone for the past 22 years. On the southeast corner the barber claims he has operated since 1933. He added that there is not sufficient land to use it' for R-3. He felt that this property deserves further consideration. The Chairman asked the City Attorney if it would be necessary to reopen the public hearing if further discussion was to occur on Annex- ation 17-A. The City Attorney advised that if further evidence is to be presented to the commission, then there should be a motion to reopen the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commiss.ioner Stout and carried to reopen the public hearing on rezoning of Annexation Nos. ll-A and 14. Mr. Michael Blake, 1245 Lovell Avenue, explained how he had improved his property on Golden West and Duarte Road by building a new nursery structure. He purchased the property with the idea of having commer- cial frontage on Duarte Road, and paid three times the price of R-3 property. He referred to the fact that if his property were zoned R-3, even though he would be able to continue using it as a non-con- forming use, he would not be able to add to or improve the existing buH dings. Mr. Blake made reference to a publication entitled "Zoning and you" published by the Regional Planning Commission which descr.ibed "Spot Zoning" as the condition wherein a business enterprise is allowed to penetrate into some area heretofore unused as such, which would not apply to this situation. The City Attorney advised the commission that inasmuch as Mr. Beauchamp's remarks were made technically prior to the reopening of the public hearing, in order to save him repeating his statements. there should be a motion to include his statements as part of the reopened hearing. Moved by Commissioner Wallin, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried to include the statements of Mr. Beauchamp in the reopened public hearing. Mr. Vincent Agostino, owner of the property at 850 W. Duarte Road repeated his opinions presented at the public hearing of January 12, 1960. He concurred with Mr. Beauchamp's statements; his small parcel Page Three January 26, 1960 of property could not be used in any other way except commercial. Mr. Reinsma. 11'31 S. Baldwin Avenue, stated h~ would like once more to bring to the commission's attention his property which is recom- mended for R-l zoning. He is surrounded by property which will be zoned R-2, and he would also like to have R-2 zoning for his lot. The Planning Secretary stated that the property to the north of Mr. Reinsma's ~roperty is indicated as R-l, not R-2. The City Attorney suggested that when the commission has concluded the testimony they do not close this hearing, so that they will not meet the same impasse as once before when closed before the commis- sion's thinking was crystallized. Mr. Beauchamp displayed for the commission's information a rough sketch of the property on the corner of Golden West and Duarte Road. He meant to bring out the fact that with certain size commercial structures, adequate off street parking could be provided, thus mak- ing the property comply with the ordinance requirements for C-2 pro- perty. Commissioner Davison stated that it is true the commission acted on various portions of Annexation 17-A at the last meeting, however he did concede that future consideration would cause them to be bound by such thinking if additional evidence was presented to change the commission's line of thinking. The Commission does not endorse nor recommend spot zoning as such, however this seems to be an area which was C-2 before annexation, has been used as such for many years. Even though R-3 might be desirable for the land, it does not appear to be the ideal size for R-3. He could not see how that small amount of commercial zoning could necessarily cause or set a precedent for any surrounding R-3 property. Commissioner Norton expressed his sympathy for the property owners seeking C-2 zoning for this area. He reiterated his feeling of the past, that if the commission has a right to reserve one prerogative in locating a commercial area which would best serve the city; by zoning this area R-3, and another section zoned R-2, you have in essence confined the commercial area to a centralized point which is the desirable type of planning for a city of this type. The mere fact that this property is coming into the city with a c-i zone does not preclude that they should keep C-2 zoning when annexing to the city. Commissioner Norton continued that he did not feel this corner of Duarte Road is truly commercial, however, it is within the realm of possibility that this entire area might someday be commercial. Commissioner Davison stated that if the commission were to recommend C-2 for this particular section, it would not be the same as if they rezoned a parcel C-2 which was previously R-3. This property was used as C-2 before it was annexed to the city; and he did not feel if they were allowed to keep this zoning that the commission would necessarily be bound to grant commercial zoning to adjacent proper- ty owners who now have R-3 zoning. Commissioner Stout agreed with Commissioner Davison to the extent that these people who have had C-2 zoning are to be considered, yet to say that this does not establish a precedent is something with which he could not agree. Page Four January 26, 1960 ZONE VARIANCE Miniature Golf Course Commissioner Forman stated he agrees with what Commissioner Stout said about establishing a precedent. He thought the commission should consider the possibility of ' the property being sold to someone which would result in an unsatisfactory type of business which could trap the commission into a new type of development other than what was plan- ned. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Davison and carried to refer this matter to the Zoning Committee and to continue the public hearing to the meeting of February 9, 1960. The commission held a public hearing on the application of Russell H. UbI for a zone variance to allow a miniature golf course at 131- 137 E. Live Oak Avenue. The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated the appli- cant now operates such a course at 614 W. Las Tunas Drive, which will be removed by the construction of the new A & P Market. ' The subject property is in Zone R-3, but this is an area in which the commission has recommended commercial zoning upon compliance with cer- tain conditions, which include the dedication of an alley at the rear. The plot plan for this development, shows the dedication of the alley and the installation of a drj~eway to provide access from the west end. The property to the east is to be developed with a commercial nursery. The next lot to the east will be a demonstration swimming pool, cabana and sales office, Next door, west, is an existing medical center. We see no objection to the granting of this variance', subject to the following conditions: 1. Construct a 6 foot concrete block wall along the north line of the property. 2. Landscape and maintain the north 5 feet of the property. 3. The south 20 feet of the north 25 feet of the property to be used for parking purposes only. 4. The south 20 feet of the north 45 feet of the property to be dedicated for alley purposes and fully ih.proved with concrete gutter and asphaltic pavement. 5. The south 20 feet of the north 65 feet of the property to be used for parking purposes only. 6. The only use authorized by reason of the variance here- by granted is the establishment, maintenance and oper- ation of a miniature golf course, and shall not include any other uses customarHy associated with or conducted in connection with or incidental to a miniature golf course. 7. No loudspeaker or publi.c address system be installed on the premises or used in connection with the miniature golf course, authorized by the variance hereby granted. Page Five January 26, 1960 8. All exterior lights on the subject property be So installed and operated that they do not shine upon or directly illuminate any adjacent property (this condition to include the sign). 9. The conduct or use of the miniature golf course shall not be permitted between the hours of 12:00 o'clock midnight and 8:00 o'clock A.M.. of any day. 10. The owner and operator of the miniature golf course shall prohibit and prevent both the possession and consumption of beer, wine and alcoholic liquor on the subject property so long as the miniature golf course is maintained or operated thereon, and shall prohibit and preclude the sale of beer, wine and alcoholic liquor on subject property, so long as the miniature golf course is maintainEd or operated on the subject property. 11. All buildings on the site shall meet all requirements of buildings in No. 1 Fire District. 12. The development of the property shall conform substan- tially with the plot plan submitted. 13. Each of the foregoing conditions shall continue through- out the entire time that the miniature golf course is maintained or operated on subject property, and the violation of any of the foregoing conditions at any time shall constitute grounds for the modification or revocation of the variance hereby granted. The Chairman declared the hearing opened. Mr. Russell Uhl stated that he was the applicant, but that the report covered everything he had planned to say. No one desired to speak in opposition to the zone variance request. Commissioner Norton stated since there has not been any objection to this request it would be his desire to make a decision tonight. Commissioner Stout believed he would be in favor of this zone variance because it offers fine recreation for the young people of the commun- ity. His only concern was if there would be adequate off street park- ing provided for the patrons. Commissioner Norton spoke in favor of the variance, particularly since the business was p~eviously operated in the City of Arcadia; that it was operated in a fine manner, and the same individual is seeking to reestablish the recreation facility. He expressed concern about the sign. The Planning Secretary explained that the height of the sign did not appear to be excessive in height. and that one of the conditions of the report was to direct all lighting away from adjoining property. The Director of Public Works suggested that if there were any question in the commission's mind about lights from the sign, the conditions could include an appropriate restriction. Page Six January 26, 1960 It was agreed to modify condition No.8 to read "all exterior lights, including the sign," etc. Commissioner Forman added that he thought this proposed miniature golf course would replace something that would otherwise be lost to the community; also, constructing an alley to the rear of the adjac- ent commercial establishments will constitute a needed improvement for traffic circulation. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried to close the public hearing on this zone variance request. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Stout to recOllDllend the approval of tre application for zone variance of Russell H. Uhl to allow a miniature golf course at 131-137 E. Live Oak (includ- ingthe proposed sign) in accordance with the staff report, dated January 21, 196P, as amended. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Norton, Stout and Wallin. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler RESOLUTIONS No. 358 -Before the presentation of Resolution No. 358, the Planning Secretary read a letter received from Mr. Wilfred Schmitt, Attorney, for the Holy Angels church, wich stated briefly that the applicant would withdraw the part of his petition which requested permission to use the dwelling at 924 S. Rolly Avenue for adult meetings relating to church and school activities. In lieu of the usage previously requested the applicant would request permission to use the building in question as a school library. The Planning Secretary called upon Mr. Erickson, the subdivider of the property to the southeast of the Holy Angels property to report to the commission the results of his contact with Monsignor O'Keefe. Mr. Erickson stated that the Monsignor is in agreement to trade cer- tain property to the south for footage of his property to allow the street extension for the proposed tract. However, Mr. Erickson stated, action for such a trade cannot be official until Monsignor obtains the approval of the Cardina'l, which he would attempt to secure as soon as possible. The City Attorney explained that the commission must either adopt a resolution tonight, or the entire file goes to the City Council with- out recommendation. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 358, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANT- ING OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE PROPERTY AT 910 AND 924 SOUTH HOLLY AVENUE TO BE USED FOR PAROCHIAL SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND FOR CHURCH PLAYGROUND." The City Attorney stated that the City Council could refer this matter back to the commission. Page Seven January 26, 1960 The Planning Secretary suggested that it might work out if Mr. Erickson is successful that a revis~d map of the proposed subdivi- sion might be submitted for the commission's approval before the resolution gets up for council decision. The City Attorney stated that the commission will necessarily have somewhat of a further look at the situation, because if anything is accomplished in the proposed trade, a variance will be required on the piece being exchanged, because it is not included within the present application. Commissioner Stout stated that the City Council will not be content to spend as much time on this matter as the Planning Commission has, and that they will refer it back to the commission. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried to waive the readin~ of the ful~ body of Resolution No. 358. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Stout for the adoption of Resolution No. 358. Before the roll call vote, Commissioner Forman wished to state that earlier he had cast a negative vote for treapproval of this zone vari- ance, due to the involvement of the lsndlocked area to the southeast. Now that it appears the subdivision and street extension may be accom- plished, he was happy to cast an affirmative vote. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Norton, Stout and Wallm NOES: ,None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler No. 359 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 359, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ZONE R-3 TO ZONE C-3 OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DUARTE ROAD FROM 745 TO 917 WEST DUARTE ROAD rn SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Davison and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 359. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Davison for the adoption of Re~olutionNo. 359. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler (The City Attorney asked to be excused, and left the meeting at 10: 30 P.M.) Pa8il Eight January 26, 1960 LOT SPLITS No. 276 - Edna M. Perkinson, 1301 S. Mayflower Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Wallin. The Planning Secretary read from the engineer's report which stated that this split proposes lots 51' and 51.75' wide. This same request was denied 11/26/57 and 1/28158 because the lots were too narrow, and the conditions have not been changed. Mr. McLaughlin, 419 Ledl~ne, there are 51 total parcels of ground on that street, and 34 of those lots are under 75 feet; 25 of them are under 60 feet in width. He thinks this is a good lot split in view of these statistics. The,taxes on that lot run $187.00; the lot is a drudge because a person can't get the price .in that neighborhood, nor could he get the price for any improvement. Commissioner Stout stated these lots are substantially below the min- imum width requirements in accordance with the