HomeMy WebLinkAbout0495
r. .
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 495
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING
COVwiISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, RECO!lIT'<IENDING THE AMENDMENT
OF CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE
ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ~IENDING
SECTIONS 9233 J~D 9241 THEREOF, AND BY
ADDING TO DIVISION 1 OF PART 3 THEREOF
A NEll SECTION 9231.17 AND BY ADDING TO
PART 7 THEREOF A NEl~ DI-vrSION 6 ENTITLED
"H SPECIAL HEIGHT ZONE" CONTAINING TITLES
1 AND 2 AND SECTIONS 9276.1 THROUGH 9276.2.8.
r~IEREAS, pursuant to Division 3 of Part 9 of Chapter 2 of
Article IX of the Arcadia lliunicipal Code, the City Plannine; Conunission
of the City of Arcadia did, on July 23, 1963, pass. approve and adopt
its certain Resolution No. 489 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
PLANNING CO~]MISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA. CALIFORNIA. INSTITUTING
. PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MaKING RECO~ll{END~TIONS
CONCERNING THE ESTaBLISH}1ENT OF SPECIAL HEIGHT DISTRICT ZONES AND
REGULATIONS APPLIC~8LE THERETO." pursuant te which after notice was
duly published and given a public hearing duly held on the 13th, 22nd,
and 27th days ef August. 1963, at which times all interested persons
were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
relative to such proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, said Planning Conunission has fully reviewed and
considered the subject generally;
NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AND
RECOI<1MEND AS FOLLOWS:
.
SECTION 1. That the publiC necessity. convenience and
General welfare require, and this Conunission hereby reconunends to
the City Council of the City of Arcadia, that Chapter 2 of Article IX
of the Arcadia Municipal Code be amended as hereafter provided.
-1-
495
,
. .
,
.
.
,.
SECTION 2. That Sections 9233 and 9241 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code should be amended to read respectively as follows:
9233 is hereby amended by adding to the Table of Zone
Classification symbols the fellowing: "I{ SPECIAL HEIGHT ZONE."
9241. ZONE HEIGHT COMPLIANCE. No building shall be erected,
nor shall any existing building be moved, reconstructed, added to,
enlarged or structurally altered to exceed in height the applicable
height limit established by this Chapter for the zone in which such
building is located.
SECTION 3. That a new Section 9231.17 should be added to
Division 1 of Part 3 thereof, the same to read as follows:
9231.17. H SPECIAL HEIGHT ZONE.
SECTION 4. That there should be added to Part 7 thereof a
. new Division 6 entitled "n SPECIAL HEIGHT ZONE" containing Titles 1
and 2 and Sections 9276.1 through 9276.2.9, the same to read as follows:
ARTICLE IX.
CI'IAPTE.'l 2.
PART 7.
DIVISION 6.
TITLE 1.
DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
ZONING REGULATIONS
OVERLAY AND SPECIAL USE ZONE
H SPECIAL HEIGHT ZONE
USES PERMITTED.
9276.1. OVERLAY ZONE. Land classified in an H Zone shall
also be classified in another zone as to use, which other zone is herein-
after in this Division referred to as the basic zone.
9276.1.2. USES P~IITTED. No structure, building or land shall
be used and no building or structure shall hereafter be erected, con-
structed, established or altered except for the uses specified in the
basic zone in which the property is also classified.
.
TITLE 2. REGULATIONS.
9276.2. GENERAL. The regulations set forth in this Title
shall apply to all property in the H Zone, in addition to all other regu-
lations applicable to the basic zone in which the property is classified
not in conf'lict herewith.
9276.1. HEIGHT LIMIT.
-2-
495
.~
.
. .
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
Notwithstanding any regulation to the contrary in the basic
zone, the only height limitation shall be that resulting from com-
pliance with the provisions of this Title.
9276.2.2. FRONT YARD. There shall be a front yard of not
less than 25 feet.
9276.2.3. SIDE YARD. There shall be a side yard on each
side of a building or structure of at least 20 feet plus 2 feet for
each story in excess of two stories.
9276.2.4. REAR YARD. There shall be a rear yard behind each
building or structure of at least 20 feet plus 2 feet for each story in
excess of two stories.
9276.2.5. YARD ENCROACHMENT. Balconies may encroach into not
more than 205& of any required front, side or rear yard.
