Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />i <br />CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />FASHION PARK <br />i M'/:-I <br />\ /r:t'<..-' f <br /> <br />(Office <br />Buildings) <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />19:7773-A <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />JANUARY 27, 1971 <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in adjourned <br />regular session on Wednesday, January 27, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council <br />Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall. <br /> <br />Mayor Edward L. Butterworth <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Arth, Considine, Hage,' Helms, Butterworth <br />None <br /> <br />At the request of Council the City Attorney drafted a proposed ordinance <br />which would change the zone of property at the northeast corn~r of <br />Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue to C-2, Hand D to permit the develop- <br />ment of a regional shopping center, and a proposed resolution establishing <br />regulations applicable to said property upon its reclassification. The <br />proposition for rezoning will be before the electorate on April 20. <br /> <br />The City Attorney explained that office buildings were omitted from the <br />resolution as well as some other prohibitions as recommended by the Planning <br />Commission. Extensive discussion ensued as to whether or not the <br />Commission recommended denial of the buildings because the applicant desired <br />12 story buildings instead of the permitted 8 story buildings. The applicant <br />subsequently appealed the denial and this particular matter is before Council <br />at this time. Planning Commission Resolution No. 712 states that there shall <br />be no office buildings and Resolution No. 713 recommends that the request to <br />change the H Special Height regulations not be approved - that it finds the <br />existing H regulations adequate. <br /> <br />It was MOVED by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman He lms and carried <br />on roll call vote as follows that the recommendation of the Commission in <br />Resolution No. 713 be SUSTAINED AND THAT THE APPEAL THEREFROM BE AND IT IS <br />HEREBY DENIED. <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Arth, Considine, Rage, Helms, Butterworth <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Council then considered that part of the Commission's Resolution No. 712 <br />recommending, that no office buildings at any height be permitted at said <br />location. It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Arth <br />that the recommendation of the Commission in its Resolution No. 712 <br />Condition 2 be SUSTAINED. <br /> <br />Considerable discussion ensued and Councilman Arth submitted that in his <br />opinion such a building is an important key to the development of the <br />downtown area; that if such buildings were approved for Santa Anita it <br />would have an adverse affect on the endeavors being put forth at this time <br />to bring such a structure to that area as it might influence prospective <br />tenants. He referred to a remark made by Mr. Edguardo Contini, Gruen and <br />Associates, that he did not consider office buildings necessary to the <br />success of the proposed shopping center. Mr. Arth felt it would be a <br />mistake to include office buildings in Fashion Park. <br /> <br />Councilman Considine stated in part that based on opinions of experts hired <br /> <br />1-27-71 <br /> <br />- 1 - <br />