Item 8-A

On July 28, 1998, a group of residents from the North of Montana Neighborhood Association (NOMA) spoke before the City Council regarding a surge of demolition of existing older houses and construction of new, "oversized" houses in their neighborhood. In response to the group’s concerns, Council directed staff to consider amendments to the R1 district standards in the North of Montana residential neighborhood. An Interim Ordinance (Ordinance 1925 (CCS)) established temporary development standards for this neighborhood to provide adequate time for analysis of the issues and possible solutions. The City retained the services of three architects, William Dale Brantley of aArts, Hank Koning of Koning Eizenberg Architecture and Ralph Mechur, of Ralph Mechur Architect, to assist with the development of permanent development standards.

The north of Montana Avenue residential area contains a mix of older, single story and two story homes, and newer, larger dwellings that have been constructed in recent years. Concerns regarding new development relate primarily to the height, perceived number of stories and massing of the new buildings, as well as the compatibility of the new structures with existing homes in the area. Many of the new, larger structures are not compatible with adjacent structures, resulting in negative impacts in terms of the neighborhood’s access to light and air, privacy, and the overall amount of open space as viewed from the street and between buildings. Some of these new structures are out of proportion in relation to the lot size and height of existing structures. While there are substantive concerns about over-building in these neighborhoods, residents also express a desire to maintain design flexibility and to allow a reasonable amount of livable square footage to meet their housing needs.

As outlined below, the proposed ordinance is intended to create buildings that integrate better into the neighborhood. The recommended modifications are designed to reduce building mass while still allowing for design expression and flexibility. Some of the modifications to the proposed standards were provisions in Interim Ordinance 1925 (CCS). A chart comparing the proposed standards with the existing standards and interim standards is attached (Attachment B).

One of the primary concerns identified during the public process was excessive building mass. Given the range of concerns regarding overall size, massing, scale, proportion of building to lot size and provision of adequate light and air, a multi-dimensional approach with a series of recommendations to address building mass is recommended, including:

Lot Coverage. While reduced lot coverage will not alone resolve overbuilding, staff believes that reducing maximum allowable lot coverage will address neighborhood concerns regarding light, air and open space, and promote use of basements to achieve additional square footage. Maximizing basement areas for laundry, family, and utility rooms will help to reduce the visible building mass, while accommodating the property owner’s need for additional living area square footage. It is recommended that lot coverage be reduced to a maximum of 35% in most cases (Section 9.04.08.02.070 (d)).

Second Floor Coverage. To reduce the building mass above 14 feet, the size of the second floor will be limited to 26% of the parcel area, with the ability to increase this only if a comparable reduction in first floor square footage is provided. Residents expressed concern at the Planning Commission public hearings that the massing at the second floor affected enjoyment and privacy of their rear yard area (Section 9.04.08.02.075(a)).

Light and Air. To maximize the benefit of stepbacks to adjacent neighbors, any patio, balcony, roof deck or terrace open on less than two sides will count as parcel coverage, including second floor parcel coverage if the floor line is above 14 feet in height (Section 9.04.08.02.075 (d)). This requirement encourages placement of stepbacks at the building corners, reducing building mass and enhancing the views and open space of adjacent properties.

Single Story Incentives. To provide an incentive for one-story houses, the maximum parcel coverage for a structure no greater than 18 feet high will be increased to 50%. Staff believes this will encourage development of new one-story structures and allow expansion of existing homes without a second story addition. (Section 9.04.08.02.070(d)).

Front Stepback. To reduce the impact of the building on the streetscape, the required front stepback above 14 feet will be increased to an area equal to 8% of the lot depth and will be applied to a slightly larger portion of the front façade. (Section 9.04.08.02.070(f)).

Rear Stepback. To ensure the preservation of open space in the rear yard and reduce the impact of the building on neighboring rear yards, the required rear stepback above 14 feet will be increased to 30% of the lot depth for the entire rear façade, but in no case greater than 40 feet. (Section 9.04.08.02.070(h)).

Building Height. To accommodate more varied architectural styles, the maximum building height is proposed to be increased from 28 feet to 32 feet (Section 9.04.08.02.070(a)). In addition, the proposed building envelope is designed to accommodate buildings with steeper pitched roofs that will limit building mass at the point closest to the side setback line (Section 9.04.08.02.070 (k)). The building envelope retains the maximum 21 foot wall height at the side setback, but with a 30 degree angle extending towards the interior to the maximum 32 foot height. In order to promote further design flexibility, this standard could be modified subject to Architectural Review Board approval.