9276.2.6. LOT DEFINED. For the purpose of this Division, a
lot shall, in addition to a lot as defined in Part 2 of this Chapter
mean two or more lots as thus defined and used as a single building site,
if with respect to all of such lots the owner thereof has recorded a
covenant that all of said lots will be held under common ownership and
collectively will be used as only one building site.
9276.2.7. LOT AREA. No lot shall be less than 150 feet in
width and 160 feet in length.
9276.2.8. LOT COVERAGE. No building or structure shall
occupy more than 25~ of the total area of the lot upon which it is
situated.
9276.2.9. HABITABLE AREA. The habitable area of all buildings
and structures on a lot shall not exceed three times the gross area of
such lots.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution.
-3-
495
.'
"
.
.
.
.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Planning Commission held on the
lOth
day of
September
, 1963, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Forman, Golisch, Hanson, Kuyper,
Norton, Parker and Ferguson
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
L ,(-,--, "C-(;~i!r:"8n-:k'YL -~, ,..".-
L
. ATTEST:
Secretary
.
-4-
Lf95
.
.
.
.. .
June 21 i963
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: HEIGHT DISTRICT STUDY
Earl ier this year it was reported to the Planning Commission thut the sectians of the
present Zoning Ordinance regulating building heights are not sufficiently refined to provide the degree
of compatibil ity required by the existing development pattern throughout the City of Arcodia.
The present regulotions permit four story buildings in many areas of the city that are
predaminately developed with one and two story buildings. If a four story structure were canstructed
in some of these areos the churocter of the area could be materially changed. In some instances such
changes are not wanted nor desiredl... (See map showing locations where faur story buildings are per-
m itted).
'The Planning Commission cancurring with the report instructed the staff to prepare a
height district map. On this map the City should be divided into height districts. In the future building
height wauld be restricted by the height regulations applicable ta the district where it was located.
While the height districting study was under way two variance applications requesting
two eight-story apartment buildings an the south side of Huntington Drive, east af Baldwin Avenue,
were filed with the Commission. Bot~ of these applications were referred to the Zoning Committee
for study and repart.
The Zoning Cammittee decided that to properly advise the Planning Commission about
these two applications that the height district study must be completed. The Committee aiso decided
thnt should the Commission desire to apprave a height district map that appropriate regulotians should
be prepared to regulate buildings over two stories.
,"
,"
:.
, il
1
,
:1
1
I
.. ~ . .
.'
1\ <"I,:~' rr1 : ~':\\0; . d
f\\ ?> Vy ~
i "~~ -/
j
'.!
,
j;----"--
t - .,
I "-,~ n>}:
I,-=.' ~ \
- -- ".
.
.
\
',~
, .
I,
.
)
.'
. t ...........--!.-....--::,..--:;----- --:;-
\ "
'l~ ~ t: "I
\ ;,,' ,
.... "/.( \. --.
...
1\"
'"". . ~- ,,,/ ".~-"> ~ ,
L , .. jj .., ~ ,
.------~
, 'f' , ._~.~.. ~'~~~;~ ;.~~', __:..o. \, .
-u~'i~'; f"~'I: ;,:" ;l,:",q~:""'~::'i(:~~~,~ ~
1 ..:. ! ,~-'-f' ; " 11 . _..c"'P'O_~ +1 ....-..\
~J.\_ - .,''':. t~ t >~-::;.
...~ 3'1'";j I
."'~-=--\ ~.~ ... "'
-=- - ,~
., )
~'''l, ....
\,
'I
,I
I:'
"
...,,,, ,.
'\." ;'1'
,
~,,~j,\
..j ,
G . !::1 \- . - r~~'
: !.. \ ~................ ~ ~
I.' ~ '~ :z, .',
. "1 1~ '-~}; "
" ~b.'J.'~~" ",:' ":" ..''\=
1'..iJ -." 4,' E -
I.
,-
"
~ -:' t
.'
l
\
,-
- ~,
I '
! ~"\"
,-
, .
I,
,
-, ,
_' .,. I
,
','
. ' .
.
-\ '~:
.,~ :,r--
. 1
~ I j
(
~.
." ;'1
, -, 'T~
, \.---'-----J
.
r''''!-
,
\~., ~~S'L-:J
'" " I
PLANNIi\G
DEPA;:1.','MEi\JT
'.
,\
I
I
,
'1
" '1
J ~'.
