Info Packet

PAS EIP-20 August 2008

Teardowns and
Mansionization
PAS Essential

The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) researchers are pleased to

provide you with information from our world-class planning library.
This packet represents a typical collection of documents PAS provides
in response to research inquiries from our 1,500 subscribers. For more
information about PAS visit www.planning.org/pas.
Copyright © 2008. This Essential Information Packet is compiled and distributed by the
American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service with the written permission of
the owner(s) of its content. Reuse of the packet’s content requires explicit permission from
the individual copyright holder(s).

American Planning Association

205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601-5927

1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005-1503

www.planning.org/pas

ISBN: 978-1-61190-098-9
Articles and Reports

• Fine, Adrian Scott and Jim Lindberg. 2002. Taming the Teardown Trend.
Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

• Kendig, Lane. 2004. Too Big, Boring, or Ugly: Planning and Design Tools to
Combat Monotony, the Too-Big House, and Teardowns. Chapter 4. The Too-
Big House. Chapter 5. Teardowns. Chapter 6. Code Language. Planning
Advisory Service Report Number 528. Chicago: American Planning
Association.

• Kendig, Lane. 2005. “Out with the Old, in with the New: The Cost of
Teardowns.” Zoning Practice, June.

• Petterson, N. Drew. 1999. “Torn Over Teardowns: Protecting Neighborhood

Character.” Zoning News, September.

• Szold, Terry S. 2005. “Planner’s Notebook: Mansionization and Its

Discontents: Planners and the Challenge of Regulating Monster Homes.”
Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2): 189–202.

Staff and Agency Reports

• Arlington Heights (Illinois), Village of, Planning Department. 2003. Q & A on
Teardown Policy.

• Chevy Chase (Maryland), Town of. 2007. Analysis and Recommendations to

Promote Compatibility. Jakubiak and Associates, Inc.

• Los Angeles (California), City of, City Planning Department. 2007.

Recommendation Report: Establishment of an Interim Control Ordinance
(ICO) to Temporarily Prohibit the Issuance of Building Permits in Excess of
Certain Floor Area Thresholds. Recommendation report to the City Planning
Commission, July 12.

• Manhattan Beach (California), City of. 2008. Staff Report: Consideration of a

City Council 2005-2007 Work Plan Item on Mansionization in Residential
Areas as Recommended by the Planning Commission. Agenda Item
08/0115.22, January 15.

• Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Montgomery

County Department of Planning. 2006. Teardown/Mansionization Bulletin:
Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools.

• Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 2006. Mansionization:

Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives. Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.

• Minnetonka (Minnesota), City of. 2007. “Policy on ‘McMansions.’” Planning

Commission Staff Report, January 11.
 • Rockville (Maryland), City of. 2005. “Mansionization.” White paper discussion.

Regulations and Ordinances

• Austin (Texas), City of. 2008. Residential Design and Compatibility Standards.

• Dallas (Texas), City of. 2007. Development Code. Article IV, Section 51A-
4.507. Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay.

• Dekalb (Georgia), County of. 2008. Zoning Code. Article III, Division 8.
Residential Infill Overlay District(s). Municipal Code Corporation.

• Los Angeles (California), City of. 2008. Ordinance No. 179814: An Ordinance
Imposing Interim Regulations on the Issuance of Building and Demolition
Permits in a Portion of the Hollywood Community Plan Area. Adopted April 9.

• Manhattan Beach (California), City of. 2008. Mansionization Code

Amendments. Ordinances Nos. 2111 and 2112. Adopted February 19.

• Palos Verdes Estates (California), City of. 2007. “Single Family Residential
Development: Guidelines and Information.”

• Salt Lake (Utah), City of. 2008. Zoning Code. Section 21A.34.120. YCI
Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District.

• Scarsdale (New York), Village of. 2008. Zoning Code. Article XVI. Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for Houses in Residence A Districts.

• Schaumburg (Illinois), Village of. 2007. Zoning Code. Section 154.52. Single-
family Residential Teardowns and Replacement.

• Solana Beach (California), City of. 2007. Zoning Code. Section 17.48.040.
Scaled Residential Overlay Zone.

• Wheaton (Illinois), City of. 2008. Zoning Code. Article XXVIII. Northside
Residential Overlay District.

Online Resource:

• National Trust For Historic Preservation - Teardowns and McMansions

Website: http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/teardowns/
Articles and Reports
 Protecting America’s Historic Neighborhoods

TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

by Adrian Scott Fine & Jim Lindberg

June 2002
Used with permission of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
National Trust staff who contributed significantly in the writing of this report include:
Constance Beaumont, Megan Brown, Julia Miller, Anthony Veerkamp, and Dwight Young.
Peter Brink provided overall guidance and support.

Other National Trust staff who assisted with this project include Kathy Adams, Mike Buhler, Daniel Carey,
Greg Coble, Amy Cole, Hap Connors, Marilyn Fenollosa, Mary Ruffin Hanbery, Kitty Higgins, John Hildreth,
Alicia Lay Leuba, Jim Peterson, Beth Newburger, Wendy Nicholas, Barbara Pahl, and Royce Yeater.

Others who contributed information, photos, or stories of teardowns and solutions include:
Dan Becker, William L. Bruning, Meredith Arms Bzdak, Boyd Coon, Alice DeSouza, Laurie deVegter, Jean
Follett, Betsy Friedberg, David Goldfarb, Bridget Hartman, Dwayne Jones, George Kramer, Lara Kritzer,
Bruce Kriviskey, Patricia Lake, Meg Lousteau, Weiming Lu, Amy Lucas, Mike Mathews, John McCall, Nancy
McCoy, Vincent Michael, Richard Michaelson, Marya Morris, John Payne, Sue Scherner, Gretchen Schuler,
Ellen Shubart, Christopher Skelly, David Swift, Kevin Tremble, Steve Turner, and Nore Winter.

The following organizations provided information for this report: American Planning Association, Atlanta
Preservation Center, Citizens for Historic Preservation (Ocean City, NJ), City and County of Denver
Community Planning and Development Agency, Massachusetts Historical Commission, National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions, Preservation League of Staten Island (NY), Preservation Park Cities (Dallas,
TX), and the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans.

Cover photo credits: Julia Miller, David Swift, Sue Scherner.

 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART I: AN ALARMING EPIDEMIC

♦ What is a Teardown?
♦ Historic Neighborhoods are Teardown Targets

PART II: THE IMPACT OF TEARDOWNS ON HISTORIC PLACES

♦ Aren’t Historic Properties Protected From Demolition?
♦ Destroying Architectural Heritage
♦ How Oversized New Houses are Damaging Historic Neighborhoods
♦ Reducing Affordable Housing and Community Diversity
♦ Losing Control of the Neighborhood

PART III: WHAT IS CAUSING THE TEARDOWN EPIDEMIC?

♦ Rising Real Estate Prices
♦ The Supersizing of the American House
♦ Back to the City (and Older Suburbs)
♦ The Attraction of Historic Neighborhoods
♦ What Baby Boomers Want

PART IV: THE ECONOMICS OF TEARDOWNS

♦ The Rule of Three
♦ The Influence of Speculators
♦ When the Ride is Over

PART V: ARE TEARDOWNS SMART GROWTH?

♦ Compatible Infill: the Win-Win Solution
♦ The Tradition of Additions

PART VI: TOOLS TO TAME THE TEARDOWN TREND

♦ Planning Ahead
♦ Demolition Moratoriums and Delays
♦ Moving Threatened Homes
♦ Historic Districts
♦ Conservation Districts
♦ Design Review
♦ FARs and Lot Coverage Requirements
♦ Setbacks and Open Space Standards
♦ Bulk Limits
♦ Development Incentives and Bonuses
♦ Downzowning
♦ Easements and Covenants
♦ Community Land Trusts
♦ Historic Real Estate Marketing and Education Programs
♦ Financial Incentives and Technical Assistance

CONCLUSION

FIVE TEARDOWN CASE STUDIES

ENDNOTES

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
TAMING THE
TEARDOWN TREND
A disturbing pattern of demolitions is
approaching epidemic proportions in
historic neighborhoods across
America:
♦ In two neighborhoods just outside
downtown Dallas, more than
1,000 early 20th century homes
have been purchased, bulldozed
and sent to the dump, making
way for the construction of luxury
homes of up to 10,000 square
feet each.
♦ In Denver, some 200 homes –
most of them brick bungalows
from the 1920s and 1930s --
were demolished last year and
replaced with stucco-clad houses
three times their size.
♦ In the Chicago suburb of
Winnetka, a rare pre-Civil War
house was purchased for $12
million and leveled by a new
owner who planned a vast luxury
home but has since moved to
California.
♦ In Rancho Mirage, Calif., a
museum-quality, 5,000-square-
foot home designed in 1962 by
famed architect Richard Neutra
was demolished without warning
by its new owners, who plan to
build a much larger new house.
♦ Even the work of Frank Lloyd
Wright is at risk. In the close-in
Chicago suburb of Bannockburn,
a house designed by Wright in
1956 was purchased last year by
an owner who announced plans –
later dropped – to demolish it
and build new.
What is behind this rush to demolish
historic houses? It is the teardown
trend, a real estate development
practice that is devastating historic
neighborhoods across the nation.
The National Trust has documented
more than 100 communities in 20
states that are experiencing
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1
significant numbers of teardowns,
and that number is climbing fast.
The term “teardown” refers to the
practice of demolishing an existing
house to make way for a dramatically
larger new house on the same site.
While teardowns are sometimes
acceptable, the National Trust is
specifically concerned about those
that are wreaking havoc in historic
neighborhoods, whether they are
officially designated historic or are
potentially eligible for such
designation at the federal, state or
local level.
The most obvious impact of
teardowns in historic neighborhoods
is the loss of older houses that
become “scrape-offs” because they
are seen as outdated or too small.
Perhaps even more damaging are the
replacements for these demolished
homes: massive, out-of-scale new
structures that completely ignore the
historic character of the existing
neighborhood.
Shoehorning massive, suburban-style
homes into historic neighborhoods is
not a good fit. Typically measuring
from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet,
these new structures overshadow
neighboring homes and threaten the
very qualities that make historic
neighborhoods so attractive in the
first place. The large new houses are
often dominated in front by driveways
and three and four-car garages, and
oriented to private interior spaces
rather than the community life of
front porches and sidewalks.
Incrementally, as the number of
teardowns increases, the overall
character and charm of a historic
neighborhood begins to disappear,
replaced by a hodgepodge of boxy
new mansions and forlorn-looking
older homes. Neighborhood livability
is diminished when mature trees and
landscaping are removed, backyards
are eliminated, and sunlight is
blocked by towering new structures
built up to the property lines.
Economic and social diversity is
reduced when modest, affordable
homes are replaced with structures
costing three times as much. Finally,
any sense of neighborhood continuity
and stability is lost when teardowns
are a constant threat and speculative
developers, rather than residents,
control the neighborhood’s destiny.
What has caused the recent increase
in teardowns? The trend is driven in
part by the growing economy and
substantial wealth that many
households have accumulated over
the past decade. But teardowns are
also occurring because a growing
number of people are looking for
alternatives to long, congested
commutes. As more people look for
housing in urban and close-in
suburban locations, they are often
drawn to well-preserved historic
neighborhoods. Many of these new
residents, however, are bringing
suburban-style housing preferences
back to the city with them, including
the desire for vast square footage,
numerous amenities and multi-car
garages. These features are difficult
to fit into many historic
neighborhoods. The challenge is to
accommodate changing housing
tastes and needs without sacrificing
the character and long-term stability
of older neighborhoods.
While some argue that teardowns are
a component of smart growth that
brings density back to cities, this is
often not the case. Most teardowns
do not add density, but simply
replace existing homes with larger
and more costly structures. There is,
however, a “win-win” alternative to
teardowns. Architecturally
compatible new infill construction is a
true smart-growth strategy that
directs higher density and new
investment to appropriate areas.
Development opportunities –
including underused historic
structures and vacant land in older
neighborhoods – abound in most
American cities. Even in areas where
large parcels of open land are scarce,
teardowns can be avoided by
encouraging sensitive additions to
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

existing properties and identifying
parcels where compatibly-designed,
appropriately-scaled new homes can
complement the established historic
character of the neighborhood.
SOLUTIONS:
What steps can communities take to
prevent teardowns or better manage
their impact? First and most
important, residents must develop a
vision for the future, deciding where
and how growth and change can be
accommodated. Then, mechanisms
must be put in place to ensure that
this vision is not compromised by
speculative teardown developers. In
places where the pace of teardowns
has already reached a crisis point, it
may be necessary to provide a
“cooling-off” period, through a
temporary moratorium on teardowns,
to allow time for the community to
develop a consensus about what to
do. Another useful early step is to
prepare visual simulations of what a
neighborhood would look like if it
were fully “built out” under current
zoning. Often the difference between
the “build out” scenario and current
conditions is dramatic, suggesting the
need to develop strategies to manage
development more carefully.
Communities can choose from a
variety of effective planning and
preservation tools to implement their
vision and tame teardowns. Several
of these tools aim to protect existing
structures, in part by requiring the
review of proposed demolitions and
by limiting the scale of new
construction to reduce the pressure
for teardowns. Other tools are
designed to guide sensitive additions
to existing homes and to ensure that
new construction respects a
neighborhood’s historic character
rather than damaging it.
In considering techniques to protect
the character of historic
neighborhoods, communities should
keep in mind that there is no “magic
bullet” that will stop teardowns. A
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
2
variety of strategies will be needed,
including these:
♦ Placing a temporary moratorium
on demolitions, with high
penalties for violations, can
prevent the loss of significant
structures and allow time to
develop alternatives to
demolition.
♦ Designating historic districts
enables local boards to review
and prevent demolitions and
ensure that new construction is
compatible with the established
building patterns and styles of
designated historic
neighborhoods.
♦ Establishing neighborhood
conservation districts helps
ensure that traditional
neighborhood character is not
destroyed by demolitions or out-
of-scale new construction.
♦ Providing for design review of
new construction projects in
residential areas, whether for all
new homes or for projects above
a certain size, allows city planning
staff to suggest alternatives to
incompatible construction
proposals.
♦ Setting floor-area-ratios and lot
coverage requirements keeps the
scale of new construction
compatible with existing homes
by capping the percentage of a
residential lot that may be built
upon.
♦ Revising development standards
to define criteria for building
height and width, roof pitch,
garage and driveway locations,
front and side setbacks and other
building features helps ensure
that new houses and additions
are consistent with existing
community character.
♦ Downzowning can adjust the mix
of uses and densities permitted
in specific areas to fit more
closely with what residents want
their neighborhood to be in the
future.
♦ Negotiating voluntary easements
and covenants for selected
individual properties, either
through donation or purchase,
can ensure that the architectural
character and affordability of
landmark properties are
permanently protected.
♦ Developing historic real estate
marketing and education
programs is a way to inform
realtors and potential new
residents about the history of
older neighborhoods and provide
guidance in areas such as
rehabilitating historic homes and
building compatible additions.
♦ Providing financial incentives and
technical assistance, such as tax
abatements, low-interest loans
and referrals to qualified
contractors, helps residents
acquire and rehabilitate historic
houses.
Residents have worked for decades
to protect and nurture the slow,
incremental revitalization of many
historic neighborhoods across the
country. Now, suddenly, some of
these very same places are
threatened – not by people leaving
the neighborhood but by newcomers
wanting to move in on their own
terms. The challenge today is to
manage this new investment so that
it respects the character and
distinctiveness that made these
neighborhoods so valuable and
desirable in the first place.
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 3

PART I: AN ALARMING EPIDEMIC Before

Until a few years ago, the “teardown” was a relatively

isolated phenomenon, occurring most often in the
nation’s wealthiest communities – places like Aspen,
Nantucket and Beverly Hills. Elsewhere in America, the
term was largely unfamiliar – but not anymore. Articles
about controversial teardowns appear regularly in
newspapers around the country. On the tree-lined
streets of once-quiet older neighborhoods in scores of
communities, bulldozers are moving in and battles are
erupting between developers and neighbors. After
Teardowns, in short, have reached epidemic
proportions.
Evidence of the teardown trend can be found among
the older, inner-ring suburbs surrounding Chicago and
Boston, in desirable urban neighborhoods in Atlanta
and Denver, in the “techno-boom” towns around San
Francisco and Seattle, in conveniently-located
commuter suburbs in New Jersey and Maryland, and in
historic resort towns from Palm Beach to Palm Springs.
In some communities the practice is just beginning. In Neighborhood experiencing teardowns. Small,
other places, the trend has become so firmly older homes are often demolished and replaced with
entrenched that it is not uncommon to see older homes a new house three times the size of any existing
demolished almost daily. house on the block. Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine.
Once teardowns start, they proliferate. “It’s a trend that
keeps on rolling,” says a New Jersey builder. “Builders
used to be afraid to be the first person in a
neighborhood to tear a house down. But now they’re
looking around and saying they don’t mind taking the Teardown Terminology.
risk.”1 To date, the National Trust has documented
more than 100 communities in 20 states that are A variety of names are being used to describe
experiencing significant numbers of teardowns. the teardown trend. Some focus on the drastic
change that teardowns bring to neighborhoods,
What is a Teardown? while others indicate the overwhelming size of
The term “teardown” refers to the practice of the new homes being built. The list of terms
demolishing an existing house to make way for a includes:
dramatically larger new house on the same site.
♦ “Bash and Builds” and “Bigfoots” (often
Here’s how the practice typically works: Developers heard in northern New Jersey)
look for properties in established neighborhoods where ♦ “Scrape-Offs” and “Pop-Tops” (common
there is a potential to build far more square footage terms in Denver)
than is contained in the existing home. The existing ♦ “Knockdowns,” “Bulldozers,” “Scrapers”
house is purchased and bulldozed, the lot is scraped ♦ “Snout Houses” (garage-dominated homes
clean, a much larger new house is erected, and the in Portland, Ore.)
completed project is offered for sale. Variations exist: In ♦ “Trophy Homes,” “Starter Castles,” “Big-Box
some cases, large estates are subdivided and leveled to Victorians” and “Pink Palaces”
make way for two or more new homes, while in other
♦ “Tara on a Quarter-Acre”
instances several smaller houses are cleared to provide
space for one massive, single-family home. In most ♦ “Monster Homes” and “McMansions”
teardown situations the existing house is removed
completely, though occasionally a small portion is left
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 4

standing, engulfed by new construction. As more

houses are purchased and demolished and massive
new homes take their place, the character of a
neighborhood is permanently changed.