Sideyard Setback. To increase the space between buildings and reduce the impact of buildings over 18 feet in height on adjacent properties, the proposed ordinance requires an increase in side yard setbacks. An additional 10% of the lot width will be dedicated to the side yard area. The minimum required side yard will remain 10% of the lot width; however, the combined total of the side yards at any point on the parcel will equal 30% of the lot width. The additional side yard area can be provided on either side, or a portion on both sides. (Section 9.04.08.02.070(i)).

Staff believes that this requirement creates opportunities to provide more light and air on one side of the property, while retaining design flexibility. Additional open space can accommodate more landscaping, particularly trees that can not otherwise be accommodated in a standard 5 foot wide sideyard.

 

Livable Space

Another issue identified during the public process is the need for sufficient livable space inside the home to accommodate families’ needs. Given the reduction in second floor area, maximizing use of basement areas will help meet families’ needs for livable space without adding building mass to the neighborhood. The following provisions address these goals:

Excavation. Excavation for the purpose of providing lightwells and/or stairways to below grade areas will be permitted in the required side yard, provided that the excavated area is no closer than 10% of the lot width to the property line (Section 9.04.08.02.070(p)). There is no maximum size of these areas in order to encourage sunken patios, windows and other features that provide light and air to basement rooms, resulting in more livable space. Further, because the excavated area is setback from the property line, the building will not be perceived as a three-story structure from the street or from adjacent properties.

Two Story Accessory Buildings. The maximum ground floor area of a two-story accessory building will be limited by parcel coverage, rather than the current 650 square foot building area limitation. However, the second floor will be limited to 250 square feet in order to control the building mass and mitigate the accessory building’s impact on adjacent properties. This standard allows ground floor livable area in a two-story accessory building in addition to the required two-car garage. Setbacks for these two-story accessory buildings have also been addressed.

 

Parcel Coverage Variations. Staff recommends increasing the second story parcel coverage if the equivalent amount of coverage is reduced on the first floor. This would create a smaller overall building while providing design flexibility for more diverse architectural styles. This results in a maximum 30% parcel coverage on both the first and second floors. Conversely, staff recommends increasing the first story parcel coverage to a maximum of 40% if an equivalent amount of second story parcel coverage is reduced. This would create a smaller second floor, which will reduce the amount of building mass visible to adjacent properties. This provision will allow existing structures to maintain their 40% lot coverage on the first floor and limit second story additions to a maximum of 21% (Section 9.04.08.02.075 (a)).

 

Privacy

The trend towards larger houses has not only impacted the neighborhood streetscape, but has also reduced the privacy, light, and air of adjacent homes. In particular, building elements such as balconies, terraces and roof decks can overlook adjacent properties, negatively impacting privacy, while excessive massing at the rear of a building can effectively result in a 28’ high building wall adjacent to a neighboring back yard. The following measures are intended to increase distances between buildings and promote rear yard privacy:

Balcony Size. The aggregate square footage of second floor balconies, terraces or roof decks is limited to 400 square feet, unless modified by the Architectural Review Board. This provision limits use of the required second floor stepback areas for a balcony or roof deck while protecting the privacy of neighboring properties (Section 9.04.08.02.075(c)).

Balcony/Roof Deck Stepbacks. Any roof deck or balcony greater than 50 square feet located in the rear two-thirds of the parcel is required to be setback at least 12 feet from the property line. This prevents second floor outdoor areas, where people may congregate, from directly overlooking a neighboring property. (Section 9.04.08.02.075(e)).

Rear Stepbacks. The second story stepback for the rear yard has been increased to an amount equal to 30% of the lot depth, not to exceed 40 feet from rear property line or where alley centerline of alley to reduce the building mass and limit the amount of building area either overlooking or blocking the light and air of a neighboring rear yard (Section 9.04.08.02.070(h)).

Exterior stairs and required fire escapes will not be permitted in the required side yard. Locating these access features further from the side property line will reduce the impact on the neighboring property (Section 9.04.08.02.075(h)).

 

City Council, Planning Commission and public comments have consistently emphasized the importance of the streetscape in maintaining the area’s unique neighborhood character. Development standards intended to protect and enhance the streetscape to include the following:

Alley Access. Many blocks within the North of Montana neighborhood have rear or side alleys. Alleys can be a significant resource in maintaining the streetscape as they allow for vehicular/garage access, provide a place for refuse collection and serve other utilitarian purposes. Alleys disencumber the public street, allow a more unified streetscape, and permit unbroken curb lines, which results in additional landscaping and open space. Where alleys are used, the public street fosters greater pedestrian use and enjoyment.

Given the resource alleys represent, staff believes alley use should be maximized wherever possible. The proposed ordinance recommends requiring alley access to garages whenever alleys exist. Driveways accessing a public street would only be allowed subject to the approval of a Use Permit, including a finding that alley access is not otherwise possible (Section 9.04.08.02.040 (d)).