'"? ~J
.~
.. i
, \I':'"
~- ~..., I
<~~
t,,~
I
1
~
, ,
. 1963.
o
:::XISTIN(. ~jEIGHI
PATTER,~ MAP
----- - ~-.
-'\
.
,
>
!
.
I:'
\
\'
,
I II"
/'~
, .
,. .
~.
.~
.'
"
-,
/
i
\;
,j
.'t"'_
~. \
L ........". ~ ,,~
~ .~
~
-t
~ , r
1 r
, ,--
M I
, ..
) ,
a
~~ '. '" .-
"'.- ...i
,1'-"_-'
j ~'
.
.
t
'-'
,\
,
~.
)'
h.... .
F ~.~.
-~..
,
"',}
"
-Or'"
'-'....,
,.
.f
'4.'.
,
~t I-t _:-..u...
--t _wu.
,
~
/
.......--,
~, ..
L,-~.'
~
"
,
"
'..
".,'
"-
~,'
, ,-'...~'--'~\._-~ '\
"J= r\ ~-v-~--:' ~
'~c.r~L..--C ':' \ \
r, I;
b
.
.
.
..
.
Height District Study
Page Two
The height district map and the standords for tali buildings wauld be the basis for
recammending ta the Commissian the proper action on the two vari,ance applicatians.
Therefore, within this framework the Committee proceeded to work with the staff ta
develop a series of study maps dividing the City inta height districts. Each study map was evaluated
against other study maps and agoinst the basic planning philasophy of the City of Arcadia.
In a sense the Committee discussed the bosic lond use pion far the future City of Arcadio.
The character of the existing develapment was reviewed in terms of quantity, qual ity
ond lacation. The future development of the City was reviewed in terms af recent development trends,
recent development decisians af the Planning Commission and the City Council, and a review of the
Central Area Study.
This report does not go into the detail studied by the Committee but ra)"her some af the
more significont highlights.
QUANTITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
About 51% of the developed land in Arcadia is devoted to single family use. Multiple
family use af land accaunts for anly 3.9% of the develaped land. Commercial and industrial uses only
occupy 4.3% and 1.9"k of the develaped land respectively. The balance of the City is used for streets,
parks, schaols, etc. Arcadia is quantitively a residential community.
QUALITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Generally the oge of structures in Arcadia as reparted by the Los Angeles Bureau of
Municipal Research is 13.4 years. The age of the structures in Arcadia are young when campa red with
the average life of a home (45 years) and young when compared ta other cities, e.g., Beverly Hills
26.4 years; San Marino 24.4 years; Pasadena 31.9 years. Age by itself is not necessarily an indicatar
of quality but when coupled with values it becomes a better indicator, e.g., the 1960 Census listed
"
.
.
.
Height District Study
Page Th ree
Arcadia's medium family incame at $9,526.00 second to Beverly Hills with $11,977.00 and third to
San Marina with $16,728.00. These two indices rate Arcadia's quality from good to excellent. However,
there are some parts of Arcadia where the standard of development is lower than the balance of the city.
One such area is the aid downtawn section af town. Evidence of the decline in that area is visible to
all. StrlJctures are old, stores are vacant, etc. To a lesser extent some of this same decline especially
in housing is present in the Hub Area. If Arcadia has a "soft" spot in terms af quality development it
is the downtown section.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Since 1957 to the present there has been 0 total of seventy subdivisions which created
about 1,030 lots. Mast of these lots are built an with single fomily homes. There has also been a surge
. of apartment development in Arcadia. Since 1945 about 3,890 units have been constructed. The
Commission is familiar with the quality of the buildings in which these units are located. In fact, it
was a distinct lack of quality in many instances of apartment buildings that led to the more restrictive
regulations recently adopted by :the Coun"cil .
RECENT DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS
Several significant develapment decisions of community wide impartance of recent times
are:
I. The location of the Faothill Freeway
2. The central area planning study.'
3. The sale of the I ibrC!ry property.
4. The moratorium on the Dawntown Area.
.
5. The authorization of a medium strip an Huntington Drive between Santa Anita
and Fifth Avenue.
6. The proposed construction of the extension of Santa Clara Avenue to Huntingtan Drive.
7. The recent Council decision on the apartment regulations.
.
.
.
.
.
Height District Study
Page Four
Each of these decisions have a common theme, e.g., the safeguarding of the existing
development af the City as well as to insure that future development will be of the same or higher quality
than the present.