report. Since it has been denied in the past, and the conditions have not been changed, he would recommend it for denial. Moved .by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Wallin and carried to recommend the denial of Lot S'plit No. 276. No. 277 - Charles K. Stacey, 1312 S. Fourth Avenue. This lot is 97.62' x 205.95'. It is proposed to cut 78 feet off of the rear end. One of the conditions requires removal of all struc- tures on parcel No.2. Moved by Commissioner Wallin, seconded by Commissioner Stout and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 277, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 3. Remove all structures from parcel No.2. No. 278 - Norman Kline and Marjorie Whittaker, 1020 W. Huntington Drive This lot split was applied for in 1956 and denied for two reasons; lack of street frontage and because it would have prevented the opening of a future street; now since the construction of five apartment houses this street opening is prohibited. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Wallin and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 278, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. .Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 3. File a covenant agreeing that parcel No.2, and the east one-half' of Lot 7, Tract No. 2731 shall be used as one building site and the existing residence at 1014 W. Huntington Drive will be removed prior to any further building on the site. Page Nine January ~6, 1960 PECK ROAD property The Planning is the owner Oak Avenue. unzoned. Secretary read a report which stated the City of Arcadia of property on the west side of Peck Road, south of Live This land is within the boundary of the city and is At the present time there are certain leases on the property, includ- ing a gravel pit, lumber yard, ready mixed concrete, wood yard, etc. Some of these leases are about to expire or have expired, and are being operated on a monthly basis. The city has entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, whereby the gravel pit will eventually be used as a water spreading basin. The city has reserved approximately 2000 feet, of frontage along Peck Road with a depth of 300 feet for future industrial development. Some of this land is low and will require filling to make it available for use. There is no sewer on this portion of Peck Road, and the area is at an elevation that will require the construction of a sewage pumping station to reach an available County sewer. Water is avail- able from a private water company by constructing an extension of the main. Gas and electricity are available. The city is considering the advisability of developing this property, and making it available for long term land leases for responsible industrial concerns. The procedure for making the land available would, in general, be as follows: 1. Clear the land of tree stumps and logs. 2. Install compacted fill and grade the land to a uniform grade. 3. Dedicate or reserve for dedication for widening Peck Road. 4. Install sewer Une and sewage pumping station. 5. Arrange for availability of gas and water. 6. Construct concrete curb and gutter. Pavement to be installed at the time Peck Road is widened. 7. Secure an appraisal of the property to be used as a basis of establishing the rates of the leases. It is contemplated that the leases would be for the land only, with the lessee to erect the buildings, which would revert to the city at the expiration of the lease. The term of the lease will necessarily be long enough to allow the lessee ttme to amortize the cost of the building. Present thinking would indicate site sizes of 100 feet wide by 300 feet deep, with a reservation that the rear 50 feet be kept open to provide mutual access to the rear of the property. It is proposed that definite requirements be established on the develop- ment of the property to insure a desirable and attractive area that will not detract from any surrounding property value. These general Page Ten . January 26, 1960 requirements are out!ined as follows: 1. All buildings to be of tilt-up concrete, concrete block or equivalent ~sonry construction. 2. All buildings to have a minimum of ten feet of land- scap~d area at the front. 3. Doors and windows on the street side .of a building except doors and windows used exclusively for light and ventilation and opening directly into rooms used exclusively for business offices, shall not comprise more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the street side of the building. No rooms on the street side of any building shall be used for stor- age, display or manufacturing purposes if more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the street side of the building consists of doors or windows. No door for transporting materials or equipment into or out of the building may face Peck Road. 4. Customer or employee parking of passenger vehicles may be permitted in front of a building if such parking area is separated from the adjacent s~reet or property by a wall, fence or screen type land- scaping at least two feet in height and not exceed- ing four feet in height. All parking areas for com- mercial and industrial vehicles and equipment shall be paved, shall be located to the rear or side of buildings, and shall be separated from adjacent pro- perties or streets by a six-foot masonry wall. All materials and equipment stored outside of a building shall be stored at the side or rear of the main build- ing, shall be enclosed by a six-foot masonry wall, and no materials stored outside sha!l project above the enclosing masonry wall. 5. All driveways and parking lots to be paved. 