Historic Neighborhoods are Teardown Targets

The impact of teardowns is especially disturbing in
historic neighborhoods, whether these areas are
officially designated historic or are potentially eligible for
such designation at the federal, state or local level.
Built before the automobile became dominant in
American cities, these urban neighborhoods and inner-
ring suburbs are highly prized for their pedestrian
orientation, convenient location near mass transit lines,
attractive tree-lined streets, historic residential
architecture, public amenities such as parks and
libraries, local shopping districts and good schools. “Scrape-Off.” Older house recently demolished and
Many of them are stable and nearly built out, with lot graded to street level. Photo: Adrian Scott Fine
relatively few houses for sale and even fewer lots
available for construction of new homes. With many
people wanting to move into such desirable areas but
also preferring large new houses, the pressure for PART II: THE IMPACT OF TEARDOWNS
teardowns can be intense. ON HISTORIC PLACES
As cities evolve and grow, the periodic replacement of
outdated and inefficient structures is both inevitable
and desirable. Tearing down an older building that
lacks historic significance or architectural distinction
can be appropriate and positive, especially in areas that
are not historic. Even in historic neighborhoods,
structures that do not contribute to the overall character
of the area may be candidates for replacement with
higher-quality, better-designed buildings. In recent
years, however, demolitions have often been as hasty
and ill-considered as in the heyday of urban renewal in
the 1950s and 1960s. Today’s teardown trend is
another example of how we sometimes carelessly throw
Teardown Target. Modest historic houses located on away our valuable heritage in the name of progress and
large lots are typical targets, such as this Craftsmen change.
style bungalow. Photo: Patricia Lake
Teardowns’ impact on historic neighborhoods is twofold.
First, as fine historic homes are reduced to rubble to
It is common to find teardowns concentrated in areas make way for much larger new houses, the architectural
where the homes are relatively small, typically featuring heritage of our communities is eroded. Second, the
two or three bedrooms and ranging from 1,000 to massive, out-of-scale structures that are built to replace
1,800 square feet. Many of these homes were built in older homes do not fit well in historic neighborhoods
the early 20th century, when a growing economy and and threaten the very qualities that make these
more accessible lending policies allowed large numbers neighborhoods attractive and desirable.
of city-dwellers to buy private homes for the first time.
Lot sizes in these areas vary from 5,000 to 10,000
square feet, with the house typically covering only 20
percent of the lot. With today’s preference for larger
homes, many older neighborhoods are considered
underbuilt.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 5
Aren’t Historic Properties Protected from
Teardowns?
Although it is frequently assumed that properties and
districts that are designated “historic” are protected
from demolition, this is often not the case. Historic
designation at the federal level, through the National
Register of Historic Places, offers recognition and some
financial incentives for preservation, but such listing
does not prevent private owners from demolishing their
homes. The same is generally true for properties listed
on state registers of historic places. Real protection for
historic properties comes with local designation,
typically through historic preservation ordinances that
have been enacted in some 2,500 communities around
the nation. The level of protection provided by these
ordinances varies greatly. Many ordinances are simply
advisory or can only delay proposed demolitions
temporarily, and their effectiveness may be
compromised by shifts in the local political climate.
Demolition in Progress. Increasing numbers of
historic properties are being lost to the wrecking ball
Photo: David Swift
Although many of the neighborhoods threatened by
teardowns are considered historic, most of these areas
currently lack designation of any type. There are many
reasons for this, including the fact that some of these
areas have not been adequately studied and
documented.2 Historic designation is often not
seriously considered until a threat emerges and
demolitions begin to occur. In addition, many local
governments are stretching their resources to manage
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
existing historic districts and have not had the time,
funding or staffing needed to survey and designate
additional historic neighborhoods. As a result, great
numbers of historic places – ranging from Victorian
neighborhoods in Staten Island, N. Y., to Craftsmen-style
bungalow enclaves in Santa Monica, Calif. – are
essentially unprotected and vulnerable to future
teardowns.
Teardowns are Destroying Architectural
Heritage
As the teardown trend continues, increasing numbers of
historic properties are being lost to the wrecking ball.
The losses usually start slowly, with the demolition of a
few homes scattered through the neighborhood. If
teardowns are allowed to continue, a domino effect
often takes over, and entire blocks of smaller historic
homes can disappear in the course of a building
season. Lost in the process are the types of houses
that define the common, vernacular architectural
heritage of a community. These include early 20th-
century lake cottages in Minneapolis, Queen Anne
homes in Seattle, Prairie-style bungalows in the Chicago
suburbs, Colonial Revival houses near Washington, D.C.
and early Modernist designs in Connecticut and
California.
In addition, many noteworthy landmarks have been
demolished and replaced:
♦ In Palo Alto, Calif., an 1899 Craftsman-style house
designed by Julia Morgan, architect of San Simeon
and California’s first woman architect, was
demolished.
♦ In the Main Line suburbs outside Philadelphia, a
1905 home that was one of the finest remaining
residential structures designed by Horace
Trumbauer, architect of the Philadelphia Art
Museum, was bulldozed.
♦ In the Chicago suburb of Winnetka, a rare pre-Civil
War house was purchased for $12 million and
leveled by a new owner who planned a vast luxury
home but has since moved to California.
♦ In North Hempstead, N. Y., the Tristram Dodge
House, built in 1719 and once owned by members
of the Astor family, is proposed for a “scrape-off.”
♦ In Tenafly, N. J., the historic 1909 Hensel House
was demolished in 2000. This American
Foursquare-style house on a one-acre lot was
considered one of the most significant in Tenafly,
but developer Steve Konefsky said, “I don’t look at
this house as being historic. I look at it as being a
potentially unique situation for subdividing that is
allowable by ordinance.”3
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 6
Teardowns also are seen in residential areas developed
after World War II. Early postwar homes were fairly
small and located on spacious lots – perfect teardown
targets in today’s real estate market. While the vast
majority of homes in these areas are not yet considered
historic by most people, an increasing number of
neighborhoods and individual homes from the 1950s
and 1960s are being recognized for their architectural
and historic significance. In California, homes in 1950s
subdivisions designed by Joseph Eichler are now
coveted like classic cars. These homes are fairly small
by today’s new home standards, however, and
controversies have erupted over recent teardowns and
large additions in Eichler neighborhoods. “In the next
five years, a lot of this 50s stuff will be gone,” says
Kevin Tremble, chair of the Tenafly [N. J.] Historic
Preservation Commission.
Modern homes designed by some of the 20th century’s
best-known architects have been lost to teardowns. For
example:
♦ In New Canaan, Conn., more than a dozen classic
1950s modernist homes designed by architects
such as Marcel Breuer have been razed and
replaced by sprawling new homes.
♦ In Rancho Mirage, Calif., a museum-quality, 5,000-
square-foot home designed in 1962 by famed
architect Richard Neutra was demolished without
warning by its new owners, who plan to build an
even larger new home.
♦ Even the work of Frank Lloyd Wright is at risk. In the
close-in Chicago suburb of Bannockburn, a spacious
house designed by Wright in 1956 was purchased
last year by an owner who announced plans to
demolish it and build new. Fortunately, the ensuing
public outcry resulted in the sale of the house to a
preservation-minded buyer.
How Oversized New Houses
are Damaging Historic Neighborhoods
The damage caused by teardowns in historic
neighborhoods only begins with the demolition of
historic houses. What comes next can be even more
destructive: the construction of new, oversized
structures that disrupt architectural character, diminish
livability and reduce economic and social diversity
throughout the neighborhood.
In neighborhoods experiencing teardowns, it is not
uncommon for small, older houses to be demolished
and replaced with new houses three times the size of
any existing home on the block. This greatly increased
square footage frequently results in tall, bulky
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
structures that loom over adjacent houses and break
the established building patterns of the area. “When
you inject one of these McMansions into the middle of
this otherwise homogeneous neighborhood, it sticks out
like a sore thumb,” Robert Griffin, former president of
the Bergen County Historical Society, told the Bergen
Record in a story about teardowns in New Jersey, a
state where homes are 25 percent larger than the
national average.4 The size of these new homes
reflects American consumers’ appetite for more and
more special amenities, greater interior space and
bigger garages. Though it may not last indefinitely, the
current trend toward larger homes is difficult to
accommodate in historic neighborhoods where space is
limited.
Out of Scale. Tall, bulky new homes often loom over
adjacent, historic houses. Photo: Adrian Scott Fine
The livability of historic neighborhoods is eroded when
new houses are built out to the lot lines, all but
eliminating side and back yards. In many cases, mature
trees and landscaping are cut down to make way for
these massive new houses, which block sunlight to
neighboring yards and cast permanent shadows onto
adjacent homes. When homeowner Jeannene
Przyblyski learned that a large new structure was
proposed next door to her home outside San Francisco,
she said to the developer, “What you’re telling me is
that the rear of my house, my deck and garden will
effectively become the lightwell for your building.”5
The new mini-castles often seem like stand-alone
developments, their plans oriented to private interior
spaces rather than the community life of front porches
and sidewalks. A report on teardowns prepared for the
City of Geneva, Ill., noted that large replacement homes
“tend to be somewhat isolating, like fortresses … in
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 7
some instances, they may actually discourage
neighborhood interaction.”6
The automobile orientation of many of these homes is
particularly damaging to neighborhood character. In
many older neighborhoods, garages and driveways are
located off rear service alleys; front yards are kept free
of driveways and cars, creating a pleasant environment
for porch-sitting, walking and socializing. All too often,
the new homes being built in historic neighborhoods
today are designed in accordance with car-oriented
subdivision formulas: Front yards are given over to
driveways and house facades are dominated by garage
doors rather than porches. Some communities have
taken steps to address the impact of front garages on
historic neighborhoods. In Portland, Ore.,the so-called
“snout” house, with its protruding, front-facing garage
doors, was banned from the city’s older neighborhoods
in 1999. “We are not anti-automobile so much as we
are pro-pedestrian,” says a Portland city planner.7
Teardowns Reduce Affordable Housing
and Community Diversity
In addition to their negative impact on architecture and
neighborhood character, teardowns can greatly alter the
economic and social balance of historic communities.
One of the great attributes of older neighborhoods is
that they are built in a way that encourages people of
different ages, household types, income levels and
cultures to live together. The existence of small homes,
“granny flats,” basement apartments and carriage
houses fosters diversity in historic neighborhoods.
Without careful integration into an established
neighborhood, teardowns eliminate many of these
housing options, including affordable houses that
previously allowed many young families a chance at
homeownership. Once known as “starter homes,” these
modest but sturdy bungalows, Cape Cods, Colonials,
ranches and other all-American house types are now
seen as “teardown targets.” In some communities
experiencing teardowns, the starter house has become
an endangered species.
For communities that are concerned only with the
bottom line, the teardown trend may have a short-term
payoff in that property tax revenues often increase
temporarily. These higher taxes, however, can be
enough to drive out many single households, moderate-
income families and older homeowners living on fixed
incomes. When Elaine Kadish of Englewood, N. J., saw
her property taxes rise 40 percent in a single year, she
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Before
After
Change in Character. Replacement houses are often
more automobile oriented, with front yards given over to
driveways. Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine
had to sell the Victorian home she had lived in for years
– only to see it to become a teardown. A Palisades
Park, N. J., developer finds this process beneficial,
providing a kind of social service. “The old people can
get a good price and move somewhere else where they
can afford to live,” he says.8
Many long-time residents of historic neighborhoods are
afraid that teardowns will turn formerly mixed-income
communities into homogeneous, upper-class enclaves.
In the Boston suburb of Arlington, Selectman Charles
Lyons proposed a task force to look at teardowns and
affordable housing, saying, “Down the road, I don’t want
my children and their children raised in a community
where you have to be upper middle-class to live.”9
Losing Control of the Neighborhood
As teardowns advance, property owners may feel
powerless to intervene or have a say in how their
historic neighborhood changes. Often it seems that the
developers and builders have taken control of the
community. In neighborhoods where the home market
is extremely tight, houses simply transfer quietly to
developers instead of going up for sale. Some owners
are solicited through mail and telephone by realtors
encouraging them to sell to a developer who plans a
teardown. A Chicago builder says, “We do everything
imaginable, including scanning the classified pages of
newspapers, driving around neighborhoods, and
knocking on doors.”10 A resident of Chevy Chase, Md.,
remembers when teardowns first arrived. “As the real
estate market took off, several agents began their
assault on our neighborhood. Our smaller houses came
down and Big Box Victorians sprouted up all over the
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 8
place.” She adds, “I am saddened that it is the
realtor/developers dictating the size, scale, and
massing of these new homes and shaping the future of
our community, and not WE the community who are
determining our own future.”11
Without careful management and planning by residents
and government leaders who have a long-term
investment in the community, the teardown epidemic
threatens to destroy the very qualities that have made
historic neighborhoods so attractive over the years.
Unfortunately, some places have already passed the
point of no return. In these communities, streets are
cluttered with a jumble of oversized monster houses
sitting uncomfortably next to forlorn-looking older
homes waiting for the wrecking ball. Increasingly,
historic houses look out of place in these
neighborhoods, whose character and charm have been
irreparably damaged. Most long-time residents have
left.
The good news is that in most communities it is not too
late to stop teardowns. Residents and community
leaders still have a chance to develop alternatives to
teardowns, to guide development and change in ways
that respect the historic character and diversity of their
older neighborhoods, and to ensure the long-term
sustainability of their communities. The following
sections are intended to help arm neighborhood
residents, preservationists and local government
officials with information and tools to stem the
teardown epidemic.
PART III: WHAT HAS CAUSED
THE TEARDOWN EPIDEMIC?
What caused the teardown trend to spread so quickly
across the country over the past few years? Is it likely
to continue, or will it slow down? The answers to these
questions are still being sorted out, but it is clear that
several major economic, demographic and market
trends have conspired to bring intense development
pressure to certain older neighborhoods. A better
understanding of these trends may lead us to solutions
that encourage investment in historic neighborhoods
without sacrificing their historic character, diversity and
affordability.
Here are some of the factors influencing the teardown
trend nationally:
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Before
After
Stand-Alone Houses. New, oversized structures can
radically disrupt the character of a historic
neighborhood. Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine
Rising Real Estate Prices
Perhaps the key factor contributing to the teardown
trend has been the booming economy, which took off in
the early 1990s and helped spark a rapid rise in real
estate prices. Increased demand and historically low
interest rates also helped keep home prices moving up.
According to a recent report from the Joint Center for
Housing Studies at Harvard University, housing prices
have outpaced inflation by sixteen percent since
1993.12 In some of the hottest metropolitan markets,
home values have doubled and even tripled over the
last decade. Even during the recent economic
slowdown, housing prices have continued to climb.13
Rising residential real estate values have led developers
to look for “undervalued” properties, including those
that are located in stable, older neighborhoods in urban
centers and inner-ring suburbs. Many of these
undervalued properties are teardown targets. In
addition, sellers in the current hot market are pocketing
considerable capital gains to invest in their next home.
With extra cash in hand, many people are buying as
much house as they can afford, hoping to ride the
“equity wave” that has been so powerful in recent years.
This increases the demand for larger homes.
The Supersizing of the American House
Like almost everything else in today’s society, American
houses are getting bigger. In 1950, the average new
home incorporated 1,000 square feet, including two
bedrooms, one bath, a small living room, dining room
and kitchen. In 1970, the size of new homes had
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 9
jumped to 1,500 square feet. Last year, the average
new home measured 2,265 square feet and included
three bedrooms, two baths and a two-car garage.14
While that is the average size of new homes, many
houses are being built at a far grander scale. According
to the National Association of Homebuilders, eighteen
percent of the houses built in 2001 (more than
200,000 houses) provided at least 3,000 square feet of
living space. New subdivisions of luxury homes
reaching 5,000 square feet and up are commonplace
on the edges of most cities. The list of desired features
in new homes has changed as well, and now includes
amenities such as great rooms, kitchen islands, spa
bathrooms, his-and-hers walk-in closets, home offices,
nanny suites, media rooms and multi-car attached
garages. Seventeen percent of American homes now
have garage space for at least three cars.15
Recent experience in many communities shows that it is
the larger homes – 3,000 square feet and more, with
plenty of amenities – that are typically being built on the
site of teardowns. Many older homes do not meet
today’s average new-home standards and few offer the
amenities of the large new luxury houses. Will American
houses keep getting bigger? Perhaps not. “America’s
long-running love affair with big houses may finally be
fizzling,” notes a recent Wall Street Journal Online
report on how homebuilders are beginning to offer
smaller designs that are more compatible with older
neighborhoods.16 The popularity of Minneapolis
architect Sarah Susanka’s book, The Not So Big House,
is another indicator that bigger is not better for every
household today.17 And it shouldn’t be forgotten that
historic homes, including small ones, maintain a strong
market appeal of their own. Architectural detailing,
high-quality materials, craftsmanship, historic character,
charm – these qualities still matter to many buyers
looking for homes in historic neighborhoods.
Back to the City (and Older Suburbs)
After years of losing residents to the suburbs, some of
the nation’s largest cities experienced net population
increases in the last decade, many for the first time
since before World War II. 2000 Census figures show
that thirty-five of the fifty largest American cities gained
residents between 1990 and 2000.18 The potential
significance of the urban market is indicated by the fact
that the National Association of Homebuilders recently
prepared a study called The Next Frontier: Building
Homes in American Cities that cites a number of
reasons for the interest in city living: “Some are looking
to cities again because of their proximity to jobs,
shopping and urban amenities. Some are looking to
cities because of the great energy, history and sense of
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
place. And some are looking to cities to escape the long
commutes associated with suburban living. Regardless
of the reason, it is clear that the market for urban
housing is gaining momentum.”19
The influx of new residents to cities is surely a welcome
trend to preservationists. But unless it is managed well,
this trend may also increase the pressure for teardowns
in convenient, established urban neighborhoods and
close-in suburbs. A key question is whether those
people who are moving into historic areas will insist on
incompatible, out-of-scale suburban building styles or
adapt to the traditional patterns of older neighborhoods.
To make the most of the emerging “back to the city”
movement, local governments and nonprofit groups
must encourage the rehabilitation and development of
additional urban and inner-suburban neighborhoods.
This would provide more housing choices for future
buyers and take away some of the pressure for
teardowns in established neighborhoods.
The Attraction of Historic Neighborhoods
Almost without exception, population increases and
urban revitalization are happening in exactly those
places where local residents and preservationists have
been successful in protecting the high-quality
architecture, mature landscaping and pedestrian
orientation of traditional, historic neighborhoods. “The
most important factor in urban revitalization [is] the
folks of all ages and social classes who never gave up
on their old neighborhoods, who rolled up their sleeves
to hold the line on urban decay, and who ultimately
brought real improvements to their communities” notes
Peter Katz, a real estate consultant and writer on urban
development.20
In those historic neighborhoods where teardowns have
now begun, residents and preservationists must feel
Domino Effect. It may be only a matter of time before
the historic house next door becomes a teardown.
Photo: Adrian Scott Fine
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 10