REVIEW OF THE CENTRAL AREA STUDY
This study classified retail areas in Arcadia into twa of three possible categories. The
Central Area and the Hub Area were classified as Community Shopping areas. South Arcadia, North
Arcadia, and the EI Rancho Shopping Areos were classified as having nelgbborhDod.cl1arOl::teristics.
The classificatian of these areas establishes the areas of dominance in the community and,
therefore, becomes a basis far use as an indicator in defining the height districts in the City.
HEIGHT DISTRICTS
The attached map shaws the City af Arcadia divided into two height districts. District Na,'
encompasses about 9& percent of the City. In this district anly buildings of not in excess af two staries
should be permitted for the foreseeable future. This height restriction should apply to all types of buildingi
The twa staries ar 35 feet could only be exceeded when such accessory items as steeples, air condition
housi ng, antennae, etc. are required.
District No.2, encompasses only about 2 percent af the City. Buildings in this district
could be constructed., to height over twa staries regulated by the following standards:
""" I. Min imum lat area - 150 x 160 square feet.
'" 2. Front Yard Setback - 25 feet.
,"" 3. Side Yard Setback 20 feet, plus 2 ft. far each story over two stories
"'" 4. Rear Yard - Equivalent to the side yard requirement.
,.-- - ---,-~
---==- '
"--. 5. Lot Coverage - 25 percent
6. Gross Habitable Area - Three times the gross lot area.
7. Balconies may intrude in yard areas by 20 percent.
The other zoning regulations governing the use of land where appl icable would apply.
::~~~~_ ~n' ~~~.
, ,;r'
I ~"
. I
,.
, -...- I
-~
. ~ ..
~-l- ..f-i.
~'-,' '-.~)
, " ... "y..,
, f'~~}f1 ;/
I ", ':r/ .;:::..H 0
~r--"'t.-- 1'_"1:", ~.
" ....=' -; . i r
~ ~Ph..J ~_, ~~ ,)
,
, _ ~-,. -'-'"
"
"
,
,
,
III
, ~,
-,',
i
I
.
I
I'
I I
I,
, '
I
I
I
I
j
, r-<= ~
./~l>-1... ~I
/"
~~... -;"
,
I
"
I
I'
I
'I
"
I
.,
.:..;rJ
is
"
1
,
-1 r _,:.J:..o--- i
L ...-'-
--1' -'
'I
9
:\
I
I :0
.
,
'., '. !~.,.
[1>" r ....~ I' ':.--'Q
r i ,,"-f . ~ I
. -C- _. ~' . ; ~,
'~""~';~:C_?::~\,k...~ .i-:'- ,', ~ ~ '- .'
1 .'~ ''"*= ," I
. ___~ " .' ~.' -=..o-'~ .,..'
'"~ ' .,. ....'"., f ,~":'" "-.,-.,,'. '" I
, ~ d' '." '
..._,' ' 'r~ ,..; .,\~....'~t-- ::. I'
" " "..-.' .
\\ -4 t...... ( ..........
, l11 J "y 'h' " I
~, t \ J ~ ",
.rr\,I" , 1- . i ~'I
; .~'#. {- - I '"
."
L u&,.J-'Wo,-,-
. ~F.
:- 4,t I' ~,":.:..
- - ..-
. _~.t
.
........:,1'
~' r.,~: ~~.
" ,.....'
r;
J. .....~
'.
....
;
='"
"
--.z:.J-,I.~\'
_J:>M-1
~ .J:
~ "fM'
1; , .' ~ ~
1 " \ r! \ ~
. '.I' If
\ . \
,.'~. I
--- ":-~.._...!,
f r- ,./'
,'....' jI .
i ~. -Ii .'
10. 1
,
"
", '
.~ f'
\. .;:.
\,/7
-1<{
'~. ,
\.. .~:..\
~ ~l
1;'
-"--
t
j
I -
I
'$ ~.
~
,'.',Jlh' f
~r.;;\- .JII~:~~ -~ I .'.
~~~\'~ i'" ". .~-
. , - ..::-..
, ' ,~
" , 'to
"
:'~
",J,."-=-< !' i
" ~,L.~" . '"'1~
......." J' "
'0\ ..} + _1. t.
l-tjt" -,.----
l_. \.. -'-'~~. -~..
,.
