Monrovia Staff Reports to Council on Proposed Changes to Development Guidelines

This home, recently completed on North Alta Vista, caused community concern over so-called “mansionization” in new construction. – Photo by Terry Miller

By Susan Motander

The Monrovia City Council began a review of the staff’s proposals regarding changes in the city’s regulations regarding the size and design of residences in the community. The Council had requested that staff reach out to the community starting in November of 2014 to review citizen concerns about so-called “mansionization” in new construction.

At that time, permits had been requested for the demolition of several pre-1940 homes and other permits were requested for the substantial remodeling of several other homes. At that time the city imposed two moratoria, one on demolition of pre-1940 homes and one on the issuance of building permits for two story homes in certain areas. These were established for one year and were extended for a second year to allow staff more time to assess the public input.

That input lasted through mid-2015 with online surveys and a series of public meetings regarding what the community wanted. According to the staff report, that the council later adopted as a guide for drawing up new regulations, the concerns centered on two things: neighborhood compatibility and historic preservation.

Members of the Community Development Department, in an effort to lift at least the moratorium on building permits if not demolition permits, submitted a series of proposals regarding building size, massing/bulk (i.e. setbacks), height and extended design review. The issues of density and design were left for further review. Last week, these proposals were reviewed, first with contractors and developers and then with members of the Monrovia Old House Preservation Group. Early this week they held another review with the Monrovia Area Partnership Group and the general public. On Tuesday they made the same presentation to the City Council. This was done in a study session only.

However, as Craig Jimenez, the Director of Community Development, began laying out the proposals, members of the council repeatedly asked detailed questions. The council had set aside only one hour for the study session in order to hold a closed session on unrelated potential litigation. Even postponing the closed session to after the regular city council meeting, and continuing the study session until just before the time set for the regular meeting, the council did not have enough time to review and discuss the entire proposal.

Normally after a study session of this nature, members of the city staff are given directions from the council regarding the issue at hand. Staff then incorporates the changes suggested by the council and returns the matter to the council for action at a subsequent meeting. Since the Council did not have time to discuss the issue fully, the recommendation of the council was to schedule an additional study session on the issue.

It became obvious that various members of the council hold differing positions on the proposed changes with Mayor Tom Adams questioning whether we should impose more stringent requirements on future buildings then we did in the past noting that under the proposed changes a house like Idylwild (an historic, landmarked home on north Mayflower would not be allowed. Councilmember Gloria Crudgington quickly pointed out that these homes were built when the lots were a great deal larger and had subsequently been subdivided, as smaller lots became the norm.

It is important to note that all of these requirements are currently only recommendations and the council has not yet taken action on any of the proposals and will not do so until after the planning commission has studied and reviewed them and the council has completed its own study.

To understand the proposed changes it is necessary to understand a few terms regularly used by planners. Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the square footage of the lot to the square footage of the house. Regulations regarding the FAR determine how large a house can be built on a lot. The regulations vary from zone to zone. High density residential allows for different size building than lower density zoning.

However in the Foothill Residential Zone, largely those houses in the very north sections of the community along the wildland urban interface, building size is based not on the square footage of the house, but rather on the “site coverage.” This is the footprint of the house rather than its square footage. In other words a two-story home with the first floor covering 2000 square feet and a 1500 square feet second floor would have a site coverage of only 2000 square feet It should also be noted that because of the unusual topography of many of the lots in this area, the building ratio is based not on the lot size, but rather the size of the buildable pad. If you had a 3-acre parcel, but because of steep canyons or cliffs, the only building area was only half an acre, that smaller figure would be the size of the lot for computing the site coverage allowable.

Setback is another term that needs definition to understand the proposals. This is distance from the lot line that a building must be from the property line. Remember the property line is not measured from the curb, but rather from the edge of the “parkway,” the curb and other city owned property next to the street where these areas exist. It is also used to discuss second stories that are not flush with the first floor and the distance behind the front of a building a garage must be to be considered “minimally visible.”