like victims of their own success. As residents come

back to many cities, historic neighborhoods without
adequate protections in place will continue to be Before
teardown targets. Along with stronger protections to
prevent demolitions and out-of-scale additions,
preservationists must seek “win-win” solutions by
identifying appropriate infill sites and developing flexible
guidelines to encourage compatible new construction.

What Baby Boomers Want

Members of the massive baby boom generation (born
between 1946 and 1964) head 40 percent of American
households and control 70 percent of the nation’s
wealth (cite). The tastes and preferences of this
generation will certainly influence housing trends in
coming years. Last year, the first group of baby
boomers turned 55; by 2010 there will be an estimated
37 million “boomers” 55 or older.21 Their children, the
“echo boomers,” are now becoming young adults and
After
are expected to be starting families during this same
period.

The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard

University predicts: “With many of the baby boomers
becoming empty-nesters and their children starting to
marry, the fastest growing household type will be
married couples without minor children living at
home.”22 For these empty-nesters, housing choices will
be determined less by factors such as school districts
and yard size and more by convenience, weather and
proximity to cultural and recreational amenities.
Attractive urban neighborhoods and lively downtown
areas are likely to become preferred home locations for
many empty-nesters in coming years. Many of their
children, meanwhile, will be seeking starter homes in
older suburban areas. If not managed carefully, the
teardown trend threatens to negatively impact both of Bigger Houses. New houses being built on the site
these potential future markets. of teardowns are typically 3,000 sq. ft. or larger.
Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine

PART IV: THE ECONOMICS OF
TEARDOWNS
At first glance, the idea of a teardown defies common
sense. Why would someone pay hundreds of thousands
of dollars – in some cases even millions of dollars – to
buy a house, only to tear it down? The answer is that
the buyers of these properties are not buying houses,
they are buying land – or “buildable lots,” to use real
estate terminology. The existing houses on these lots
become almost incidental when the value of the land is
actually higher than the value of the house that sits on
it.
Lot values are determined in part by physical features
and size, but even more by location. In real estate, the
most important quality of a property is how things look
next door and across the street. We all know that
waterfront properties command greater prices than lots
a block or two away. Similarly, a quarter-acre lot in a
conveniently located, well-kept neighborhood with good
schools is worth more than a similar lot in a
neighborhood that does not have those qualities. Add
amenities such as historic architecture, mature trees
and traditional pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, and
the land value goes even higher. The final factor in

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND


determining land values is how a site is zoned: what
size and type of structure can be built on the property.
If the value of the land exceeds the value of the house
that sits on it, then a teardown scenario begins to make
economic sense. “A house is most likely a goner if the
property it’s on is worth far more than the structure,”
says a recent BusinessWeek Online article on the
teardown trend.23
The Rule of Three
Real estate agents and developers talk about the “Rule
of Three” when it comes to teardowns. If you can sell a
finished new home for about three times what you paid
for the property, the conventional wisdom goes, then a
teardown will pay off. Consider a hypothetical “hot”
neighborhood where houses are selling for $200 per
square foot. Average new construction costs in the
same neighborhood are $100 per square foot. A
developer finds a 1,350- square-foot 1920s house and
purchases it for $270,000. He then pays $30,000 to
demolish the house, spends another $400,000 to build
a new 4,000-square-foot house and sells it for
$800,000 – just about three times what he paid for the
property. After deducting $700,000 for the costs of
acquisition, demolition and construction, the developer
is left with a handsome $100,000 profit.
The Rule of Three is particularly important for
communities to keep in mind when thinking about how
to slow the teardown trend. Using various tools to limit
house sizes to less than three times the size of existing
homes will make teardowns far less attractive
economically, especially for speculators.
The Influence of Speculators
“People have a right to tear down their house if they
want to,” is one comment often heard when the
teardown issue is discussed. But that is not what is
really happening. Only a tiny fraction of teardowns are
carried out by the long-time owners of the houses being
demolished. A somewhat larger number of teardowns
are “custom” jobs, paid for by new residents who have
recently purchased an existing home and have hired a
contractor to tear it down and build a new house for
them before they actually move into the neighborhood.
The majority of teardowns, according to many sources,
are the work of speculative developers. This comes as
no surprise. Once a few people started making money
doing teardowns, it didn’t take long for the real estate
and construction industry to catch on. The speculators
are often fairly small operators who have finally found a
way to get into the homebuilding game. Building homes
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
11
in new subdivisions takes major financial backing and is
generally carried out by large corporate builders.
Teardowns are different. All of the necessary
infrastructure is in place and developers can take on
one house at a time, building capital as they go. Still,
the profit margins from teardowns can be so appealing
that larger entities are starting to get involved. For
example, in the Dallas suburb of Highland Park, a local
builders’ association recently purchased thirty large
historic homes and has begun tearing them down to
make way for even larger new luxury homes of 5,000
square feet and more.
When the Ride is Over
“If you see a wave of teardowns in your area, enjoy the
ride, because it may not last,” warns a BusinessWeek
Online report. “In such neighborhoods, builders often
do the teardowns and put up new houses on spec. To
make money, they have to build houses that are more
expensive than others in the area. As long as those new
houses keep selling, they pull up prices of existing
properties. But when the market says enough already,
builders pull out and the merry-go-round stops.”24
This is the economic downside of the teardown trend.
Once the houses in a neighborhood are seen as mere
buildable lots rather than homes, the tendency is for
people to move out of older properties as quickly as
possible. Prices for viable historic homes usually hit a
ceiling at this point or even start to decline, and
properties once praised by realtors as “charming and
historic” are now described as “older home on
expansive lot” – realtor code for a potential teardown.
“Any historic house that comes on the market now has
a deep discount because it is old,” said Jean Follett, a
historic preservation commission member in Hinsdale,
Ill., where teardowns have consumed 20 percent of the
historic housing stock.25 The attractiveness and lasting
economic value of historic neighborhoods can be
permanently lost if the teardown syndrome is allowed to
progress beyond the point of no return.
The boom-and-bust cycle of teardown zones stands in
marked contrast to the steady appreciation of property
values seen in neighborhoods protected by local historic
district designation. Dozens of economic studies have
shown that property values in historic districts
consistently increase – and moreover, they rise at a
faster rate than properties in similar, but unprotected,
neighborhoods nearby.26
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

PART V: ARE TEARDOWNS SMART
GROWTH?
Some have argued that teardowns represent a kind of
“smart growth” that brings density back to cities and
helps prevent suburban sprawl, but this is often not the
case. Tearing down a smaller existing house to build a
larger new one simply adds square footage, not
population density. In fact, as increasing numbers of
modest, affordable homes suitable for young families
are removed from the urban inventory, densities in
some neighborhoods may actually be decreasing due to
teardowns.
There is no question that the revitalization of existing
urban areas is one of the most effective weapons in the
fight against sprawl, since re-densifying cities reduces
the pressure to continually expand the suburban
frontier. Cities need new residents and new investment
to stay healthy, but new investment in existing
neighborhoods need not come at the cost of the
community’s heritage and character.
Compatible Infill: the Win-Win Solution
Often, a teardown is a missed opportunity for true smart
growth. Rather than demolishing older homes, new infill
development can be inserted sensitively into the urban
fabric. As the National Association of Homebuilders
states in The Next Frontier: Building Homes in American
Cities:
“Revitalizing older suburban and inner city markets
and encouraging infill development is universally
accepted as good public policy. Infill development,
done wisely, can take advantage of existing
infrastructure; provide higher densities in locations
where mass transportation is already in place; and
integrate new housing into the fabric of the
community.”27
The promise of infill development is based on the
recognition that open land and development
opportunities abound in most cities. Potential infill sites
range from scattered individual parcels and old parking
lots to large swaths that were cleared as part of urban
renewal in the 1960s, such as the Midtown
neighborhoods in Memphis, where hundreds of new
houses are now being built. Obsolete freeways are
being removed to make way for new infill development
in places such as Boston, Milwaukee and San
Francisco. In Denver, two old airfields within the city
limits – Lowry Air Force Base and Stapleton airport –
are being redeveloped as urban neighborhoods, each
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
12
New Houses that Fit the Neighborhood. 5000 block
of Munger Place Historic District in Dallas. Photo: Nancy
McCoy
with thousands of new homes, schools, offices and
businesses.
Brownfields are another major infill opportunity. These
include sites of old gas stations, dry cleaners and larger
industrial operations that can be cleaned up and made
ready for new uses, including housing. A survey by the
U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that there are more
than 18,000 brownfield sites covering 81,000 acres
with potential for urban redevelopment.28 In Pittsburgh,
for example, a former industrial site is being
redeveloped to create a new urban neighborhood of
700 homes and apartments.
Such large urban infill parcels provide opportunities for
the construction of entire new neighborhoods to help
knit cities back together, increase urban densities,
provide more affordable housing and add vitality and
activity. Fewer large parcels of open land are typically
available in older suburban areas. In these areas, the
challenge is to insert well-designed individual infill
housing into the existing neighborhood fabric and to
encourage sensitive additions to existing properties.
Typical modern suburban building formulas don’t make
sense in historic neighborhoods because they break
with the pedestrian orientation of communities that
were laid out before cars began to dominate the
landscape. Along with maintaining a pedestrian-friendly
appearance, the other key issue in most neighborhood
infill situations is scale. No amount of period detailing
can lessen the impact of a new home that is simply too
big for its site. Building height, width, setback, lot
coverage – these are the elements that must be in
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

keeping with existing patterns. New architectural styles
and innovative designs can often fit in well among older
homes if the scale and orientation are compatible.
Rebuilding to Scale. New infill, American Foursquare
style house in Munger Place Historic District in Dallas.
Photo: Nancy McCoy
The Tradition of Additions
Americans have a long history of altering the homes
they live in to meet changing needs. The ability to
expand an older house can be a deciding factor in
whether a family stays in an older neighborhood or
moves to the far suburbs. As with new infill projects,
the key to achieving compatible additions is scale.
Additions that triple the size of existing houses are
difficult to do well. Usually the older home is left
standing in front, practically a façade, while the new
addition looms behind. In Aspen, where massive, high-
ceilinged additions stick out behind tiny old miner’s
shacks, these are called “bustle houses” for their
resemblance to the large, padded dresses that women
once wore. A compatible addition is usually not larger
than the size of the existing house and should be
designed to avoid the appearance of adding one large
mass. Thousands of compatible additions have been
completed in historic districts around the country in the
last few decades, guided by the advice of citizen
commissions, professional architects and planning
staff.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
13
PART VI: TOOLS TO TAME THE
TEARDOWN TREND
Those who live in neighborhoods affected by the
teardown trend often feel powerless. How can private
homeowners stop the developers and contractors who
roam their streets, looking for their next “teardown
target?” How can residents speak out against the size
of houses that their new neighbors have chosen to live
in? Local government leaders are also torn. What is
the right balance between protecting historic character
and respecting private property rights? What is the best
way to limit the size of new homes without turning away
new investment?
Planning Ahead
An important first step is to initiate dialogue about the
future of the community and what residents want it to
look like. Opinion surveys, town meetings, focus groups
and interviews with key leaders and neighborhood
representatives are some of the ways to build
consensus about the future. The goal is to develop a
common vision. “We’re an old community that has
been rediscovered,” said an Oak Park, Ill., village
trustee at a recent meeting about the teardown trend.
“We have to decide what we like about the community,
what character the village should protect.”29
Ideally, these conversations about the future occur as
part of a comprehensive planning process, but that is
often not possible in a reasonable time frame. In
places where the pace of teardowns has already
reached a crisis point, it may be necessary to provide a
“cooling-off” period by imposing a temporary
moratorium on teardowns, to allow time for the
community to develop a consensus about what to do.
Some local governments have appointed task forces or
committees to look at the impact of teardowns and
possible solutions. To help build trust and ease the
tensions that typically arise over the teardown issue, it
is important to involve a range of stakeholders in these
discussions, including neighborhood groups,
preservationists, architects, builders, developers and
realtors.
Some cities have responded to the teardown threat by
organizing community design “charrettes” and
“visioning” workshops, where architects and planners
help sketch out alternative development scenarios for
residents to consider. It may be helpful to use models
or computer simulation software to prepare a “build-
out” diagram showing the extent to which each property
could be developed under the current zoning
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

regulations. These diagrams can be a shock to long-
time residents and often lead to calls for more careful
management of future development.
Before proceeding with specific strategies, it is often
useful to conduct an “audit” of current development
policies and their effects – positive or negative – on the
teardown trend. This will help identify problem areas
that need to be addressed before engaging in the
debate over specific solutions. Many zoning codes
include language that was developed in the 1950s and
1960s to guide the development of booming postwar
subdivisions. These codes often contain outdated
construction standards that may allow or even
encourage design that is not compatible with the
character of historic neighborhoods. Revisions to these
standards can help make new construction more
compatible and prevent some teardowns.
Communities across the country are using a variety of
specific tools – some new, others well-tested -- in their
efforts to tame the teardown trend. These tools
generally slow teardowns in one of two ways:
♦ by reducing or eliminating the economic pressure
for teardowns through changes to zoning
regulations that limit the square footage that can be
built on a given lot, or
♦ by encouraging compatible design through various
means, including new construction standards,
design review procedures, special neighborhood
“overlay” districts, financial incentives and
education programs.
These tools can be combined and packaged for
implementation at a citywide scale though zoning code
revisions or improved development standards, or at the
neighborhood level through targeted zoning overlay
districts of various types.
Following are descriptions of some of the most common
responses to the teardown trend, along with brief
commentary on the effectiveness of each tool. Because
there is no “magic bullet” that will stop teardowns,
communities should expect to use a variety of
strategies, perhaps combining several of the tools
described below.
Demolition Moratoriums and Delays
It is particularly upsetting to long-time residents when a
historic home is demolished without warning. Left
behind is a lingering sense that the house might have
been saved – if only there had been adequate notice
and more time to develop alternatives. A demolition
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
14
moratorium makes it illegal to demolish properties in
the community or neighborhood during a defined
period, usually from six months to a year. This buys
time for residents and local governments to develop
permanent policies to better manage development and
limit teardowns. Demolition-delay ordinances establish
a required waiting period (90 days up to one year is
typical) before demolition permits are issued for specific
properties. This allows time for community input and
the development of alternatives. In Newton, Mass., a
one-year demolition delay period was instituted to slow
the pace of teardowns. In Highland Park, Ill., the delay
period is specifically used to determine whether a
property is historic and merits preservation.
Comments. This approach is most appropriate in
communities where the pace of teardowns is
accelerating and few, if any, management tools are
in place. Moratoriums and delays must have
defined and reasonable time frames to avoid legal
challenges. The definition of “demolition” must be
clear so as to avoid “alterations” where all but a few
exterior walls are bulldozed. Penalties must be
severe enough to discourage violations.
Moving Threatened Homes
Moving threatened historic homes is a last resort that
should be considered only when all other options have
failed to protect the property. If possible, endangered
homes should be moved to nearby lots within the
neighborhood that are similar to their original location in
setting, orientation and surrounding architectural
character. Examples of successfully moved-in historic
houses may be found in the Munger Place Historic
District in Dallas and in Glencoe, Illinois.
Comments. Moved homes can make attractive,
compatible infill projects if handled sensitively. If
employed too often or easily, however, this option
can become a habit and the re-shuffling of
properties eventually creates a confused and false
sense of neighborhood history.
Historic Districts
First enacted in the 1930s, local historic districts have
now been established in more than 2,500 communities
across the nation to protect historic sites and
neighborhoods from demolition, insensitive alterations
and out-of-character new construction. About 75
percent of local historic district ordinances include
design guidelines that provide specific information on
how to build compatible, appropriately-scaled additions
and infill structures. Many historic district ordinances in
large cities include the authority to deny demolition of
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