.. ,~.
-~
..1.1.&\1-,
-'
.
.~-.
.~
...~ '. ~ '1...P"~
~
)r{""
p....
\ . ."'- ~
f'-+ - ,.... . .,
.. ~ .,' ,. .,
. \ .,~_~--u-
"
. . .' ~
:J~ ~..rLf"i--..:-"':c..-..,r;l
,. ." ,., . i ; \' \\
.
"'lit
I)
....--.-'...., -
"'\ . t .~
'\ .h t~
?
,'.
f-..-......
~)
l
, ;
t
,
"
\
.
J
1 j
oJ' ,
" .
,;
.-
, '
,
.;.
.--
I"~~
"
1-"
,
.....::00.....,
,
I'
\
\"'
"
......~
\
."
"
,~
"
_. ~l
'.
.-".
....,.
,
"11;--'
,
:. =
~,
~ ..
"
...-;;""...;.~
;.,}1n>"
:,.,..-.
,
"
~
.
.'/y.>-'
b
'""
~
,
, .
-=- IJ..t.\ .4.
l. .
~.
.-
. ~
, '
.......1.. .
'-"4.' ,
,"-"
."t' ',.
....... I
.,....
~ .........---
-~
...=-. ...
-r-":'
. -'-
. r;
,
=
,'" r..."....:.
t';l. . ~ .1
~ .,
.1 k ,"
;-...J.-..'
...'1
f
~.
.;,.)
"'" "'" 1
. --, 't...
~
...
"
I
."
.,
\, J
'.
..,_ 1
~ " . ~
I ..
\. ~ :
~.
.4 J~
. .
~
_-:....L-.
I ... .... ~ :
_":l. r .
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
o
,
''<,
HEIGHT
CONCE~TISTRICT
, MAP
DISTRICT ]I
,1963,
~"",' 1
-?';l,'
.0-)..' -"
. ;
.-.
,
.'.. ,:'~1-
~
! '
,
-;,.'1.
I t-.
:.....;-..,.
,
.,
, 1
,.,'"1....
'l""
; '1-
I~
Ii'.
,
.
.
.
Height District Study
Page Five
.
.
The Zaning Committee recommends that the Planning Commission consider setting
a public hearing on this matter to determine if the caurse af action suggested by the Committee is
appropriate for Arcadia.
Respectfully submitted,
KERMIT FERGUSON, Chairman
ZONING COMMITTEE
.
.
.
.
.:7. /. '//
"" /t-I - ~U <: ,,,-,( ?,?
~
May 13, 1963
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: MEDIUM HEIGHT BUILDINGS - REPORT NO.2
\
A previaus report suggested the locational criteria and regulatory techniques for medium height
buildings in Arcadia. This report relates these two factars to the variance applications being
considered. '
The report olso contains excerpts fram reparts of other cIty departments as we!! as statements fram
planning ptriadicals.
Both variance applications propose eight-stary apartment buildings in the same general location.
It is suggested that if these criteria are val itl for one of the proposals they are also val id to the other
and to the same general area.
APPLlCATlON-QF LOCATlONAL CRITERIA
1. Land Uses - When the price of land reoches a high value it generally becomes economically
feasible (and in some cases desirable) ta use it more intensely or by
encouroging quality develapment.
In Arcadia several areas ore located where land values are high and are
likely ta be higher than other properties because of its strategic location.
One af these areas is between Baldwin and La Cadena Avenues on the south
side of- lrluntington Drive. It has not only high value lond bllt equally
important, it is in a tronsitory stage, i.e., it is awaiting its ~ext develop-
ment apportunity. The next development opportunity should be taken only
after strang considerotion has been given ta present and future land values.
In the same block there are some commercial developments as well as some older
residences. Neither are representative of the future aspirations of the City
of Arcadia. There ore also three substantially impraved properties. One
porcel hos a modern medical office building. Twa parcels are develaped
with apartment houses of the type permitted by the old Zone R-3 regulafions.
These two apartment develapments da not appear consistent with the devel-
opment theme af Arcadia. It is doubtful that they would have been con-
structed if the regulations had permitted a mare advantageaus use of the
land.
.
.
.
Height Bldgs. Report No.2
May 13, 1963
Page Two.