Front Stepback. The quality of the streetscape is comprised of many features. Among the most important of these, however, is the relationship of front façades to the public street. Flat, unarticulated façades can detract from the overall street aesthetic, especially for two-story homes.

To address this concern, the proposed ordinance requires articulation of the portions of the front façade above 14 feet which exceeds 70% of the maximum buildable front elevation (Section 9.04.08.02.070 (f)). This requires about 1/3 of the maximum front elevation above 14 feet be stepped back. The proposed stepback distance would be 8% of the parcel’s depth (e.g., 12 feet for a 150-foot deep lot), but not more than 12 feet.

Porches. Porches encourage pedestrian scale and use and promote neighborhood interaction. Porches can also help to break-up the front façades, add architectural detail and interest, and enhance the streetscape. The proposed ordinance includes two provisions that promote the use of porches. First, Section 9.04.08.02.075 (j) provides that porches may project up to 6 feet into the required front yard setback so long as they do not exceed 50% of the building width. However, since some porch designs may warrant a size greater than 50% of the building width, Section 9.04.08.02.08(e) (3) would allow a larger porch subject to Architectural Review Board approval.

Garage Treatments. Garage doors oriented toward the front yard portion of a parcel negatively impact pedestrian character. The proposed ordinance recommends that wherever garage doors face the street, the garage portion of the building be set back 5 feet beyond the front setback and the garage doors may not exceed 16 feet in width (Section 9.04.08.02.075 (f)). This will help to ensure that the garage doors are not the primary architectural features visible from the street. To allow flexibility wherever this provision would be impractical, however, the Architectural Review Board could modify this setback standard (Section 9.04.08.02.080 (e) (2)).

The ordinance also proposes that single-story garages oriented perpendicular to the street be allowed to project up to 6 feet into the front yard setback, but never closer than 20 feet (Section 9.04.08.02.075 (g)). This enables further architectural diversity and greater design flexibility, yet ensures that the streetscape is not comprised of monotonous garage door façades. The ability to project the garage into the required front yard setback will result in a greater setback for the primary structure. For example, since the minimum garage width is 18 feet, on properties with a 30 foot front yard setback, the primary residence would have to be set back an additional 12 feet.

Front Yard Excavation. Another consistent concern expressed by residents and policymakers relates to excavation within the front yard to accommodate subterranean garages or basements. Excavation disrupts the streetscape by adding a design element more oriented to the automobile and averse to pedestrians. Therefore, the proposed ordinance retains the interim ordinance’s prohibition on excavation within the front yard setback area (Section 9.04.08.02.070 (p)).

Front Yard Paving. Preserving and enhancing the streetscape requires not only openness but also opportunities for landscaping. Landscaping and trees serve to soften building elevations and add visual interest to the street scene. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance restricts paving to 40% of the required front yard area (Section 9.04.08.02.070 (l)).

The current R-1 District development standards permit a second story addition to an accessory structure to be located on a side property line and five feet from the rear property line, provided the second story portion complies with the setback requirements for the primary structure. This provision allows for second story additions to existing garages, where the roof of the garage may be used as a roof deck and the deck has minimal setback from adjacent properties. These structures impact the privacy, as well as the light and air of neighboring rear yards. In order to address this concern the following modifications are proposed:

Use Permit. A Use Permit will be required for two-story accessory buildings to ensure that the structures do not adversely impact either adjacent neighbors or the surrounding neighborhood and that they are developed in manner which protects the integrity of the neighborhood. The Use Permit process involves a Zoning Administrator public hearing that is noticed to surrounding property owners and residents, and whose decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission (Section 9.04.08.02.040(c)).

Second Floor Area. The maximum size of the second floor will be limited to 250 square feet to reduce the mass of the structure (Section 9.04.13.050(g)).

Second Floor Setback. The second story of the accessory building will not be located in any required yard with the exception of the portion that is directly above the garage. The portion of the building directly above the garage may extend into the required rear yard but must be set back at least 15 feet from the centerline of the alley or 15 feet from the rear property line where no alley exists. The second story of the accessory structure may not be located in the required side yard (Sections 9.04.13.050(a) and (b)). This setback will allow the second story to be located on top of the garage, but reduces potential impacts on the light, air and privacy of adjacent properties.

Exterior Decks. Roof decks, landings, upper level walkways and balconies are limited to 35 square feet to reduce the potential for negative impacts on the neighboring properties (Section 9.04.13.050(c)).

Deck Setback. Roof decks, landings, upper level walkways, and balconies will be set back at least 25 feet from the side property line closest to the structure, and at least 25 feet from the rear property line (or centerline of the alley) (Section 9.04.13.050(c)).