significant structures. In many suburban communities,
however, ordinances are simply advisory or provide only
temporary demolition delays. Historic districts are a
type of zoning overlay, meaning that they are added to
the underlying zoning regulations, which remain in
effect. Well-known historic districts include Georgetown
in Washington, D.C., Society Hill in Philadelphia and the
Garden District in New Orleans.
Comments: This approach can provide the most
complete protection for historic properties,
including the power to deny demolition as well as
mandatory review and approval of all exterior
alterations, additions and new infill construction –
but it requires significant staff resources to
administer effectively, especially in large
neighborhoods. In many older neighborhoods, all
blocks may not meet eligibility standards, resulting
in a patchwork of protected and unprotected
properties. Considerable time will likely be required
to research eligible properties, establish proposed
boundaries and win political approval.
Neighborhood of Bungalows. Historic District in
Denver. Photo: Jim Lindberg
Conservation Districts
Like historic districts, conservation districts are usually
a type of zoning overlay, with boundaries that define a
specific area or neighborhood that exhibits certain
shared physical characteristics and development
patterns. Conservation districts generally provide for
review of demolitions and other major changes to
existing properties, such as large additions.
Conservation districts can be tailored to meet individual
neighborhood needs and typically include design
guidelines for front and side setbacks, building height
and width, roof pitch and garage location. Generally not
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
15
included in conservation district ordinances are the
“fine grain” design review items that appear in
traditional historic district ordinances, such as windows,
doors, trim, building materials, etc. About two dozen
cities around the country have active, well-established
conservation district programs. They are known by a
variety of names: “Special Planning Districts” in
Phoenix, “Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts”
in Raleigh, N. C., and “Historic Conservation Districts”
in Memphis, for example.
Comments: Conservation districts address issues
such as demolition and oversized new construction
with less administrative burden than historic
districts. Boundaries and eligibility criteria can be
more inclusive than traditional historic districts.
While it is likely to encounter less political
resistance than historic district designation, this
approach may lead to calls for loosening of design
review in nearby traditional historic districts.
Design Review
Several communities have tried to address the impact
of oversized new houses by imposing a design-review
zoning overlay that is not necessarily tied to the historic
character of the neighborhood. “Urban design districts”
or “design overlay districts” allow staff to review major
development proposals and suggest ways to improve
their appearance and compatibility with existing
structures. Design review may be triggered when
projects exceed a certain size, or it may be required in
exchange for allowing slightly larger square footage.
The suburban community of Park Ridge, Ill., developed
an “Appearance Code” that applies design review
criteria to all new home construction in the community.
Comments. While this approach can lead to
significant design improvements and compatibility,
it does not change the underlying zoning, so size
and scale may not be affected. It requires
significant administrative resources and staff with
design training.
Floor-Area-Ratios and Lot Coverage
Requirements
Traditionally used in commercial districts, the Floor-to-
Area-Ratio (FAR) concept is increasingly being applied in
residential areas to limit the size of homes relative to
the lots they occupy. Floor area ratios regulate the
amount of buildable floor area in relation to the size of
the lot. For example, a .6 FAR would allow a builder to
cover up to 60 percent of a lot with a one-story structure
or 30 percent of the lot with two stories. FAR definitions
may be included as part of citywide zoning changes or
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

written into overlay district language for specific
neighborhoods. Some cities have used maximum lot
coverage formulas to get at the same result as FARs.
These tools are most effective when used in
combination with other building standards, such as
setback requirements and height limits. To address
oversized new construction, the town of Gulf Stream,
Fla., developed the Gulf Stream Design Manual, which
combines FAR requirements and detailed design
standards.
Comments: These regulations directly address the
problem of overscaled new construction and can
eliminate the economic incentive for teardowns by
limiting new square footage, but they do not directly
prevent demolitions. Formulas for determining FAR
ratios can be cumbersome and difficult to calculate,
and a high level of administrative staff review is
needed.
Setbacks and Open Space Standards
Most city zoning codes stipulate a minimum distance
that new houses must be set back from the street.
These standard setbacks may not be in keeping with
historic patterns, however, allowing new construction to
break with the established line of older houses on a
block. Defining side and rear setback lines can also
limit the mass of new houses. Along with setbacks,
many communities require that a certain percentage of
a lot be maintained as “open space.” Often,
clarifications are needed to define whether driveways,
garages, window wells and porches qualify as open
space. As part of setback or open space requirements,
many zoning codes include language regarding garage
and driveway size and placement, landscaping and tree
preservation – all of which can be written or revised to
be compatible with historic development patterns
Comments: Like FARs and lot coverage ratios,
setbacks and open space requirements can be
effective ways to limit the scale of new construction
and maintain basic neighborhood building patterns.
They may create “nonconforming” properties,
meaning that owners of properties that do not meet
standards in their current state cannot make
changes without violating the zoning code.
Bulk Limits
Some communities have developed standards to
establish maximum “bulk planes” or “encroachment
planes” to limit the scale of new construction, lessen
impacts and insure that adequate air and sunlight reach
neighboring properties (“solar access ordinance” is
another term used). The formulas used to determine
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
16
bulk planes can be fairly complex, but they generally
work by defining the allowable dimensions of exterior
walls, roof heights and roof pitches.
Comments. Bulk limits can reduce the scale of new
construction and impacts on neighboring
properties. However, these limits do not insure
compatible design and may lead to awkward
attempts to “build to the rule” without considering
historic patterns. For instance, Denver’s current
standards encourage pitched roofs, but in doing so
also prohibit the traditional two-story, flat-roofed
“Denver Square” – one of the city’s most common
historic house types.
Development Incentives and Bonuses
A variety of incentives can be developed to encourage
compatible design and direct new construction toward
appropriate areas. Often, square footage bonuses are
provided for projects that include particularly
compatible features, such as front porches, detached
garages or the use of exterior brick. Incentives to allow
detached garage apartments (also known as “Accessory
Dwelling Units”) offer a number of advantages for most
historic neighborhoods: They increase square footage in
a way that maintains historic building patterns, provide
a potential source of income for the owners of the
primary dwelling on the lot, and increase the diversity of
housing options in the neighborhood. Seattle recently
passed an ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units
for single-family homes. In Portland, Ore., a higher
density of development is allowed on lots that have
been vacant for five years or more.
Comments. Incentives can be packaged to help
make other, more restrictive development
standards politically palatable. Experience in most
cities suggests that developers will use all
incentives available to achieve greater square
footage.
Downzowning
In many historic neighborhoods, a blanket of highly
permissive zoning was applied years ago to account for
the fact that older neighborhoods typically included a
mix of uses and building types. Where still in place
today, such blanket zoning allows “by right” a density of
development that is far greater than currently exists.
For example, a wall of large new duplexes might be
allowable on blocks that are currently all single-family.
Perhaps the quickest way to stop this is to change the
zoning to eliminate certain uses.
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

Comments: Downzoning reduces or eliminates the
economic incentive to demolish older homes for
large, multi-unit properties. It may create numerous
non-conforming properties, and may reduce
traditional neighborhood economic and
architectural diversity by eliminating rental and
mixed-use properties. It may be difficult to
accomplish politically, though prospects improve if
downzoning is part of comprehensive, citywide
zoning code revisions.
Easements and Covenants
Not all solutions require local government action. In
some communities, organizations have protected key
historic properties through easements and covenants.
These tools can prevent demolitions or overscaled
additions by attaching permanent deed restrictions that
are monitored by qualified easement holding-entities
such as local preservation groups. Easements are
voluntary and therefore must be acquired one property
at a time, either through purchase or donation. (This is
in contrast with many new residential subdivisions and
gated communities where strict covenants are put in
place on all properties immediately after construction).
Comments: Easements provide permanent
protection, can be tailored to the needs of an
individual property and do not require governmental
involvement. Because easements are voluntary,
protection may be limited and piecemeal. An
effective easement program requires strong local
organizational capacity and expertise.
Community Land Trusts
The land trust concept, most often used as a way to
protect open space and rural landscapes, has been
used in some communities to maintain a stock of
affordable housing. Typically, a house is donated to or
purchased by the land trust, which then re-sells it,
retaining the rights to the land on which the house sits
through permanent easement. By controlling the
development rights for the land, the trust can effectively
set the resale price of the house. Prices are managed
to allow for modest appreciation while preventing
speculation. Examples include the Burlington
Community Land Trust (Vermont) and Durham
Community Land Trustees (North Carolina).
Comments: This approach eliminates the economic
incentive for teardowns through purchase of
development rights, maintains the stock of
affordable housing and does not require
government involvement. However, not all land
trusts are set up to monitor changes to building
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17
exteriors. Strong local organizational capacity and
a voluntary donor or seller is required.
Historic Real Estate Marketing and
Education Programs
Educating the people who buy and sell homes about the
advantages of maintaining historic neighborhood
character is another strategy to prevent the negative
impacts of teardowns. Preservation groups or other
local organizations can offer a variety of programs,
including historic home tours, training for realtors,
classes in home rehabilitation techniques and awards
programs to publicize good examples of rehabilitation
and compatible new construction. Neighborhood
marketing centers, such the Intown Living Center
operated by Preservation Dallas and the New Orleans
Preservation Resource Center, provide information to
potential homebuyers on neighborhood characteristics,
available properties, rehabilitation techniques and
financial incentives.
Comments: This approach can help build long-term
public support for neighborhood conservation.
Such outreach can also bring visibility and
credibility to the preservation cause and increase
political support for further protection measures. It
is most effective if combined with other tools such
as financial incentives and design review.
Financial and Technical Assistance
Many local governments and preservation organizations
have developed financial incentives to encourage
rehabilitation of historic homes and neighborhoods.
Small grants, low-interest loans, property tax
abatements and freezes are the most common
incentives. These are usually combined with some level
of technical assistance, such as financial guidance for
first-time homebuyers or referrals to experienced
craftspeople and contractors. Examples include the
Cleveland Restoration Society’s Heritage Home Loan
Program, the Providence Preservation Society’s
Revolving Loan Fund, and the City of Chicago’s newly
established Bungalow Initiative, which provides low-
interest loans to help with acquisition and rehabilitation
of historic bungalows.
Comments. Some of these programs have targeted
neighborhoods “at risk” due to disinvestment and
may need to be re-packaged and marketed
specifically to meet the needs of neighborhoods
experiencing teardowns. They can be combined
with protection tools – such as historic districts,
conservation districts or easement programs – to
ensure that investments will have lasting impact.
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 18

PART VII: CONCLUSION

Residents have worked for decades to protect and
nurture the slow, incremental revitalization of many
historic neighborhoods across the country. Now,
suddenly, some of these very same places are
threatened – not by people leaving the neighborhood,
as was often the case in the past, but by newcomers
wanting to move in on their own terms. The challenge
today is to manage this new investment so that it
respects the character and distinctiveness that makes
these neighborhoods so attractive, desirable and
livable.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND


FIVE TEARDOWN CASE STUDIES
Chicago, Illinois.
Demolition dust is flying in the Chicago area, with at
least twenty inner-ring suburbs and several urban
neighborhoods currently dealing with teardown threats.
The western suburb of Hinsdale is the most heavily
impacted: Since 1986, Hinsdale has seen more than
1,200 homes – 20% of its housing stock – demolished.
30 Approximately half of the homes torn down were
historic, including 19th-century Victorians, Sears “kit
houses,” Prairie-style bungalows and Tudor Revival
homes designed by local architects. “A certain amount
of change is inevitable, I know, but you get too many
teardowns and you start losing the character of your
community,” said Brian Norkus, a planner in the
northern suburb of Winnetka, where dozens of older
homes have been demolished in recent years.31
Before and After. Demolition and replacement of
modest Second Empire style house in Hinsdale, Ill.
Photos: Jean Follett.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
19
The teardown trend has even begun to affect Oak Park,
a turn-of-the-century suburb just west of Chicago that is
internationally renowned for its historic architecture.
Oak Park residents became alarmed last year when
several historic homes were gutted and then rebuilt at a
much greater scale. “It doesn’t seem possible that
could happen in Oak Park,” said one resident. “You’re
ruining the historic district that countless people have
invested fortunes in improving.”32 Oak Park community
leaders are looking at ways to tighten the local historic
preservation ordinance.
Other Chicago-area communities have scrambled to put
in place new planning and zoning measures. For
example, Park Ridge established an “Appearance Code”
requiring review of proposed new projects, Highland
Park added a demolition-delay ordinance for historic
structures, Glencoe defined house bulk limits, and Lake
Forest set maximums for garage size.
Denver, Colorado.
At least a dozen historic neighborhoods in Denver are
experiencing significant numbers of teardowns. Last
year, some 200 homes, many of them brick bungalows
from the 1920s and 1930s, were demolished and
replaced with stucco-clad houses three times their size.
“People want to live in old neighborhoods because of
their charm and amenities and accessibility,” realtor
Deborah Hart told Denver’s 5280 magazine. “But they
also want a lot of floor space.”33
Beginning in the early 1990s, large second-story
additions or “pop-tops” become common in several
historic neighborhoods as owners sought ways to
expand the typical two-bedroom Denver bungalow.
Recently, however, teardowns have become a more
common practice. Developers have found profit in
demolishing older single-story bungalows and replacing
them with massive two-story structures, often called
“long houses,” that stretch from the front yard all the
way to the rear alley. Neighbors are upset. “When you
have a peach orchard and you plop a giant sequoia in
the middle of it, some people don’t like it,” said a
Denver city councilman.34 The loss of sunlight, privacy,
mature trees and historic neighborhood character are
common complaints among residents.
Several groups are working to establish new local
historic districts, which would prevent the demolition of
historic homes and require design review of all
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

construction in designated neighborhoods. The
research and approval process for new historic districts
can take several years, however, so Denver’s
Community Development and Planning Agency has
convened the so-called “Quick Wins Committee” to look
at tools that could be put in place quickly. The
committee, which includes representatives from Historic
Denver and numerous neighborhood organizations as
well as several architects, developers and realtors,
hopes to forward its recommendations to the City
Council sometime this year.
Site Preparation. Demolition of Craftsmen style
bungalow in Denver. Photo: Sue Scherner
Dallas, Texas.
More than 1,000 homes have been demolished in the
historic Highland Park and adjacent University Park
neighborhoods, developed in the early 20th century as
the area’s first fully planned suburbs.
Teardown Target. One of more than 1,000 historic
homes already demolished in Dallas as a teardown.
Photo: Mike Mathews.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
20
Large Colonial Revivals as well as relatively modest
Tudor-style cottages are routinely torn down and
replaced by new houses ranging from 6,000 to 10,000
square feet. To date, nearly 50 percent of the original
housing stock has been lost. If past experience is any
indicator, residents can expect to see an average of
130 homes demolished each year. In May of 2002, five
homes were demolished over a ten-day period, despite
community protest and their significance as some of the
best examples of Arts and Crafts architecture in
northern Texas.
"You do not have to tear old houses down to maintain
property values or to have modern amenities,“ says Ron
Emrich, a Dallas-based preservationist. “Many of these
houses can be expanded, adapted for modern living –
people can have substantially higher square footage
and still protect the historic architecture of the
house.”35
“This is a real tragedy,” says Mike Mathews, president
of Preservation Park Cities, an organization formed in
2001 in response to teardowns. “You never want to see
an historic home come down without a rational reason.
Here perfectly good houses are being demolished solely
to build a house three times as big, for three times as
much money.” With approximately 650 members,
Preservation Park Cities is advocating for tools to help
slow the pace of demolitions.
New Jersey.
Teardowns are happening all across the state, from
historic Cape May, America’s oldest seashore resort, to
the architecturally rich bedroom communities of Bergen
County, just outside New York City. In the historic shore
community of Ocean City, entire neighborhood blocks
are being transformed, with more than 300 small
bungalows and cottages demolished in recent years. In
the local historic district, an 1885 residence that was
originally a life-saving station has been tangled up in a
legal battle for several years as its owner proposes to
demolish it and subdivide the lot for three new houses.
In most instances, the scale of new construction is
visually jarring, as replacement houses are built high off
the ground with raised basements and two or more
garages fronting the street. A group called Citizens for
Historic Preservation has formed to advocate on behalf
of Ocean City’s historic architecture, but a preservation
consultant says, “If the teardown trend continues as it
has been, it may be too late.”
In the Bergen County community of Tenafly, an 1840s
frame house believed to be one of the oldest in town
TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND
 21

was demolished in April of 2002. In the mid-1990s, a
1901 five-bedroom Colonial Revival house was torn
down in Ridgewood. An outraged neighbor said at the
time, “If you start tearing down the old homes, we’re
going to be like anybody else. How much of the town
are we willing to let go?”36 Teardowns in these and
other affluent communities are on the rise in Bergen
County, which saw a 45 percent increase in demolition
activity between 1995 and 1999.37 One of these
controversial teardowns was enough to convince
Tenafly residents to take action, resulting in the creation
of the Magnolia Avenue Historic District in 1999.
although about a quarter of the old houses have been
demolished and new houses are dramatically driving up
the neighborhood’s median home price. The character
of Oak Hill Park is changing, as two-story houses with
raised basements replace the older single-story homes.
House by house, the historic pattern of Oak Hill Park is
also being altered, with new houses turning their backs
to the pathway system and oriented completely
opposite from the original homes.