There are approximately seventeen parcels in this general area with only
three with any substantial improvements (excluding the commercial buildings
at the southeast corner af Huntington and Baldwin Avenues). Of the three
developed parcels only one reflects a qual ity theme. By encauraging the
proper develapment of the remaining parcels it is within the realm of
passibilities that a reuse to a better quality of these properties, including
the commercial development could take place within a reasanable length
of time.
The land price factar when related ta the desired type of future development
indicotes that the propasals being considered if properly regulated not only
wauld produce quality develapment in this area immediately, but also would
encaurage the other praperties to be similarly develaped. Fram this view
paint the applicotions should be approved.
.
2. Site Accessibility - The,slructures are proposed on Huntington Drive near Baldwin Avenue. Both
streets are a part of .the arterial street system and are capable of servicing
these buildings. Public transportatian is available on Huntington Drive and
on Baldwin Avenue. Baldwin Avenue is proposed to be extended to Foathill
Baulevard und also interchange with the Foothill Freeway. These factors point
to the excellent accessibility this site has at present and to the improved
accessibility in the future. From this viewpoint the site is appropriate for
the proposed buildings.
3. Street Systems - Both praposals indicate on their pions adequate terminal facil ities to accommadate
the vehicles of tenants, g!uests and service people. These buildings will not
be using the arterial streets as parking lots. In fact, if these structures ore
approved the elimination of on-street parking should be strongly considered.
These facts indicate that these buildings will not adversely affect the function
of the arterial street system.
4. Municipal Facilities and Services - The reports fram the city departments responsible for water,
sewerage, drainage, building inspections, fire protectian, and civil defense,
in summary indicate that there is no autstanding unsolvable problems connected
with the proposed develapments. The existing community facilities appear
adequate ta service these structures. Exerpts from these reports are:
.
.
.
.
Height Bldgs. Report No.2
May 13, 1963
Page Three
Water Departmen t - The Unifarm Plumbing Code states, "Whenever the
water pressure in the moin or other source of supply will nat provide
a water pressure af at least 15 psi ofter allowing far friction or
other pressure losses a tank ond pump or other means which will
provide 15 psi shol.l be installed.
At present a 12" cast iron main is located on the sauth side of
Huntington Drive fram Baldwin Avenue to Holly Avenue. The static
pressure in this main vories fram 56 psi on the southeast corner of
Baldwin' Avenue and Huntington Drive ta 70 psi at the southwest
corner of La Cadena ond Huntington Drive. The static pressure will
drop to 35 psi at the top of the service far a building 80 feet in height,
Water facilities are agequate for these buildings.
.
Department of Publ ic Warks - The sewetage system is adequate to hondle
the proposed developments. As to drainage it may be necessary to
connect storm drainage disposal systems with the existing storm drain
on the north side of the median strip on Huntington Drive. In any event
drainage from the sites will have to meet the stondards of the Depart-
ment of Public Works.
The movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic from this site of
papulation cancentration could be occomplished by c~tting through
La Cadena and signal izing the intersection. Additional secondary
access to th is area should be considered olong the rear portions of
this property and the others along Huntington Drive.
Na problems shauld be created by the adoption or approval of medium
rise structures, but mare emphasis should be placed on certain operation'
al pracedures which would call for minar odjustments in policy ond
operatianal procedure. Some items to be considered are:
.
I. Engineered roaf drainage and plumbing systems should
be praperly designed.
2. Additional time would be spent by the Building Division
in checking safety items with the State Division
of Safety to eleminate hazards. caused by
improper erection and maintenonce of temporary
scaffalding, hoists, elevators, water and electric
lines.
3. The contractar wauld also have to hire additional resident
inspectors approved by the Building Officiol ta
inspect the plocing of structurol concrete and
the erection af steel frames,
The Building Division ot present is ready and able to handle
the inspection of medium rise construction.
.
.
Height Bldgs. Repart No.2
May 13, 1963
Page Faur
.
Fire Pratectian - The Fire Chief has checked with another city (Beverly Hills)
as to prablems involved with these types of structures. The
Fire Chief of Beverly Hills replied was "Nane, with Type I
construction" .
Civil Defense Office - These buildings could qualify if the types of materials
or the th ickness of walls and supporting structures were known
ta calculate a "Pratectar Factar". As a general rule, a one-
foot cancrete first floor and a 1-1/2 ta 2 foot concrete wall
thickness in the subterranean structure would result in a qualify-
ing rating,
The proposed 150,.000 sq. ft, of below graund parking could be
converted into 0 shelter resulting in 12,000 shelter spaces for
the surrounding populatian. To date the total city capacity is
11,011 shelter spaces.
