The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJANUARY 27,1971 " i CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL FASHION PARK i M'/:-I \ /r:t'<..-' f (Office Buildings) I 19:7773-A MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 1971 The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in adjourned regular session on Wednesday, January 27, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall. Mayor Edward L. Butterworth PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Considine, Hage,' Helms, Butterworth None At the request of Council the City Attorney drafted a proposed ordinance which would change the zone of property at the northeast corn~r of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue to C-2, Hand D to permit the develop- ment of a regional shopping center, and a proposed resolution establishing regulations applicable to said property upon its reclassification. The proposition for rezoning will be before the electorate on April 20. The City Attorney explained that office buildings were omitted from the resolution as well as some other prohibitions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Extensive discussion ensued as to whether or not the Commission recommended denial of the buildings because the applicant desired 12 story buildings instead of the permitted 8 story buildings. The applicant subsequently appealed the denial and this particular matter is before Council at this time. Planning Commission Resolution No. 712 states that there shall be no office buildings and Resolution No. 713 recommends that the request to change the H Special Height regulations not be approved - that it finds the existing H regulations adequate. It was MOVED by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman He lms and carried on roll call vote as follows that the recommendation of the Commission in Resolution No. 713 be SUSTAINED AND THAT THE APPEAL THEREFROM BE AND IT IS HEREBY DENIED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Considine, Rage, Helms, Butterworth None None Council then considered that part of the Commission's Resolution No. 712 recommending, that no office buildings at any height be permitted at said location. It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Arth that the recommendation of the Commission in its Resolution No. 712 Condition 2 be SUSTAINED. Considerable discussion ensued and Councilman Arth submitted that in his opinion such a building is an important key to the development of the downtown area; that if such buildings were approved for Santa Anita it would have an adverse affect on the endeavors being put forth at this time to bring such a structure to that area as it might influence prospective tenants. He referred to a remark made by Mr. Edguardo Contini, Gruen and Associates, that he did not consider office buildings necessary to the success of the proposed shopping center. Mr. Arth felt it would be a mistake to include office buildings in Fashion Park. Councilman Considine stated in part that based on opinions of experts hired 1-27-71 - 1 - MOTION RESOLUTION EXPLORED CONDINON 1 CONDITION 2 'I , 19:7773-B by the City he felt office buildings would tend to stimulate the growth and bring other corp orates into the city through the name and reputation of Fashion Park - that he would not object to a further study by the Commission if they were so inclined - but felt by prohibiting the buildings in the center an opportunity would be missed to stimulate commercial development in the downtown area, efforts for which have thus far been futile. Councilman Hage agreed that there have been sincere endeavors to bring, office buildings in the downtown area and questioned the reason for that inability. He felt that permitting them in Santa Anita would not preclude such development downtown and cited examples in Pasadena where high rise buildings have been constructed within close proximity of each other. He I said he was fully aware that Mr. Contini said it was not an absolute necessity for the success of the center and that Fashion Park could proba- bly stand on its own, but that in his opinion two office buildings would not add to the school problem, the overall policing and the like. He favored the office buildings as he would like to see everything possible done to assure the true success of the center. Councilman Helms stated in part that the downtown area is indeed a problem; that for many years it has been hoped it could be developed into a com- mercial trading center. He referred to the General Plan Consultantls observation that it should be developed into a service type area with office facilities. He felt that if office buildings were approved for Fashion Park it would be the end for any future development of downtown because who could compete with the type of structures proposed for the center. He continued that in his opinion problem areas should be developed first ... that of Course circumstances could change which would indicate the downtown area just could not develop that way, but at this point and time he could not support office buildings in the center. Mayor Butte~wo~th obse~ved that he interpreted the Planning Commission rejection to mean that it had not had time to reach rational conclusions;' He felt however that it is a matter of conjecture and speculation as to whether or not the office buildings are a viable part of the center and was inclined to support the Commission. With the COnsent of his second Councilman Helms amended hi; MOTION thusly: That Council SUSTAIN the recommendation of the Planning Commission in its Resolution No. 712 Condition 2 and refer the matter back to that body for any further study it desired to pursue. Motion seconded by Councilman Arth and carried on roll cali vot~ as follows: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Considine, Helms, Butterworth ~ Councilman. Rage" None Conditions in the proposed resolution were then taken step'by step. Second line - the words "at least three" deleted and "together with" added I in the third line after the word "stores" and ending with "to be approved by the City Council". Concerning the design overlay site plan. Councilman Helms made an extensive presentation in favor of reorienting the plan which would in his opinion preserve traffic flow, the amenities of racing and would protect the City against future expansion of the subject property. He felt if the center were maintained along Huntington Drive it would be removed that much farther from the Village and Rancho areas.. that it would provide a viable business which would produce all the revenue desired with very few of the side effects 1-27-71 - 2 - IMmW' (DID NOT CARRY) CONDITION 3 CONDITION 4 CONDITION 5 ADJOURNMENT I J9: 7773-C which have been complained about. He noted his CDncern and that Df residents with whom he had spoken abDut the possibility at SDme future date Df the entire 400 acres being fully develDped cDmmercially and called attentiDn tD the recDmmendatiDn Df the City General Plan CDnsultant that the remaining prDperty shDuld be maintained R-l and R-3 with limited density. The architect fDr FashiDn Park exhibited illustrative site plans Df the existing and the new, and visually indicated hDw much land wDuld be taken fDr the retail trade prDperty - that tWD critical analyses were made because Dne Df the Dbjectives was tD make the prDject feasible withDut disturbing the efficient DperatiDu Df the track - that they explored every pDssible angle. They were cDncerned abDut traffic cDnflict and explained reaSDns fDr arriving at the prDpDsed plan - that it seems tD create the least cDnflict and the mDst pDsitive DppDrtunities. CDuncilman Helms referred again tD his prDpDsal and MOVED tD request Santa Anita tD prDvide an amended plDt plan Dn an east/west axis and that such preliminary plan be submitted tD CDuncil at its next regular meeting. CDuncilman Arth secDnded the motiDn which did nDt carry Dn the fDllDwing roll call VDte: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CDuncilmen Arth, Helms Councilman Considine, Hage, Butterworth NDne CDnditiDn 2 then accepted as drafted. TD include "and shall be subject tD apprDval by the City CDuncil". The attDrney fDr the applicant entered this discussion. Accepted as drafted. Provision to be made for commencement of construction within 30 months and fDr the prDperty tD be rezDned tD the ZDne which prevailed Dn January 1, 1971 if this cDnditiDn is nDt fulfilled. PriDr tD adjDurnment CDuncilman Helms registered an Dbjection tD changes which were made in the subject resDlution at the behest Df the attDrney for the applicant. The City AttDrney explained reaSDns therefor. MaYDr ButterwDrth ADJOURNED the meeting until MDnday February 1, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. !lJL(~~ MaYDr ATTEST: r::2;;U'~)j" Zr~ Christine Van Maanen City Clerk ./ 1-27-71 - 3 -