House Removal Demolition of historic house in

Ocean City, NJ. Photo: David Swift

Newton, Massachusetts.
Close-in communities just outside Boston, such as
Lexington and Winchester, are fertile ground for
teardowns. In Newton, good schools, convenient
location and historic character are qualities that make
this community attractive. In the early 1990s, the
Historical Commission reviewed about 20 to 30
demolition requests per year. In recent years, it has
become common for the commission to review more
than 100 demolition requests annually.

Teardowns are happening mainly in neighborhoods of

small homes around 1,200 square feet each. Not all
are historic, but the Oak Hill Park neighborhood is an
exception. Built between 1947 and 1949, this
community of 412 veterans’ houses is noteworthy as
one of the first planned developments in Newton. It is
also considered historically significant for its unique
internal pathway system, which reduces the visibility of
streets and automobiles. For years, the neighborhood’s
modest 3-bedroom houses have been starter homes for
first-time homebuyers. This practice continues today,

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

 22

ENDNOTES
1 Candy Cooper, “Gigantic new houses have fans and foes,” The Bergen Record, November 26, 2000.
2 For example, only fifteen percent of the city of Los Angeles has been surveyed, according to The Los Angeles Historic Resource Survey Assessment Project, The Getty

Conservation Institute, November, 2001.

3 Candy Cooper, “The economics of demolition,” The Bergen Record, November 27, 2000.
4 Ibid.
5 Jeannene Przyblyski, “Monster homes creeping into Noe,” The Noe Valley Voice, April, 2000.
6 Report and Recommendations on Incompatible Teardown and Infill House Construction in the City of Geneva, Kane County, Illinois, Mayor’s Task Force on
Teardown/Infill Development, City of Geneva, Illinois, February, 2002.
7 Timothy Eagen, “In Portland, Houses are Friendly. Or Else,” The New York Times, April 20, 2000.
8 Ann Hall, “Affordability in area housing is worth saving,” NorthWest Weekly, February 7, 1999.
9 Bill Lurz, “Interesting infill, Baby boomers are moving back to the city, joining the younger set. They are wanting to be where the walking is easy,” HousingZone, July

1, 1999.
10 Ibid.
11 Bridget Hartman, e-mail correspondence, April 5, 2002.
12 Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, State of the Nation’s Housing: 2001, p. 6.
13 “Going Through the Roof,” The Economist, March 30, 2002.
14 National Association of Homebuilders, Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, 2001, p. 2.
15 National Association of Homebuilders, Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, 2001, p. 14.
16 June Fletcher, “Buyers Are Choosing Modest Over Massive,” Wall Street Journal Online, 2002.
17 Sarah Susanka, The Not So Big House, Taunton Press, 1998.
18 Cities that gained population from 1990-2000 include Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis,

New York and Seattle. The exceptions to this trend were primarily older urban centers located in the Northeast and Midwest, such as Hartford, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis. Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, State of the Nation’s Housing: 2001, p. 30.
19 National Association of Homebuilders, The Next Frontier:Building Homes in American Cities, 2000.
20 Peter Katz, “Great American Cities: Five that are getting it right,” essay for Elm Street Writers Group, Michigan Land Use Institute, July 20, 2001.
21 National Association of Homebuilders, Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, 2001, p. 53.
22 Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, State of the Nation’s Housing: 2001, p. 10.
23 “Should You Tear the Darn Thing Down?” BusinessWeek Online, June 25, 2001.
24 Ibid.
25 Jean Follett, phone conversation with author, May 7, 2002.
26 See Ann Bennett, “The Economic Benefits of Historic Designation, Knoxville, Tennessee,” Knoxville Knox County Metropolitan Commission, 1996; Jo Ramsey

Leimenstall, “Assessing the Impact of Local Historic Districts on Property Values in Greensboro, North Carolina,” University of North Carolina at Greensboro; and “The
Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Case Study from Galveston, Texas,” Government Finance Research Center.
27 The Next Frontier: Building Homes in America’s Cities, National Association of Homebuilders, 2000, p. 2.
28 Recycling America’s Land: A National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment, U.S. Conference of Mayors, February 2000.
29 Cheri Bentrup, “OP looking for way to control teardowns,” Oak Leaves, April 10, 2002.
30 Charlotte Cooper, “Officials watching teardown activity,” Oak Leaves, June 27, 2001.
31 Ibid.
32 Cheri Bentrup, “Tear-downs raise residents’ ire,” Oak Leaves, February 13, 2002.
33 Jennie Shortridge, “Preservation Blues,” 5280 Magazine, December 2001/January 2002.
34 Ibid.
35 Leif Strickland, “Demolitions dishearten local preservationists,” The Dallas Morning News, May 15, 2002.
36 Lisa Prevost, “Teardowns, trophies and angry neighbors,” The New York Times, September 27, 1998.
37 Candy Cooper, “The economics of demolition,” The Bergen Record, November 27, 2000.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAMING THE TEARDOWN TREND

 Planner’s Notebook
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
This article reviews and analyzes the types
of regulations that are being established
throughout the United States in response
to “mansionization” construction activ-
ity. In order to illuminate choices avail-
able to planners to address impacts of
this trend, the article focuses on the reg-
ulatory interventions that have recently
been employed in three communities
(one in suburban Chicago and two in
Silicon Valley) facing pressure from the
replacement of the existing housing stock
with significantly larger structures, and
presents the scope and inventiveness of
the regulations. While it is too soon to
judge their effectiveness, I define the
range of intervention necessary for a
regulatory effort to be considered com-
prehensive—the establishment of rules
for multiple elements of building mass,
siting, and design to address and mini-
mize the perceived impacts associated
with the growth of “monster” homes in
existing neighborhoods.
Terry S. Szold is an adjunct associate
professor in the Department of Urban
Studies and Planning at MIT, and prin-
cipal of Community Planning Solutions,
a land use planning firm based in Massa-
chusetts. She is co-editor of Smart Growth:
Form and Consequences, (Lincoln Insti-
tute of Land Policy, ) and Regulat-
ing Place: Standards and the Shaping of
Urban America (Routledge, ).
Journal of the American Planning Association,
Vol. , No. , Spring .
© American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Mansionization and Its
Discontents
Planners and the Challenge of Regulating
Monster Homes
Terry S. Szold
mericans with the means to do so continue to increase the size of their
A
homes. With significant economic expansion and growth in personal
wealth, the United States has seen an unprecedented boom in large
homes—both as the result of new construction and additions to existing struc-
tures—particularly in already developed suburbs. Data compiled by the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB) from the U.S. census show that home
sizes have been getting bigger in the United States since the s, rising from an
average size of , square feet in  to more than , square feet in 
(NAHB, ). Additionally, in the last decade, the percentage of new homes
being built that are , square feet or more has been growing. The northeast
and western regions of the country experienced the greatest growth in this size
category, which in  accounted for % and % of new homes respectively
(up from % and % in ); in the midwest % and in the south % of
the housing stock (up from % and % in ) had reached this level (U.S.
Census Bureau, ).
Single-family residential construction activity in the United States in recent
years is striking not only because of increased house size, but because it often results
in the replacement of an existing, older home that is much smaller. Communities
experiencing pressures from the demolition and replacement of existing housing
stock—a process often called teardown, scrape-off, or pop-off—have attempted to
intervene with regulations to temper or thwart these perceived intruders, which
have been variously labeled monster homes, mega-homes, and McMansions.
In part it is the powerful connections that Americans have to owning a home
(Handlin, ; Hayden, ; Marcus, ) and to the primacy of individual
rights that make the task of regulating the increasing size of the suburban house a
vexing undertaking for professional planners. While new large home construction
is vilified by some, especially those living near these new houses who beyond sheer
size may also see in such construction a disregard for the norms and existing pat-
tern of built form, any public discussion of new regulations to curtail home size
or shape (including recommended design guidelines to specify “acceptable” archi-
tectural treatment) elicits strong opposition from others who see intrusion into a
near sacred domain. For this reason, a common problem that communities face
is how to balance private property rights with the value of the established built
environment held by many longer-term residents.
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
When faced with concerns about mansionization in
their communities, planners are often asked to propose
interventions to address a spectrum of perceived negative
impacts raised by discontented neighbors or other resi-
dents. To serve their communities best, planners need to
be familiar not only with a range of potential choices for
regulations, but also to have fluency with the desired
outcomes that such regulations are intended to achieve.
This article examines some of the comprehensive
mansionization controls that have been attempted in two
areas of the country that have faced this issue for the pre-
vious  to  years: suburban Chicago and Silicon Valley.
The controls used range from design guidelines to influ-
ence building massing, detail, or architectural style; to
predetermined “triggers” that activate formal reviews of
proposed residential demolition and construction; to new,
more restrictive zoning regulations that address multiple
aspects of home size and siting.
Since there are no time-tested evaluation procedures in
place for monitoring the effectiveness of these regulatory
controls, planners cannot reference ideal solutions. Even
after understanding their intent, planners are left to cus-
tomize regulations to the physical and political context
within which they work. Additionally, based on the ex-
ploration undertaken for this article, given the multiple
considerations that must be taken into account to address
building volume, scale, and siting issues, no single physical
development intervention or set of limitations, such as
floor area ratio adjustments or encroachment plane regu-
lations, can address the spectrum of perceived impacts
associated with today’s large homes.
Nonetheless, the research conducted for this article sug-
gests that there are regulations addressing the consequences
of building volume and scale consequences for adjoining
properties that warrant serious consideration. Communities
such as those examined here, which have utilized a compre-
hensive approach to fashioning regulations, appear to be the
best places to inaugurate future evaluation of this effort.
Method and Approach
My interest in the subject of mansionization began as
a result of questions posed by clients in communities that I
served in Massachusetts. I found that they sought solutions
that would, at a minimum, tame the most egregious exam-
ples of mansionization in their communities. As I attempted
to aid these clients, I looked for examples that could be used
as models.
What I first discovered was that other communities in
my own state had not attempted to create regulations that
addressed the multiple dimensions of the mansionization
challenge. Rather, communities relied on adjustments to
the basic dimensional requirements applicable to residen-
tial development—setbacks, building size, or maximum
building footprint—and steered away from interventions
related to scale, massing, encroachment planes, or design
review (City of Newton, ; Town of Lexington, ;
Town of Wellesley, ).
Expanding my search to find communities that had
attempted broader regulatory interventions to address
mansionization, I looked to other regions in the United
States. I reviewed newspaper stories, municipal reports and
studies, and master plans that documented concerns about
mansionization and searched for proposed and/or adopted
new regulations. Once I discovered such regulations, I
conducted interviews with the planners who had major
responsibilities for their development. My eventual rec-
ommendations to clients for possible interventions drew
on all these sources.
I maintained a significant professional interest in this
topic. For this article, I chose to examine suburban Chi-
cago and Silicon Valley, regions where there have been
ongoing planning challenges related to mansionization,
and where communities have considered and adopted a
variety of comprehensive controls. Within these regions, I
focused on three communities where the evolution of the
regulations they adopted offer contrasting approaches and
results: the village of Winnetka, Illinois, and the cities of
Sunnyvale and Menlo Park, California. The information
in this article has been gathered in each case from local/
regional publications, interviews with planners, and the
new and evolving regulations themselves.
Addressing Perceived “Discontents”
In many long-established neighborhoods, even though
architectural styles may vary, a sense of cohesion exists—
the homes are of comparable size, have roof lines and over-
all building heights that are similar or within a range of
compatible elevations, and are surrounded by mature land-
scaping. Many of the homes were built during the same
period, with only occasional infill. The controversy over
new, large home construction and major additions in such
neighborhoods is triggered because modest-sized residences
are replaced with homes of greater building volume, the
transformation typically occurring without an accompany-
ing increase in lot area.
Based on a review of articulated concerns of citizens
and public officials addressing the teardown trend where it
is documented throughout the United States, there are
 Szold: Mansionization and Its Discontents
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
common objections to the arrival of monster homes. These
objections are raised in response to the perceived negative
impacts of both the lengthy process of teardown/new
construction and the end result of the process: a new large
house that is out of scale with the homes it adjoins. Con-
cern about the design of such a structure being out of char-
acter with an existing neighborhood’s built form is also a
common objection and associated with the generic use of
the pejorative term McMansion.
Table  presents the common objections and perceived
impacts revealed by the documents reviewed and helps to
illustrate variations in the definition of the “problem” of
mansionization. These physical impacts, identified mostly
if not exclusively by the immediate neighbors of the new
large residences, are often the primary drivers for commu-
nities to consider regulatory intervention(s).
As a specific example, the Village of Winnetka, Illinois,
a community whose regulations are explored in this article,
documented adverse impacts of mansionization in its most
recent Plan Update (Village of Winnetka, ):
• Bulkier houses with looming street presence, blocking
light and air;
• Basements rising too high from grade with variable
stoop heights, thus contributing to a disruption in the
rhythm of block face;
• Front-loaded garage space detracting from front street
and pedestrian orientation; and
• House designs that fail to blend in with existing houses
in - to -year old neighborhoods.
This example indicates the types of objections raised.
Such objections present planners with a corresponding chal-
lenge: how to make new large houses “fit” on lots that were
developed when prevailing home sizes were much smaller.
Setback and dimensional standards that formed the origi-
nal building envelope, particularly in older suburbs, are
inadequate to the task of preserving boundaries—both physi-
cal and aesthetic—between existing homes and those dra-
matically larger new homes that are being built next door.
The Search for Effective Interventions
Many communities have considered zoning interven-
tions specific to mansionization to manage the teardown
trend. A short search produces ongoing coverage spanning
months and years on the issue in local and regional publi-
cations in Westchester County, New York; suburban Bos-
ton and Chicago; all parts of California and Florida; and
various locales in between.

In communities where the housing stock has been
maintained in good condition or is deemed unique or
historic, safeguarding the treasured built form of the past
from the construction of new monster homes is a prime
objective. For that reason, design review has become
popular in communities attempting to ensure some level
of compatibility when teardowns and build-outs are pro-
posed. Preservation ordinances are sometimes adopted, as
are “appearance codes” or other preservation initiatives
such as those in Lake Forest and Park Ridge, Illinois (City
of Lake Forest, ; City of Park Ridge, ).
However, while many design review procedures in-
volve detailed considerations about design and massing,
my analysis indicates that most do not establish mandatory
prescriptions about architectural style. In some cases, a de-
sign review process is mandated when home construction
reaches a certain threshold, such as exceeding a baseline
floor area ratio (FAR; City of Sunnyvale, b) or per-
centage of floor area on a second story (City of Menlo Park,
a; City of Sunnyvale, b). In these instances, the
review process may result only in suggestions about pre-
ferred design approaches; it may not significantly affect the
ultimate size or siting of a home.
Because the mansionization trend and the responses to
it are still relatively new, when selecting interventions plan-
ners have little evidence that any single intervention will
address all the objections that opponents raise. For exam-
ple, an attempt to discourage two-story development by
requiring a special permit for such development in a one-
story neighborhood without addressing building massing
or additional setback requirements may have limited suc-
cess. Similarly, a generic gross floor area maximum may
help insure that new development is less overwhelming to
adjoining properties, but as some planners interviewed for
this article stated, it will not necessarily guarantee attrac-
tiveness or context-sensitive design.
Planners searching for appropriate interventions also
need to determine how comfortable local political leaders
will be with regulations that may force homeowners to en-
gage professionals, particularly since the owners may lack
the expertise themselves to understand how the regulations
will apply in a given circumstance. Daylight plane regula-
tions, for example, require sophisticated calculations about
building encroachment based on specific angles from set-
backs (City of Menlo Park, b, d; City of Pasa-
dena, ).
The th century railroad suburbs west and north of
Chicago and the automobile-based th century suburbs of
Silicon Valley provide interesting and revealing arenas to ob-
serve the multilayered challenge of mansionization. Though
separated in their major periods of growth by approximately
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008

Objection Perceived Impacts

Large construction project of long duration • Multiple-month presence of construction vehicles, equipment, and crews resulting
in noise, dust, and debris, and decreased road access in neighborhood

Removal of mature trees/vegetation from lot
• Further magnifies scale of new structure
• Loss of long-established/cherished vistas within neighborhood
• Increased sunlight/heat on adjoining properties
• Topographic change that can lead to erosion and damage from new patterns of
storm water run-off

Smaller, older home demolished/torn down • Loss of historical residential structures

• Reduction of “starter home” size properties available to first-time home buyers

Large house maximizing small lot; build out to front and
side setbacks
• Height and proximity of larger home overshadows smaller neighbors, blocking
sunlight and restricting fresh air movement
• Intimidating height with windows and porches towering over neighbors creates
unwelcome intrusion and lack of privacy
• Size of house requires large air conditioning compressor units, situated frequently
close to neighbors’ with resulting increased noise
• Detrimental effect on neighboring house and plant life from reflection of light and
radiation of heat from large house (necessitates additional cooling/watering)

Building and/or property design out of character with • Disruption in visual rhythm of neighborhood of “out-sized” house in comparison
neighborhood with older structures
• Driveway placement and/or multiple garage space that dominates streetscape or
frontage

Significant and ongoing need for property and residence • Increased traffic and noise impacts from frequent home maintenance/landscape
maintenance (due to increased size) crews

Sources: Anning (), Casciato (), City of Geneva (), City of Lake Forest (), City of Naperville (), City of Sunnyvale (),
Eichler Network (, ), Einwalter (), El Nasser (), Fayle (), Fine & Lindberg (), Foderaro (), Ganga (), Knight
(), Lang, et al., (), Langdon (), Manning (), Mannion & Goldsborough (), Marchant (), Paik (), Perlman (),
Petterson (), Randall (), Sissenwein (), Smith (a), Srebnik (), Town of Lexington (), Town of Lincoln (), Town of
Mamaroneck (), Village of Scarsdale (), Village of Winnetka (), Weinberg (), Willemsen ().