With all that in mind, these are the changes suggested by the Planning Department: In the RF (Foothill Residential) zone, the rule is currently that the site coverage be limited to 30 percent of the buildable area (building pad), This would change to FAR (like the rest of the residential zoning) rather than site coverage. The FAR for the 20,000 square feet (a 100×200 lot) is 35 percent. If the lot is bigger, the additional FAR for the balance of the property drops to 10 percent. Currently, a 15,000 square feet lot could have a home up to 9,000 but that would drop to 5.250 square feet in the proposal.

In the RL and RE zones (the balance of the homes in question), a sliding scale is currently in use to determine the size of house allowable. In this way larger houses are allowed on smaller lots with the FAR ranging from 50 down to 17 percent. Under the new proposal, the FAR would be 40 percent for the first 5,000 square feet, 35percent for the next 5,000 and 15 percent for lot areas over 10,000. This would mean that a lot of 6,000 square feet would be able to have a 2,350 square feet rather than the 3,440 currently allowed. A 10,000 square feet lot could have a home of 3,750 square feet instead of one that is 4,940. Attached garages that are visible from the street are included in the square footage of the house.

But these regulations are only the beginning. If the garage in not visible from the street, the house would be given a “bonus of an additional 400 square feet in allowable footage. In order to encourage smaller homes, the minimum house size in the RF and RE zones would be decreased from 2000 square feet to 1250 square feet

In regard to the setbacks, the current regulations set a 25 foot front setback or the average of the block, whichever is great, with a rear set back of 20 feet The side set back for the 1st floor is based on the lot width with a minimum of 5 feet The second floor side set back in RL/RE zones is 12 feet and is based on lot width in other zones. Detached accessory structures (garages, if detached, sheds, etc) currently require a 0 to 3 foot set back.

The proposal calls for allowing a 7 foot encroachment on the front set back for porches in all zones. The requirement for rear set back varies from zone to zone. In the RL zone it will be 20 percent of the lot depth or 20 feet whichever is greater. In the RE and RF zones it is 25 percent or 20 foot whichever is greater.

The second floors would need both a front set of an additional 5 feet from the 1st story set back in all zones (this is to prevent a massive bulky presence facing the street). The rear set back for2nd stories would require an additional 10 feet from the 1st story: again this is in all zones. When one zone meets another at the rear the second story set back of the adjacent zone would apply.

There would be no changes to the side yard setbacks in any zone.

In regard to allowing 2nd stories at all, and the overall height of homes in single family residential zones (RF, RE and RL), second stories are allowed in all residential zones with a 27-30 foot maximum ridge height in all these zones. In the RM zone, there is no height limit in RM zone and no height or maximum number of stories in the RH zone (these are higher density zones).

While what the city staff is suggesting does not change these regulations, additional design review would be given to the city over any single-family home that includes minimizing the impact of the building on other properties. In other words, the city would be able to require changes in the design of a home, even if it met the statutory requirements, if it negatively impacted the adjacent homes. It would also establish additional thresholds for design review.

The maximum height ride in the RM zone would drop to 27 feet

The public hearings had also indicated that the community had concerns about the design of new homes being built. Currently the code allows for full design review on all developments in the multifamily developments only. It does not have mandatory design guidelines.

The city is proposing that the code be amended to expand design review over single-family residences by the Staff or the Design Review Committee and provide the authority to guide the direction on garage placement and orientation, and to require modifications in that design based on neighborhood compatibility.

The proposal regarding garage placement, under the proposed changes would be based on the predominant pattern of the houses within 400 feet of the proposed home. If most of these have Minimally Visible Garages (MVG) the requirements would be that there be an increased setback for front loading garages of an additional 20 feet behind the front face of the house (it is currently only 5 feet). Further that the maximum driveway width in the front yard set back be 14 feet and that garages would not be permitted in front of the house (these are the garages that sit in front of the house and load from the side).

City staff had hoped to present this for public hearing and enactment of the ordinances by March or April. With the council requiring additional study time, this timeline may be delayed.

Remember these are the proposals that impact the development of the house. The staff is looking to bring suggestions regarding density to the Council in the Fall of this year and regarding design, in the Winter of 2017.

A more modest neighboring house on N. Alta Vista. – Photo by Terry Miller

More from Monrovia Weekly