Building Separation. The second floor of the accessory building must maintain a minimum separation of twenty feet from the second floor of the principal building to minimize the impact of building mass above 14 feet. (Section 9.04.13.050 (a)).

 

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

At the June 16, 1999, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission generally supported the staff recommendations. The Commission agrees that the proposed ordinance will effectively reduce building mass, thus addressing concerns about the loss of light, air and privacy. The Commission also supports the provisions of the proposed ordinance which address the streetscape, including increased second story stepbacks on the front and rear, incentives to encourage front porches, limitations on front facing garage doors and restrictions on street access.

However, the Commission identified the following issues, which staff has addressed in the final draft of the proposed ordinance:

Curb Cuts. The Planning Commission supports the Use Permit requirement for curb cuts and street access for lots with alley access; however, the Commission was concerned that the Use Permit process itself would not be sufficient to maximize the use of the alleys. Therefore, Use Permits for street access on parcels with an alley would granted only where unique circumstances preclude alley access.

Flexible Side Yard Setback. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed ordinance should include a provision to modify the required 30% of parcel width side yard setback to accommodate different building configurations, specific site features, and/or landscaping. In response, staff included a provision that allows ARB modification of the side yard setback requirement to a minimum of 10% of the parcel width if specific findings can be made. (Section 9.04.08.02.080(e)(4)).

Second Story Stepbacks. To clarify that the additional side stepback above 14 feet should be measured from the minimum side yard setback, not from the additional side yard setback requirement, staff has amended the proposed ordinance to specify that the stepback is relative to the minimum setback line.

Building Height and Roof Pitch. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance would discourage the preservation of existing homes if additions designed in the existing style could not be achieved within the proposed building envelope. To accommodate certain styles of architecture, such as Tudor style, staff has included a provision in the proposed ordinance that allows ARB to approve a design modification which does not fit within the prescribed building envelope if certain findings are made.

Windows in Accessory Buildings. The Planning Commission supports staff recommendations to require a Use Permit for two-story accessory buildings. Issues regarding light and air, aesthetics and privacy were the focus of Commission discussion. Although staff’s initial recommendation was to restrict the location of windows on the second story of an accessory building, the Planning Commission was concerned that in certain circumstances a window would be preferable to a blank wall. Windows and similar features will be reviewed, and restricted as necessary, through the Use Permit process required for two-story accessory buildings.

Retention of Existing Structures. The Planning Commission also expressed concern that existing homes, particularly homes with historic and architectural merit be retained. Beyond the standards, which have been designed to provide flexibility to accommodate additions to existing structures, staff has included specific language in the Special Project Design and Development Standards section of the ordinance that encourages the preservation and expansion of existing structures in order to maintain neighborhood scale and character.

 

There were other issues that the Planning Commission discussed that staff has not incorporated directly into the proposed ordinance. The following is a brief discussion of these issues:

Following its review and recommendation on development standards for the North of Montana neighborhood, the Planning Commission further recommended that the City Council consider application of these standards in R1 neighborhoods Citywide. The Commission believed that the proposed standards successfully addressed issues regarding building massing, neighborhood scale, and pedestrian orientation and that other single family neighborhoods would benefit from attention to these concerns. The recommended North of Montana development standards represent the culmination of a year long study process that included public participation, the evaluation of a variety of options to address the identified concerns, and Planning Commission hearings to study alternative scenarios. Staff believes that, while many of these recommendations may be appropriate for other single family neighborhoods, examination of the issues particular to individual neighborhoods is warranted. Further, this will provide the opportunity for public participation in the preparation of revised development standards. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to modify development standards in the City’s other R1 neighborhoods, and further recommends that, if further analysis demonstrates a need, an interim ordinance return for Council consideration prior to adoption of permanent standards.

On February 10, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to identify the issues that would be examined as part of the development of permanent standards. On May 5, 1999, the Planning Commission held a community workshop to provide the public and the Planning Commission an opportunity to discuss issues related to the development standards and identify possible solutions. Approximately 40 members of the public participated in the workshop. On June 9, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to adopt a Resolution of Intention that stated its intent to modify specific Zoning Code sections. Eight members of the public testified at the public hearing. On June 16, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment. Twenty-three members of the public testified at the hearing – nineteen were in favor of the amendments; four were against the proposed amendments.

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.050, notice of the public hearing was published in The Los Angeles Times at least calendar ten days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B. In addition, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants located within the subject area.

The recommendation presented in this report will have no budgetary or financial impacts.

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt the attached emergency ordinance.

Prepared by:

Suzanne Frick, Director

Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner

Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Acting Senior Planner

Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner

Planning and Community Development Department

City Planning Division

Attachments

A. Proposed Ordinance

Comparison Chart

Notice of Public Hearing

Correspondence

E. Planning Commission Staff Report, June 16, 1999