Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />INVOCAtION <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />HEARING <br />GENERAL PLAN <br />LAND USE <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />25 :0225 <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br />a nd the <br />ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY <br /> <br />REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />FEBRUARY 17, 1981 <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia and the Arcadia Redevelopment <br />Agency met in a regular session at 7:30 p.m. February 17, 1981 in the <br />Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. <br /> <br />Rev. J. William Daum, Episcopal Church of Transfiguration <br /> <br />Acting City Manager George J. Watts <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT : <br /> <br />Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino <br />None <br /> <br />Planning Commission Res. No. 1154 recommending that the General Plan <br />be changed to commercial for property bounded on the north by Portola <br />Drive, on the east by Cortez Drive, on the south by Huntington Drive <br />and on the west by Sunset Boulevard -- more specifically designated <br />as 1035-45 W. Huntington Drive, 760 Sunset Boulevard and 1030-36 Por- <br />tola Drive. The Commission indicated it was it's intent and recommen- <br />dation that the subsequent zone change be to a C-O (Professional Office) <br />zone ... this being the least intensive commercial zone. <br /> <br />The Commission noted that the apartments fronting on Portola were older <br />and did not conform to today's codes and~ouid probably be ~emoved in <br />the future.. and that a change to commercial would have a minimal im- <br />pact on the area. The Commission had voted 5_to 0 with two members <br />absent to-change the entire site to commercial in the General Plan. <br />The Commission did express the feeling that a zone change on the entire <br />property to commercial would not be appropriate at this time and that <br />the apartments located adjacent to Portola should remain R-3. <br /> <br />The Planning Department felt that the retention of the multiple-family <br />designation on the property fronting on Portola Drive would better serve <br />as a transition between the commercial property to the south and the <br />residential property to the north. <br /> <br />Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Richard Green, 319 S. <br />Altura Road, President of the Santa Anita Village Homeowners' Associa- <br />tion, said on behalf of the Board that it strongly supports the General <br />Plan designation which would allow the future development of multiple- <br />family residential and prohibit commercial development for property fac- <br />ing Portola Drive. He said further in part that the entire Architectural <br />Review Board was present at the meeting and there were no objections. <br /> <br />Charles Anderson, 727 Cortez (northwest corner of Portola and Cortez) <br />said in part that at the time the area was originally developed they <br />were assured there would be no apartments with more than two stories <br />which would act as a buffer between the residential and commercial... <br />that their protection was the R-3 zoning. He realized that it would be <br />attractive to a developer for commercial but the property owners who had <br />lived in the area since its inception should be considered and that the <br />concern of the City Council should be for them. He also felt commercial <br />would increase the traffic flow and referred to traffic problems now at <br />Portola and Sunset. He asked Council not to change the designation on <br />Portola. <br /> <br />-1- <br /> <br />2-17-81 <br />