Table . Common objections to the process and results of teardowns/build outs.

 years, these two regions currently face similar pressures
from the replacement of the existing housing stock with
larger new homes.
After reviewing the many communities within these
regions that had selected regulatory interventions to ad-
dress their mansionization challenge, I chose Winnetka,
Illinois, and Sunnyvale and Menlo Park, California, for
more extensive study and comparison, for the following
reasons:
• Prior to the recent mansionization period, little change
in the housing stock occurred in these communities
for at least  years, and until mansionization, little
change was made to the zoning regulations of their
residential districts. This fact is important because
communities may have thought that their existing
zoning regulations (such as setbacks) protected them
from residential structures of excessive size.
• Each community found that the teardown trend tested
old zoning dimensional requirements (e.g., conven-
 Szold: Mansionization and Its Discontents 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008

tional setback and lot area requirements) applicable
to single-family districts. These standards, primarily
developed after World War II or at the midpoint of
the last century and once considered adequate for the
community’s prevailing lot sizes and homes, were sub-
sequently found to be ineffective when applied to the
larger homes associated with the mansionization trend.
• Each community employed a comprehensive approach
to address the issue, utilizing multiple regulatory inter-
ventions and strategies to influence the size, scale, and
massing of proposed new structures; however, each
community elected to use a different regulatory scheme
to accomplish its goals.
The stories of these communities may be instructive
for planners in other parts of the country. Under great
pressure from an often angry citizenry and in the wake of
a robust building boom, interventions were developed after
significant study and public participation, within a pageant
of multiple players and vested interests.
old; it anticipated that in the contemporary housing mar-
ket, these older houses would likely be replaced by homes
of larger floor area. An analysis by the Community Devel-
opment Department indicated that many of the homes in
the Village’s R- zoning district (the residential district
with the smallest minimum lot area) averaging less than
, square feet were being replaced with new homes of
almost , square feet. The analysis found that a  ×
 ft. lot purchased with the intent of tearing down the
existing home could ultimately sell for $. million—or
more than double the price such a lot would yield if the
existing house was left standing.
As a result of detailed study, Winnetka’s Village Coun-
cil adopted changes to its zoning ordinance. Mandatory
design review was rejected in favor of more objective stand-
ards. Winnetka focused its regulatory effort on addressing
new building bulk on small lots and sought to control the
elevated building height and increased building volume
associated with new construction. Winnetka reduced the
maximum basement projection of new structures from .
feet to  feet, while allowing such projections in additions

Suburban Chicago: Teardowns,

Tribulations, and New Standards
The initial growth of suburban communities around
Chicago occurred mostly during the s and s as rail
and horse car lines made the prospect of commuting to
and from the center of the city a viable option. Some sub-
urbs sprang up from land being subdivided speculatively
in anticipation of the railroad extension (Handlin, ).
A little more than a century after many Chicago suburbs
were settled, prospective homebuyers began to demand
larger houses. By the late s, the first teardowns of older
housing stock began, and by the end of the s, fierce
debates were well underway in places such as Naperville
and Hinsdale (El Nasser, ; Langdon, ; Mannion
& Goldsborough, ; Randall, ). Homes that many
residents believed defined the character of their community
were rapidly being removed to make way for larger, con-
temporary structures (see Figure ).

Winnetka
The Village of Winnetka, located  miles north of
Chicago, is one of the most affluent communities in the
United States. Originally settled in the s, it has about
, residents and an abundance of  x  ft. lots
(Village of Winnetka, a).
Winnetka’s Plan Update () described the problem Figure . Suburban Chicago home (above) torn down and replaced with
posed by the targeting of housing stock more than  years new, larger home. (Photos courtesy of Jean Follett)
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
to existing houses to increase to  feet (presumably to
encourage homes to be renovated instead of torn down).
These changes were made applicable to all single-family
residential zoning districts and lot sizes.
For lots of less than , square feet, the maximum
permitted gross floor area (GFA) in new construction
(again differentiating between new construction and al-
terations to existing housing) was reduced. The base GFA
applicable to most lots ranges from .–., making it diffi-
cult to construct a , square foot house (considered to
be too big).
In  Winnetka adopted additional amendments
(Village of Winnetka, , b) affecting all lots in
residential districts, including the following:
• A uniform attic floor height for calculation of GFA,
with variations in height permitted based on the
zoning district;
• A reduction of basement height by lowering the maxi-
mum permitted height of the first floor from  feet to
. feet above existing natural grade;
• A reduction in the maximum permitted vertical build-
ing height by implementing a graduated building
height based on the zoning district and lot size, and
by changing the point of measurement from natural
grade to finished first floor elevation, extending to the
highest point of a roof (ridge);
• A reduction in height limits for detached garages
(along with a new point of measurement similar to
the principal building) with allowances for increased
height to match the pitch of an existing house; and
• Lot coverage incentives for front porches.
The Village did not elect to make reductions in the
maximum allowable GFA in . Nonetheless, after
further study by the community development staff, the
Village Council considered yet another group of amend-
ments, including:
• Reducing the maximum allowable GFA by zoning
district;
• Limiting the impact of very large homes on oversized
lots by establishing maximum caps on GFA within
particular zoning districts;
• Rezoning undersized lots in certain zoning districts to
require a larger amount of land area;
• Increasing side yard setbacks;
• Reviewing building height maximums for substantially
oversized lots; and
• Reviewing side yard articulation requirements for
building walls.
In , the Village’s community development di-
rector was reluctant to make premature conclusions about
success, but considered the overall effort significant and the
process demanding. By the definition advanced for this art-
icle, Winnetka’s effort is comprehensive. The community
attempted to regulate the multiple expressions of large
home construction: building height, wall effects, building
massing and articulation, privacy consequences to setbacks,
and the need to tailor the total permissible building volume
to available lot area.
Silicon Valley: What Happens When
One-Story Neighborhoods Grow Up?
Located between San Francisco and Oakland to the
north and San Jose to the south, Silicon Valley has evolved
from a place of agriculture and fruit orchards (Matthews,
) to a modern day “land of opportunity,” becoming in
the second half of the th century a magnet for high tech-
nology companies and the thousands of employees who
work for them.
According to data collected by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), Silicon Valley housing prices
are among the highest in the country. An average single-
family home in  cost $,, rising from $,
only  years before. Although its population grew by .%
between  and , the number of housing units grew
only by % (ABAG, ). Thus, a severe jobs/housing
imbalance in the region contributed to the escalation of
prices, as the growth in number of workers outstripped the
number of houses built.
The pressure on the existing single-family housing
supply in Silicon Valley is characterized by the widespread
replacement of modest, one-story homes—the largest share
of the area’s housing stock—with new, larger homes or by
the addition of second stories. Houses of , square feet
are often replaced with new structures over , square feet
(T. Cramer, personal communication, January , ).
This has created momentum in many valley communities
for a variety of interventions.
Both communities in this region that I examined—
Sunnyvale and Menlo Park—have addressed mansioni-
zation with regulations affecting scale, building massing,
specialized setback requirements, and design guidelines. In
Menlo Park, however, an ambitious set of regulations was
scaled back, illustrating the complex process of selecting
regulatory interventions to address this issue.
 Szold: Mansionization and Its Discontents
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
Figure . Monster home dwarfs adjoining one-story home in Silicon
Valley. (Photo courtesy of Bonnie Campbell)
Sunnyvale
The City of Sunnyvale has a population of almost
,. Approximately % of its housing stock was built
between  and , with the greatest growth during
the s and s. Home prices today range between
$, and $ million in desirable neighborhoods, espe-
cially those with lot sizes of , to , square feet (Bay
Area Census, c; City of Sunnyvale, b).
The City launched its effort to address the mansioniza-
tion trend in the summer of  as many of its one-story
homes, built mid th century, were being demolished and
replaced or expanded with second stories. At that time, the
primary issues to be addressed by regulations were cited:
impacts to adjacent properties, including intrusions on
privacy, and overall size. Key features of the City’s first
major attempt at interventions (City of Sunnyvale, a,
c) included the following:
• A notification and comment period for adjacent prop-
erty owners when two-story home construction was
proposed;
• Increased front and rear yard setbacks for two-story
development;
• Establishment of Planning Commission review when
FAR thresholds of . were exceeded;
• Creation of a new “combining district” that enabled
a moratorium on two-story development for a -year
period in any such district in which two thirds of
property owners sign and agree; and
• Creation of a “single-family home design booklet” to
guide preferred development.
After experience working with the new regulations,
and recognition that many additions and replacement

homes on residential lots were escaping review, the City
planning staff recommended refinements (City of Sunny-
vale, ) adopted by the City Council in March, 
(City of Sunnyvale, a), to do the following:
• Lower the FAR threshold for Planning Commission
review from . to . in the city’s major single-family
districts;
• Establish a basic GFA review threshold of , square
feet for each of the major residential districts;
• Establish a design review trigger for any second-story
addition or any addition resulting in an increase of
% or more of the existing home; and
• Expand the notification procedure to neighborhood
associations and owners across streets when two-story
design reviews are conducted.
Setbacks and design review by the Planning Commis-
sion seem to be the primary intervention used to minimize
the intrusiveness of second-story development. The city’s
setback and other basic zoning requirements for its princi-
pal residential districts are illustrated in Figure .
A key aspect of Sunnyvale’s regulatory approach is that
limits on building volume or size were rejected in favor of
design guidelines. Bulk triggers or floor area limits (FALS)
are used to activate the scrutiny of the Planning Commis-
sion, but are not used as absolute maximums. While the
rejection of absolute FALS was arguably a political decision,
it was also based upon an analysis by the Planning Depart-
ment, which concluded that size in and of itself was not the
problem with mansionization, but rather how “bigness” was
articulated. Sunnyvale’s approach to regulating mansioniza-
tion, based on the definition I have advanced, is compre-
hensive, but precariously anchored in an inherent faith in
design review and discussion among its citizenry to mitigate
adverse impacts.
Menlo Park
Much smaller in population than Sunnyvale, the City
of Menlo Park is a community of almost , stretched
across  square miles. Median family income exceeds
$,, and the median price of a home was $,
as reported in a  census (as compared to the county
median of $,; Bay Area Census, b). Many of
its neighborhoods are more than  years old, with lot sizes
typically ranging from , to , square feet (City of
Menlo Park, b). Home prices in these neighborhoods
reach $ million and beyond.
As in Sunnyvale, objections to mansionization in
Menlo Park centered on what many residents perceived as
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
Figure . Residential setback and other requirements, Sunnyvale, CA.
Source: City of Sunnyvale (n. d.)
inappropriate build outs of one-story, mid-th-century
California homes. A -year effort was undertaken that in-
cluded significant study, work by a -member citizen task
force, and public involvement. The task force was split
in opinion between members who wanted more restrictive
FALs than those prescribed in the existing ordinance, and
those who believed that other methods to restrict bulk and
massing involving daylight plane (a three-dimensional
plane that defines the building envelope that a residence
must fit within) were more important to mitigating scale
consequences to adjoining properties (as shown in Figure ).
During the  years prior to the adoption of Menlo
Park’s regulations, a series of articles and editorials in the
city’s local newspaper (Borak & Stephens, ; Sissen-
wein, , ; Smith, b) reflected the strong emo-
tions associated with the proposed regulations, including
objections from a property rights advocacy group called the
Menlo Community Association (MCA). The association
 Szold: Mansionization and Its Discontents
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
mailed postcards to homeowners in Menlo Park, warning
of “an assault on homeowner rights and our environment”
(Smith, a), and stated that the proposed regulations
would encourage construction of sprawling one-story
homes, reduce privacy in backyards, discourage growing
families from staying in the city, threaten property values,
and scare away potential buyers wary of restrictions. The
MCA also complained that the regulations would allow a
stringent and subjective design review process—to be ad-
ministered by the Community Development Director or
designee, with an appeal process that included the Plan-
ning Commission and City Council—thus empowering
local government and neighborhoods to intrude into the
use of homes at the expense of the individual homeowner
and the creativity of his or her architect.
Despite the differences in opinion, the effort culmi-
nated in the November  adoption of new regulations
(City of Menlo Park, a, b, c, d):
• All new two-story homes and additions to existing one-
story dwellings resulting in a second story, and additions
and alterations to existing two-story dwellings, became
subject to a new review process and regulations;
• One-story homes and additions/alterations that ex-
ceeded a % building coverage also became subject
to the new review process and design guidelines;
• Daylight plane requirements were reduced from .
feet of vertical plane height and a ° angle inward to
 feet and °, respectively;
Figure . Alternative daylight plane regulations, Menlo Park, CA.