6. Each site to be enclosed with a 6 foot high masonry wall. 7. All work areas or storage areas outside of the build- ing to be located behind the building, and to be screened from the street with a six foot high masonry wall.. This matter is submitted to you for your consideration and recom- mendation. The Director of Public Works displayed to the commission the map of the Peck Road property, explaining the different types of businesses currently in operation. He discussed the fill conditions stating that the fill is quite extensive, about 8 or 10 feet below grade elevation. The city is endeavoring to set up a master plan of this area; building types, permissible uses, etc., with the idea of devel- oping a high type industrial district. He continued stating that the city would like to process this action as soon as possible. The Chairman announced that this matter would be referred to the Zon- ing Committee for study and analysis. Page Eleven January 26, 1960 . . . .. FOOTHILL FREEWAY BUDGET COMMITTEE The Planning Secretary read a communication from the City Manager which stated the route of the Foothill Freeway has been adopted, and preliminary plans (for construction plan purposes) have been made available to the city for that portion of the fr~eway which will effect Arcaaia. While it is recognized that actual construction and use of the Free- way may be five years away, it is not too early to formulate and adopt a definite plan for the redevelopment of the area lying be- tween the freeway and Huntington Drive as well as certain portions north of. the freeway. There has been apparently some conSideration as to the effect of the freeway on the area, but, insofar as we can determine, no def- inite steps have been taken to solidify the thinking to a paper plan, from which the area could redevelop in an orderly fashion. preliminary consideration could be given by preparing a base map of the area, with overlays showing zoning, present land use, and the freeway right of way with proposed construction. How this particular area develops will certainly have a major effect on the future of Arcadia, from both aesthetic and economic standpoints. Therefore, it seems appropriate to suggest that the services of a Planning Consultant should be given consideration. The major portion of the mapping work, etc., could be accomplished by our present planning staff, who in addition could work closely with such a consultant. It appears to this office that in view of the fact that we are now in the preliminary stages of budget preparation for the fiscal year 1960-61, it would assist us to have the thinking of the Planning Commission in this regard at an early date. The Chairman stated that he thought this matter should be referred to the entire commission for survey and study and commencement of map- ping. The Planning Secretary informed the commission that a land use sur- vey could be made before hiring a consultant. The Director of Public Works stated that as long as he has been here the foothill freeway maps are exactly the same; there has been no change. The City Manager suggested to the commission that they recommend the commencement of map preparation. It was generally agreed that the commission should not tie the Plan- ning Consultant down to something before he has a chance to become acquainted with the problem. The City Manager suggested that a great deal of consideration and thought be given to the one who is selected as Planning Consultant, that the individual's past experience in redevelopment programs of this nature be a major factor in his selection. The Planning Secretary stated that it was time to prepare a budget for the coming year and requested the appointment of a Budget Com- mittee. The Chairman appointed Commissioners Stout, Michler, Forman and himself, and requested that the other commiss.toners participate. He directed the Planning Secretary to call a preliminary meeting as soon as information is available for study. Page Twelve January 26, 1960 . . .'~ MODIFICATION No. 60-3 ADJOURN The Planning Secretary presented for the commission's decision a request for modification to alter the rear yard requirement at 326 N. First Avenue, Arcadia Body Shop. The Zoning Ordinance in C-2 requires a 20 foot rear yard behind business buildings. This modi- fication is a request to eliminate that rear yard requirement, allow- ing construction of the building on the property line. There was concern expressed as to how the proposed freeway and any redevelopment of the area would effect any decision made on this modification, and due to this possibility it was decided to deny this modification. Another reason for its recommendation for denial was that granting it might set a precedent. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman to deny the request for modification, No. 60-3. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. i! Yvv . L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Thirteen January 26, 1960