.
In the event the Army Corps of Engineers quol ified this structure
and the owner agreed to stock and mark it, the City would
receive federal provisions far the buildings (E.G. food, water,
sanitatian kits, medical kits and radiological kits).
Proper planning af the subterranean goroges cauld include space
to store these provisians. Generally 1.5 cubuc feet is required
per shelter space or 18,000 cubic feet for these facilities.
(180 ft. long x 10 ft. high x 10 ft. wide).
No conclusive approisal can be mode regarding the qualifications
as a shelter until the detariled plans are reviewed.
5. Compatibility of Land Use and Building Heights - Most af the use of land except far the commercial
activities on the carner of Baldwin and Huntingtan Drive, the race track, and
ore_somewhat akin to office use that little if any incompatibility of 'use 0.i11
exist. There will be some incampatibility of heights between the propased
buildings. However, it is anticipated that these incompatibilities will nat be
for a long duration of time and will only affect property which should be
rebuilt to equally high stondards. From this viewpoint the proposed buildings
are appropriately lacated.
.
6. Community Objectives - If it .is correctly assumed thut one, Arcadia is a City of Pridej twa, a City
(;(disiindive.honiesj and three, ci CifY-concerned with its future status, then
these buildings are appropriate for the commun ity. This statement is not
intended to imply that these same abjectives cannot be mointained by other
methods but rather that qual ity develapment in apartment house construction
is more I ikely to occur if buildings I ike these properly located, and properly
regulated are encauraged than is the case with twa-story construction. Evidence
af this factar is prevalent in very recent apartment construction of twa-stories.
.
Height Bldgs Report No.2
May 13, 1963
Page Five
..
.
Statement from Planning Periodicals - An apartment project scheduled for a suburban locatian usually starts
local controversy. Valid planning and zoning issues often get I,ost in the
confusion of arguments. In such community conflicts emotion rather than
facts govern both argument and decision. But very few studies are available
to offer facts about density, occupancy or .effect upon a tax rate. Mr. Anshel
Melanecl, in an article prepared for the Urban Land Institute's publ icatian
"Urban Land News and Trends in City Development" Volume 20, Number 9,
October 1961 states as follaws:
.
.
"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIENCE:
With the increasing longevity and affluence of the population there has been
an increasing market far high-rise, high rental apartments both in the ci ty and
in the suburbs. While oportments have been identified with the urban scene,
its appearance in the suburbs is a relatively new pheno:menum, assaciated with
the increasing mobility of the urban population since the First World War.
The market for suburban high-rental units can be expected to increase as the
suburban population gets older. Many suburbonites will choose 0 prestige
apartment instead of a large house once their children have grown up. Young
adults will tend to choose garden opartments rather than multi-story units
because the rents are lower and because supervision of children is made easier.
High rise, high-rental apartments provide more than twice as much tax revenue
per acre as any other suburban use surveyed. Services con be pravided more
efficiently and economically than for single-family homes. Public schaol
needs are very small for high rise apartments.
On the basis af these data, high-rise apartment developments merit strang
consideratian, particularly in areas accessible to rapid transit, as on increas-
ingly important suburban land use and as a strong contributor to the tax base."
The Text of the report supporting this summary is attached.
Another article from Urban Land Institute's publication of February, 1963,
written by Daminic Del Guidice states, "It may thus be concluded that the
four apartments under study praduce mare in educatianally allocable tax
revenues than they cansume in educatianal costs." A camplete copy of th is
report is attoched.
A photogroph in the May 1963 issue of the A. S. P. O. newsletter is also attached
to this report. It vividly shows the advantages of one type of develapment over
another.
.
.
.
.
.
Heights Bldg. Report Na. 2
May 13, 1963
Page Six
SUMMARY
By relating the locational criteria to the specific propasal it appears that these structures are properly
located ond should therefore be approved. The same indication is presented from the articles about
these types of buildings. Hawever, it is suggested they not be approved until such time as a height
district map is prepared and adopted identifying in a positive manner where and only where buildings
af medium height will be automatically permitted, provided they comply with regulatians tailored
exclusively for Arcadia.
Respectfully submitted,
/~~
WILLIAM PHELPS
PI.anning Director
WP:ma