• Definitional changes were made to the calculation of
FAL, excluding certain floor-to-ceiling heights and
attic space;
• A minimum % permeable surface requirement was
established; and
• New, comprehensive single-family residential design
guidelines were created, with the intent to minimize a
house’s mass and bulk to make it consistent with the
existing neighborhood, respect the privacy of adjacent
properties, define patterns of neighborhoods and street-
scapes to be preserved, protect solar and daylight access
for adjacent properties, and assure that design and site
improvements were considered comprehensively.
While the campaign by the MCA did not stop the City
Council from adopting the proposed zoning amendments,
the ongoing backlash from property rights advocates and
those who wanted greater development flexibility subse-
quently led to a vastly scaled back regulatory program.
Although approved at the end of , these regulations
were later rescinded at the start of the new year () by
the City Council, following the election of two new council
members.
After subsequent repeal of the regulations, the new
council established a subcommittee to seek compromise
between a more comprehensive, design-based approach
with discretionary reviews, and a less stringent and more
simplified program. In January of , and without the
support of the Planning Commission, the following ap-
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
proach, based on two tiers of review, was adopted by the
council:
• Tier I: If construction meets the requirements for lot
area, FAL (up to %), lot coverage, setback, daylight
plane (. feet of vertical plane height and an angle of
° inward), permeable surface, and other basic elements,
an applicant would simply file for a building permit.
• Tier II: If owners of immediately adjacent properties
approve, more permissive two-story development (up
to % of total floor area could be on second floor),
greater daylight plane flexibility (. feet and an angle
of °), and more side yard setback encroachment
would be allowed; absent this approval, permits for
such construction must be approved by the Planning
Commission.
The revised program (City of Menlo Park, a, c)
includes a provision on a maximum length of horizontal wall
to break up building massing on a second floor, limiting
such second floor wall length to  feet for Tier I projects
but allowing in excess of  feet for Tier II projects (origi-
nally the wall had to be articulated by a three-foot step back
in the depth of wall alignment). Other proposed changes
involve establishing a below-ground setback requirement to
address large basement size, greater lot coverage allowance
for small lots, a permeable surface requirement, definitional
revisions for the method of calculating FAL that involve
attic space, and the inclusion in FAL of basements that
exceed the footprint of a house. Clarification of the method
of calculating daylight plane and building height is also
proposed, and, in a bow to process and dialogue between
neighbors, the proposal includes the following:
• A new courtesy notice to contiguous property owners
for demolition and building permit applications;
• New application forms for development permits to
include a statement that a house is part of a neighbor-
hood and require applicants to comment on (a) window
placement in relation to neighbors, (b) unarticulated
vertical walls over  feet in length, and (c) impact on
existing solar panels; and
• An overlay district provision to allow neighborhoods
to establish different dimensional regulations when a
significant number of properties have similar charac-
teristics and interests, and % of owners in the sur-
rounding area support the overlay.
While the revised program appears to be comprehen-
sive, it allows greater build out by excluding more floor
area from the maximum FAL, greater amount of permis-
sible floor area and horizontal wall length on a second
story, and greater vertical plane height and daylight plane
encroachment. Also, an administrative rather than discre-
tionary process is utilized in processing most permits. But
the most significant change in the City’s approach, and a
major reversal of the mansionization regulatory package
that was rescinded by the new City Council in , is the
absence of design guidelines and design review. This delib-
erate omission by the new City Council remains a source
of contention and acrimony in Menlo Park. Following the
adoption of the tiered approach as a new ordinance, ,
residents (ostensibly aggrieved by its inadequacy when
compared to the Council-rescinded ordinance in )
have endorsed a petition for a referendum to enable voters
to reject the ordinance in a special election.
While the future of the program remains uncertain,
both the planners who worked to draft the  regulations
that were rescinded by the new Council and those who sup-
ported them must accept, at least for the time being, a sys-
tem that may arguably function more efficiently and with
less rancor, but without the design review process and
guidelines that were anticipated to improve the built form
of emerging homes and changing neighborhoods.
Conclusion
The objections raised about Menlo Park’s  regula-
tions are emblematic of those that have been raised nation-
ally, and that often have traction in a community when
planners attempt to mitigate the perceived impacts of
mansionization. Fears about a decline in property and
resale values, a wariness about design subjectivity and taste
preferences, and a concern for the cost and cumbersome
nature of the regulations all contributed to the vulnera-
bility of Menlo Park’s initially approved, but subsequently
rescinded, regulatory program.
If Menlo Park had decided to modify its daylight plane
regulations and change its method for calculating FALS—
without at the same time granting significant discretion to
City staff—would other elements of the regulations have
survived? A lack of evidence makes it difficult to answer
this question, but it may well be worthy of future research.
Readers will note that even though each of the three
communities reviewed in this article embraced a compre-
hensive approach to regulating mansionization, initial in-
terventions were soon followed by a variety of refinements
and amendments. This is the primary similarity among the
cases: that these types of regulations are works in progress.
While there are multiple examples of regulations
throughout the United States to modify the effects of
 Szold: Mansionization and Its Discontents
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
mansionization, to date few communities are in the position
to say that their efforts are successful. Planners cannot yet
draw conclusions, because even the most comprehensive
regulations are less than  years old. It may take decades
before the profession can conduct an honest evaluation of
their levels of success and influence.
In the meantime, planners have options. Table  sum-
marizes and contrasts the regulations adopted by the three
case communities. If political leaders are uncomfortable
with a design review and design guidelines-based inter-
vention, then Winnetka’s approach—which utilizes FAR,
height, and setbacks as the primary controls—may be
worthy of study. For those communities that believe size
itself is not the major problem but rather how building
volume and massing are expressed, Sunnyvale’s approach,
which utilizes design guidelines and design review com-
bined with a sliding scale of setback requirements as its
primary controls, should be examined. In contrast, Menlo
Park’s original amendments, which blended a variety of
approaches—controls on building size, the massing conse-
quences of two-story development or additions, and overall
vertical height or daylight plane encroachment, together
with design review and guidelines—may be useful to ex-
plore. Although Menlo Park’s original approach, the most
comprehensive of the group examined, had the shortest
lifespan, it does not necessarily follow that other compre-
hensive approaches will not survive.
What constitutes an appropriate house in terms of
building and lot size, context within the neighborhood
and/or district, or other objective measurements? Clearly,
before planners can fashion regulatory interventions to
address mansionization, they need to assist their commu-
nities in answering that question. Additionally, planners
must translate a diversity of opinions about the perceived
negative effects associated with mansionization, opinions
that may differ by neighborhood or even by block, into a
plan of action.
Further, I believe planners must do the following:
• Balance concerns about neighborhood impact and
privacy with property rights;
• Create regulations that when applied do not preclude
“modest” and “acceptable” renovations/additions by
homeowners; and
• Ensure that when new guidelines are implemented,
older homes do not become nonconforming, thus
exacerbating fears of current owners or making tear-
downs a more attractive option than renovation.
In his book House Form and Culture (), cultural
geographer Amos Rapoport provides a detailed exploration

of the complex determinants of primitive and vernacular
building form. Rapoport speculated about emerging,
modern trends in the form of houses in the United States,
and about our evolving culture. He made the following
observation:
Tradition as a regulator has disappeared—notably in
our own culture—for a number of reasons. The first
reason is the greater number of building types, many of
which are too complex to build in traditional fashion.
. . . The second reason is loss of the common shared
value system and image of the world, with a consequent
loss of an accepted and shared hierarchy—and generally
a loss of goals shared by designers and the public. This
results in the disappearance of that spirit of cooperation
which makes people respect the rights of adjoining peo-
ple and their buildings, and ultimately the rights of the
settlement as a whole. Lack of cooperation leads to the
introduction of such controls (going beyond pattern
books) as codes, regulations and zoning rules concern-
ing alignments and setbacks, which also existed in some
pre-industrial towns. (p. )
Perhaps the regulations that our communities seek
in the mansionization challenge are part of a search for
a “shared hierarchy.” As the built form of single-family
neighborhoods continues to change and evolve, and plan-
ners are asked to address the spectrum of perceived impacts
that are associated with the transformation of the estab-
lished housing stock, there seems to be no magic bullet or
panacea, no single appropriate intervention. To compen-
sate for the loss of an accepted or shared hierarchy, there
are at least alternative, customizable approaches deserving
of consideration. But any future systematic evaluation of
the interventions applied may depend upon how each
community chooses to define proportionality in its evolving
neighborhoods.
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge J. Mark Schuster, Jerold S. Kayden, and Anne
W. Spirn for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript. I also wish to thank the many planners who generously
shared their insightful stories and experience about this complex topic,
especially Tracy L. Cramer of Menlo Park, California.
Notes
. Mansionization comes in two primary forms in the suburban United
States: new large construction on previously undeveloped lots and large
replacement homes or additions on lots previously occupied by homes
of more modest size. This article focuses on the latter. As used in this
article, the term mansionization represents new construction or build
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008

Menlo Park

Regulation Objective Winnetka Sunnyvale Rescinded Revised

Floor area ratio (FAR) Limits total bulk and size of building Yes No Yes Yes
or floor area limit (FAL)

FAR as review trigger Activates special review when FAR exceeds defined limit No Yes Yes No

FAR exclusions/bonus Establishes incentives/added floor area for renovating Yes N/A No Yes
features existing structure, subordinating garage space, or specially
placing accessory elements

Impervious surface Limits impervious surface or paved surfaces to a specified % Yesa No Yes Yes
coverage of lot

Lot coverage Limits building footprint coverage Yes Yesb Yesc Yesd

Second-story ratio Limits floor area on second story to a specific size or % of No Yese Yes Yes
first floor area to minimize appearance of bulk/build out in
single-story neighborhoods

Daylight plane Reduces building mass and projections; ensures light for No No Yes Yes
adjoining property

Second-story setback Reduces appearance of bulk; provides articulation; avoids No Yes No Nof
“blank wall” effect

Other special setback Limits building projections in front, side, or rear yard to Yesg Yes No Yes
requirements address privacy or scale issues related to build out

Special height limits Reduces excessive floor-to-ceiling height or height resulting Yesh No Yes Yes
from basement projections

Design guidelines Encourages compatibility of new construction in existing Noi Yes Yes No
neighborhoods

Design review Ensures greater compatibility or consistency with guidelines No Yes Yes No
requirement when designated thresholds are exceeded

Sources: City of Menlo Park (a, b, a, b, c, d, a, c, d), City of Sunnyvale (a, c, , b), Village of Winnetka (, b).
Additional information and clarification gathered from interviews with planners and/or public officials from those communities.
a. Excludes certain porch area from lot and impervious surface coverage requirement in smaller lot districts.
b. Greater lot coverage allowance is authorized for -story homes.
c. Greater lot coverage flexibility permitted to accommodate additions to -story homes.
d. Under new Menlo Park proposal, increased flexibility to exceed lot coverage.
e. New design guidelines state that nd story should not be more than % of total first floor area.
f. New regulation proposes a limit to the length of walls on second floors before a variation is required.
g. Allows front yard setback “averaging” in most districts, resulting in no less than the average setbacks of adjoining lots.
h. To discourage teardowns, existing homes have greater height allowance.
i. Winnetka does not have design guidelines but does have a standard in its zoning regulations for front-facing garages and building sidewall
articulation for buildings more than  feet long.

Table . Mansionization interventions and their objectives in study communities.

 Szold: Mansionization and Its Discontents
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
out that results in at least a doubling of the floor area of the former
structure.
. In her book House as a Mirror of Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning
of Home (), Clare Cooper Marcus focused principally on moveable,
interior objects within the home as expressions of self, a province unseen
to most planners at work in a regulatory capacity. She nonetheless began
her inquiry with an acute awareness of the home as a “vessel of memo-
ries” and “refuge from the outside world” (p. ). The federal government
continues to nurture home ownership today, as it did in the post-World
War II era, through mortgage and tax policies. While some critics have
written persuasively about the adverse gender and spatial consequences
of the suburban “home as haven” strategy in the United States (Hayden,
, p. ), consumers in America continue to reinvent the interior
space of their suburban homes, despite consequences to neighbors and
neighborhood.
. For many citizens, the regulation of new home construction or altera-
tions to an existing home may be the first and/or the closest intersection
they will have with land use regulation of any kind.
. For purposes of this article, I define mansionization regulations as
comprehensive if they address building volume, scale, massing, and
siting. Absent overall building volume control (such as floor area ratio),
design guidelines and a design review process must be applicable for
home sizes that reach an absolute size threshold for regulations to be
considered comprehensive.
. I published “Look Before You Leap,” an article on the large home by-
law created by the Town of Lincoln, MA, in Planning () and was a
participant in the APA Audio Conference Teardowns, Monster Homes,
and Appropriate Infill (December, ).
. An interview with Winnetka’s community development director,
Mike D’Onofrio (February, ), provided the background on the
evolution of the village’s zoning amendments.
. GFA allowance is similar to FAR, but allows a multiplier to be
applied to initial permissible floor area based on the range into which
the lot size falls.
. Community Development Director D’Onofrio observed that a pre-
sentation made to Village Council members revealed that many homes
of significant floor area were evaluated positively, and were deemed bet-
ter fits with their respective neighborhoods than homes of smaller GFA.
. Information on Sunnyvale’s response to mansionization comes in
large part from an interview with planning officer Trudy Ryan (Feb-
ruary and November–December, ).
. A series of interviews with senior planner Tracy Cramer (February–
May, and November–December, ) provided information on Menlo
Park’s efforts in this area.
. Cupertino, another Silicon Valley community, utilizes a highly
detailed, comprehensive approach similar to Menlo Park’s original
approach, and may also be of interest.
References
Anning, V. (). Barron Park residents rail against “monster homes.”
Palo Alto Weekly (online edition). Retrieved January , , from
http://www.paweekly.com/PAW/morgue/news/_Sep_
.OVERLAY.html
Association of Bay Area Governments. (). Silicon Valley projections
. Oakland: Author.
Bay Area Census. (a). City of Cupertino statistics. Retrieved May ,
, from http://www/bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Cupertino.htm
Bay Area Census. (b). City of Menlo Park statistics. Retrieved May
, , from http://www/bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/MenloPark.htm

Bay Area Census. (c). City of Sunnyvale statistics. Retrieved May ,
, from http://www/bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Sunnyvale.htm
Borak, M. J., & Stephens, R. (, October ). Guest opinions: 
views on neighborhood notification in Menlo Park. The Almanac (online
edition). Retrieved September ,  from http://www.almanacnews
.com/paw/paonline/almanac/morgue//__.notify.htm
Casciato, D. (). Facing teardown mania, Westport tries to thwart
big houses. Brooks Community Newspapers. Retrieved September , ,
from http://yourct.com/lifenews//
City of Geneva, IL. (). Report and recommendations on incompatible
teardown and infill house construction in the City of Geneva, Kane County,
Illinois. Geneva: Mayor’s Task Force on Teardown/Infill Development.
City of Lake Forest, IL. (). Rider to be attached to real estate contracts
in Lake Forest, Illinois explaining the history of Lake Forest regarding the
city’s continued desire to maintain the overall community character and its
existing residential structures and streetscapes. Lake Forest: Author.
City of Lake Forest, IL. (, April ). The city code of Lake Forest.
Lake Forest: Author.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (a). Staff report (of City Council meeting
February , ). Menlo Park: Community Development Depart-
ment, Planning Division.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (b). Zoning district summary sheet. Menlo
Park: Community Development Department, Planning Division.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (a, November ). Design guidelines for
single-family residential development (draft). Menlo Park: Author.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (b, November ). Draft ordinance no.
: single-family zoning districts. Menlo Park: Author.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (c). Proposed changes to single-family resi-
dential development regulations (staff memo). Menlo Park: Community
Development Department, Planning Division.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (d). Staff report # – (of City Council
meeting November , ). Menlo Park: Community Development
Department, Planning Division.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (a, May ). Draft ordinance: single-family
zoning districts. Menlo Park: Author.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (b). Menlo Park profile. Retrieved April
, , from http://www.menlopark.org/business/profile.html
City of Menlo Park, CA. (c). Staff report (for Planning Commis-
sion meeting of May , ). Menlo Park: Community Development
Department, Planning Division.
City of Menlo Park, CA. (d). Zoning ordinance. Menlo Park: Author.
City of Naperville, IL. (). Naperview: Teardown/infill development.
Retrieved April , , from http://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/
teardown/index.htm
City of Newton, MA. (). Zoning ordinance. Newton: Author.
City of Park Ridge, IL. (). Rules of procedure for the appearance
commission. Park Ridge: Author.
City of Pasadena, CA. (). Zoning ordinance. Pasadena: Author.
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (n. d.). Setback and zoning requirements for the
R-, R-, and R- zoning districts. Retrieved December , , from
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C-E-B-AEA
-DCEC//ThingstoKnowandSetbackRequirementsJan.pdf
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (a). Changes to single-family home development
standards. Retrieved August , , from http://www.ci.sunnyvale.co.us
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (b). Housing characteristics. Retrieved April
, , from http://www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/community-dev/economic/
demography/housingcharacteristics.htm
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (c). Ordinance no. - (amendment
to title  of Sunnyvale municipal code). Retrieved September , ,
from http://www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us//rtcs/-.asp
  Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring , Vol. , No. 
Downloaded By: [American Planning Association] At: 21:15 1 July 2008
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (). Large homes study issue—one year review
(Staff report #-). Retrieved February , , from http://www.ci
.sunnyvale.co.us/pc/reports/-.htm
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (a). Summary of residential zoning stand-
ards. Retrieved February , , from http://www.ci.sunnyvale.co.us/
community-dev/planning/res_zoning.htm
City of Sunnyvale, CA. (b). Things to know when planning an
addition to a single family house. Retrieved February , , from http://
www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/community-dev/planning/things_%to_
%know.htm
Eichler Network. (). Neighborhood protection roundup. Retrieved
January , , from http://eichlernetwork.com/NPR_.html
Eichler Network. (). Neighborhood protection roundup. Retrieved
May , , from http://eichlernetwork.com/NPR_.html
Einwalter, D. (). No monsters next door: Planning and design
approaches to mansionization. Unpublished senior project, University
of California, Davis.
El Nasser, H. (, March ). Mega-mansions’ upside: They help
reduce suburban sprawl. USA Today. Retrieved January , , from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation////usat-monster(acov)
.htm
Fayle, K. (, October ). Housing hostilities. Cupertino Courier
(online edition). Retrieved January , , from http://www.svcn
.com/archives/cupertinocourier/../cover-.html
Fine, A. S., & Lindberg, J. (). Taming the teardown trend (report).
Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Foderaro, L.W. (, March ). In suburbs, they’re cracking down on
the Joneses. New York Times (online edition). Retrieved May , ,
from http://www.unc.edu/courses/spring/law///
LargeHomes.htm
Ganga, E. (, December ). In hot locales, knockdowns make the
neighbors quake. Journal News (online edition). Retrieved February ,
, from http://www.thejournalnews.com/pricedout/hsg.htm
Handlin, D. P. (). The American home. Boston: Little, Brown.
Hayden, D. (). Redesigning the American dream. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Knight, D. (). Make way for mansions. Boston Globe Magazine,
pp. , –.
Lang, R. E., Danielson, K. A., & Hinshaw, M. L. (). Monster
houses? Yes! No! Planning, (), –.
Langdon, P. (). In elite communities, a torrent of teardowns.
Planning, (), –.
Manning, M. (). Bigfoots: Lurking in a neighborhood near you?
Planning & Zoning News, –.
Mannion, A., & Goldsborough, B. (, February ). Teardown rift.
Chicago Tribune (online edition). Retrieved February , , from
http://chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/communities/
Marchant, R. (, February ). Communities in region debate
“McMansion” laws. Journal News (online edition). Retrieved February
, , from http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom//
mcmansion
Marcus, C. C. (). House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper
meaning of home. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.
Matthews, G. (). How they lost their way in San Jose. In T. S.
Szold & A. Carbonell (Eds.), Smart growth: Form and consequences
(pp. –). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
National Association of Home Builders. (). Characteristics of new
single-family homes (–). Retrieved January , , from http://
www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=&sectionID=&
print=true
Paik, F. (). “McMansion” battles rage in fast-growing cities. Wall
Street Journal (online edition). Retrieved May , , from http://
www.realestatejournal.com/homeimprove/homeimprove/
-paik.html
Perlman, E. (, April). The McMansion moratorium. Governing, .
Petterson, N. D. (). Torn over teardowns: Protecting neighbor-
hood character. Zoning News, pp. –.
Randall, G. P. (, November). Teardown. Commerce, pp. –.
Rapoport, A. (). House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Sissenwein, A. (, September ). Menlo Park prepares to address
“monster house” issue. Almanac (online edition). Retrieved January ,
, from http://www.almanacnews.com/morgue//__
.mpmonstr.html
Sissenwein, A. (, January ). Menlo Park council weighs neighbor-
review process to check growth of monster homes. Almanac (online edi-
tion). Retrieved January , , from http://www.almanacnews.com/
paw/paonline/almanac/morgue//__.mphomes
Smith, P. (a, June ). Menlo group assails city’s home-design
review proposal. Almanac (online edition). Retrieved January , ,
from http://www.almanacnews.com/PAW/paonline/almanac/morgue/
/__.mprreview
Smith, P. (b, June ). Menlo Park: Home-design review: Up to
the neighborhoods? Almanac (online edition). Retrieved January ,
, from http://www.almanacnews.com/PAW/paonline/almanac/
morgue//__.mphouse
Srebnik, M. (). Single family residential design guidelines. Cupertino:
City of Cupertino Community Development Department.
Szold, T. S. (). Look before you leap. Planning, (), .
Town of Lexington, MA. (). New, larger houses in existing neigh-
borhoods. Lexington: Planning Board and Planning Department.
Town of Lincoln, MA. (). Report to the town of Lincoln. Lincoln:
Article  Zoning Bylaw Committee.
Town of Mamaroneck, NY. (). Elimination of McMansions LL
(local law no.–). Mamaroneck: Author.
Town of Wellesley, MA. (). Zoning by-law. Wellesley: Author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (). Square footage of floor area in new one-
family houses completed. Retrieved January , , from http://www
.census.gov/const/CAnn/sftotalsqft.pdf
Village of Scarsdale, NY. (). Introductory local law # of 
(amending the zoning code to establish a residential floor area ratio).
Scarsdale: Author.
Village of Winnetka, IL. (). Winnetka village plan. Winnetka:
Author.
Village of Winnetka, IL. (). Agenda report re: zoning issues (to
Village Council). Winnetka: Community Development Department.
Village of Winnetka, IL. (a). The community at a glance. Retrieved
March , , from http://www.villageofwinnetka.org/comm.html
Village of Winnetka, IL. (b). Winnetka village code. Winnetka:
Author.
Weinberg, P. J. (). Monster homes: How big a house is too much?
Zoning and Planning Law Report, () –.
Willemsen, K. (, April ). City adopts final zoning guidelines.
Mountain View Voice. Retrieved January , , from http://www
.mv-voice.com/morgue//__.res.html
Staff and Agency Reports
 Q & A on Teardown Policy
The Village of Arlington Heights
Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Development
May 14, 2003
Revised September 9, 2003

Used with permission of the Village of Arlington Heights Department of Planning and Community Development.
 Arlington Heights, IL

Q & A on Teardown Policy

Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Development

What is a teardown policy?

Under the direction of the Village Board, an Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
Taskforce on Teardowns was formed to explore the issues of teardowns occurring in the
Village of Arlington Heights. The Taskforce is comprised of members from the Plan
Commission, Design Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Housing Commission.
The Taskforce began in October with workshops, such as a bus tour of the village to look
at recent teardowns, additions, and new sub-divisions. The bus tour correlated with a
Visual Preference Survey, asking questions about the design, bulk, massing and
neighborhood characteristics. The Taskforce met in November to discuss issues such as
Bulk Regulations, Impervious Surface Coverage, Design & Community Character,
Affordable Housing, Tree Preservation and Historic Preservation. Because of the number
of issues, the Taskforce prioritized the issues into phases.

What are the phases the taskforce prioritized?

Phase I investigates the following issues:
• FAR modification
• Impervious Surface Coverage
• Demolition of Structure Restriction
• Lot Consolidation

Phase II may investigate:

• Tree Preservation
• Design Characteristics
• Historic Preservation
• Affordable Housing

What are the issues in Phase I?

FAR Modification: Looks at the bulk of a structure, and its proportions to a lot
and the neighborhood. Because Arlington Heights is a built-up community, most
houses that are now being constructed are in established neighborhoods. Older
homes do not carry the amenities that a modern lifestyle warrants, such as a three-
car garage or a home office. Although the sizes of the lots are the same, the house
structure is larger. A newer two story home with a larger square footage may not
always fit in with the existing neighborhood.

The taskforce discerned that there was a problem with the current zoning code,
allowing too large a home in the smaller lots in the R-3 zoning district.

Impervious Surface Coverage: Newer homes with a larger square footage, tend
to have a larger building footprint, driveways, and patios. Thus all the impervious
surfaces combined have an impact on the lot and the neighborhood. Currently, a
homeowner can pave over 100% of the lot.
 Arlington Heights, IL

Demolition of Structure Restriction: Currently demolition permits are issued

without discerning if a structure is historical or architecturally significant. There is
no review for structures to be demolished, such as the William Dunton house
(founder of Arlington Heights) on Arlington Heights road or the historical
Vail/Davis building in downtown Arlington Heights.

Lot Consolidation: There is no policy preventing a resident from purchasing two

adjacent lots and building one large home on the properties. The scale of the lot
and home impact the neighborhood.

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)

What is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) modification being proposed?

The current FAR standard in the Village for R-3 size lots is 50%, and for R-1 size lots it
is 30%. On June 30, the Taskforce recommended a FAR modification for the Plan
Commission public hearing, which follows a formula. The proposed formula is as
follows:

R-2 & R-3 Zoning Districts:

Lots up to 8,750 LA x 0.45
Lots over 8,750 3938 + [(LA – 8,750) x 0.4]

R-1 Zoning District:

Lots up to 8,750 LA x 0.35
Lots over 8,750 up to 20,000 3062 + [(LA – 8,750) x 0.26]
Lots over 20,000 LA x 0.30

The formula uses the Lot Area and Zoning District to determine the FAR. The formula
incrementally reduces the FAR as the lot size gets bigger. The modification being
proposed is proportionate to the lot size. For example in the R-2 and R-3 zoning district,
lots which are 8,750 sf or less, the FAR being proposed will change from 50% to 45%.
In the R-1 zoning district, the FAR is increased for smaller lots, and 30% for lots which
are 20,000 sf or greater.

How will it affect the current smaller R-3 lots?

The formula will apply the following:

LOT AREA CURRENT SF Current PROPOSED SF Proposed

6,250 .50 3,125 .45 2,813
8,750 .50 4,375 .45 3,938
9,900 .50 4,950 .44 4,398
10,000 .50 5,000 .44 4,438
15,000 .50 7,500 .43 6,438
 Arlington Heights, IL

How will it affect the current R-1 lots?

The formula will apply the following:

LOT AREA CURRENT SF Current PROPOSED SF Proposed

6,250 .30 1,875 .35 2,188
8,750 .30 2,625 .35 3,063
9,900 .30 2,970 .34 3,361
10,000 .30 3,000 .34 3,387
20,000 .30 6,000 .30 5,987

How will garages count towards the FAR?

Currently, garages are not included in the FAR. It is proposed that the FAR definition
apply a 400 sf credit for garages, which means that any square footage in excess of 400 sf
will count towards the FAR. For detached garages, a credit for the entire square footage
of a garage may be given if the detached garage is within the character of the
neighborhood. The FAR only includes basements, which are 50% above grade, which is
the current definition. Based upon the chart above a good size home can still be built in
Arlington Heights.

How many substandard lots are in the Village? Is there a breakdown of lot numbers by
zoning district?
In the R-3 zoning district, 3.8% of the total lots are 6,250 sf or less, 14.9% of the total
lots are 6,250 sf to 7,500 sf, and 21.4% of the lots are between 7,500 sf and 8,750 sf.

In the R-1 zoning district, 8.6% of the total lots are 6,250 sf or less, 3.5% of the total lots
are 6,250 sf to 7,500 sf, and 2.3% of the total lots are between 7,500 sf and 8,750 sf.

The majority of the R-3 lots in the Village range between 7,500 sf - 8,750 sf and 8,750 sf-
9,900 sf. The proposed changes will have more of an impact on the lots within these
ranges. It should be noted that the FAR modifications proposed by staff for an R-3 lot
that is 7,500 sf would still allow a 3,375 sf home.

How does the FAR apply to two-story volume spaces?

Under the current definition, vaulted areas that are over 7’-10”, have the potential to be
converted into usable floor space, therefore it is counted as part of the FAR. Staff has
revised the definition to 7’-0” rather than 7’-10”. This will still allow for a large two-
story volume space when combined with the first floor, but removes the potential for the
space to be converted into usable space at a later time.

How does the proposed FAR changes compare with other communities?
Numerous communities were surveyed. Included in the survey were: Downers Grove,
Elmhurst, Glenview, Glen Ellyn, Highland Park, Hinsdale, LaGrange, Lake Forest,
Mount Prospect, Palatine, Park Ridge, and Wheeling. The average comparable FAR for
an R-3 size lot was .43 for those communities which do not include garages in the FAR,
and .39 for those communities which apply a credit for garages for the FAR.
 Arlington Heights, IL

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE

What is Impervious Surface Coverage?

Impervious Surface Coverage by definition is any hard-surfaced, man-made area that
does not readily absorb or retain water, including but not limited to buildings, patios,
paved parking and driveway areas, walkways, sidewalks, and paved recreation areas (e.g.
basketball court, tennis court, swimming pools).

What is the current Village policy on Impervious Surface Coverage?

Currently, a lot is regulated by the maximum building coverage and FAR regulations
only. However, there is no impervious surface coverage maximum. In theory, a
homeowner could pave 100% of their lot.

What is the proposed Impervious Surface Coverage regulation?

For single-family residential lots, the proposed Impervious Surface Coverage for lots
greater than 6,600 is a total lot maximum of 50%, with no more than 50% of the front
yard, plus, if it is a corner lot, the exterior side yard being impervious surface. For lots,
which are 6,600 sf or less, a total lot maximum of 55%, with no more than 50% of the
front yard, plus, if it is a corner lot, the exterior side yard being impervious surface.

The percentage was tested on recent homes submitted for Design Commission review.
Of those 33 tested with lots less than 8,750, 30 would comply with the new standard. In
addition, 15 homes on lots ranging between 8,750 and 14999 were tested. Of those 15
tested, 15 would comply with the new standard.

What if there is a current non-conforming lot? For example a replacement for an

existing driveway, which does not meet or exceeds the proposed 50%?
There is an Existing Impervious Surface Exception for existing non-conforming
residential lots needing to repair or replace essential elements only, such as driveways,
walkways to home and patios may receive an administrative exception from the Director
of Building and Zoning from the lot coverage maximum. Administrative exception shall
be permitted only for:
a) replacement of deteriorated essential elements the exact same dimension as
existed at the adoption of this ordinance
b) modification in areas is not practical or feasible
c) such approval shall not be detrimental to public, health, safety and welfare

DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE RESTRICTION

What is the Demolition of Structure Restriction?

Currently, in the Village, there is no review of structures, which are in the B-5
(downtown) or Residential Districts prior to a demolition. The proposed policy
establishes that a Design Commission Review be required of all structures in the B-5 and
residential districts prior to a demolition permit being issued.
 Arlington Heights, IL

What criteria will the Design Commission evaluate prior to a demolition permit being
issued?
1. A development plan
2. An estimated time frame for demolition and subsequent redevelopment plan and
timeline
The review will evaluate that the proposed development is in character with the
neighborhood, meets the criteria in the design guidelines, and will not adversely affect
the neighborhood.

What if the structure is unsafe?

If it is determined by the Director of the Building Department that a structure is unsafe,
uninhabitable and or dangerous to the Village, then a demolition permit may be issued
without Design Commission review.

Does the policy mean a structure cannot be torn-down?

The criteria and Design Commission Review is designed to investigate alternatives,
impacts on the neighborhood and a replacement plan. The policy affords time for a
review by Village staff and Professional Architects prior to a demolition.

LOT CONSOLIDATION

What does Lot Consolidation mean?

Lot Consolidation is a process in which two or more lots or portions of two or more lots
are combined into a lesser number of lots for the purposes of creating a single unified
development. For example, if a developer seeks to purchase two lots that are adjacent to
one another for the purposes of developing one house on the property, the developer
would be required to get the Village’s approval of the consolidation through a public
hearing process, prior to building on the property.

I have owned my property for years; do I have to go through the Lot Consolidation
process to build an addition?
Lot Consolidations are applicable to residentially zoned lots that come under common
ownership after adoption of the proposed amendments to the Arlington Heights
Municipal Code. However, if someone owned two adjacent lots prior to the passage of
the proposed amendments to the Arlington Heights Municipal Code, they would be
permitted to build over the common lot line between the two lots.

What are the criteria to get a partial waiver from the Lot Consolidation requirements?
An application to waive the preliminary plat requirement of the Subdivision Control
Regulations can be applied for if the proposed lot consolidation meets all of the following
criteria:
a. The entire area does not exceed one acre.
b. The proposal does not require any variations from Chapters 28 or 29 of this Code.
c. The proposal does not require any public improvements pursuant to Article V of
this Chapter.
 Arlington Heights, IL

d. The proposed area of each lot is no more than 20% greater or 10% less than the
average zoning lot area on that same frontage.
e. The proposed lot width of each lot is no more than 20% greater or 10% less than
the average zoning lot width on that same frontage.
The applicant would be required to go through the final plat process as outlined in the
Subdivision Control Regulations.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

When will the proposed changes go into effect?

The Village Board has moved an implementation date of November 1, 2003 for the
proposed modifications.

When is the public hearing on the teardown policy?

On July 23, 2003 the policy was presented at the Plan Commission hearing, which is a
public hearing, and will be presented to the Village Board on September 2, 2003.

How can I obtain more information?

Visit the Village website, or contact the Planning & Community Development
Department at 847-368-5200 for more information.
 Town of Chevy Chase, Maryland

Analysis & Recommendations to Promote Compatibility

December 2007

Used with permission of Jakubiak and Associates, Inc. and Studio-27 Architecture.
 Chevy Chase, MD

Chevy Chase Land Use Committee

Julia Miller, Chair

Mayor Linna Barnes, Council Liaison
Lee Denision, Member
Lees Hartman, Member
John Hiatt, Member
Sue Hill, Member
Dedun Ingram, Member
Donna Kirk, Member
Steve McConnell, Member
Joseph Rubin, Member

Mayor and Town Council

Linna Barnes, Mayor

Rob Enelow, Vice Mayor
Lance Hoffman, Secretary
Kathy Strom, Treasurer
Mier Wolf, Community Liaison

Consultants

Jakubiak & Associates, Inc. Studio 27 Architecture

1410 Forest Drive, Suite 23 1600 K Street, Suite 202

Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Washington, DC 20006
www.jakubiak.net www.studio27arch.com

i
 Chevy Chase, MD

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Summary Existing Conditions Documentation 2

2.1. Problem Identification 2
2.2. Background Mapping 3
Aerial 4
General arrangement 5
Streets 6
Topography 7
Parcel boundaries 8
Street trees 9
2.3. Character Areas 10
Character Area Map 11
Character Area Descriptions 12
2.4. Existing Regulations 14
Setback Regulations 14
Buildable Envelope under Current Ordinance 19
2.5. House Bill 1232 26
2.6. Toolbox for Implementation 27

3.0 Analysis 31
3.1. Recent Development Examples 32
3.2. Quantifying Character 43
3.3. Elements of Design Compatibility 50

4.0 The Recommended Approach 57

4.1. Part One: Central elements of compatible development 57
4.2. Part Two: Incentive-based framework for promoting compatible development 58
4.3. Compatibility Checklist 60

ii
 Chevy Chase, MD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes a comprehensive study of the character of the built and natural environment of the Town of Chevy Chase. This work
was guided by a ten member citizen Land Use Committee. The findings and analyses presented herein have informed the Town’s
preparation of and deliberation on draft changes to the regulations governing zoning and building. These changes are addressed to the
problems and impacts that occur when existing houses are demolished and replaced with large houses that are out of scale and character
with the existing neighborhood.

This report is organized into three main sections;

• Section 2 describes existing conditions and regulations in the Town of Chevy Chase, describes the character of the Town, describes
and illustrates the problem, and provides a description of various tools that can be used for changes to building regulations.

• Section 3 provides an analysis of recent residential building projects in the Town and outlines those elements of buildings and the built
environment that help define the character of the Town.

• Section 4 provides recommended regulatory changes to address the concerns outlined in Sections 2 and 3.

1
 Chevy Chase, MD

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS DOCUMENTATION

2.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The work of the Land Use Committee focused on the problem that occurs when existing houses are
demolished and replaced with large houses that are out of scale and character with the existing
neighborhood. The principal impact of this “tear-down” trend is the change to community character.
This can also lead to a loss of historic houses, localized impacts on ambient sunlight, loss of open
spaces and tree cover, increases in impervious surface area (and stormwater run-off), and a reduction
in the interaction between neighbors.

The Town of Chevy Chase has eight unique residential character

districts as described later in this section. Disruptions to these
character areas have been occurring as existing houses are torn down and replaced by much larger
houses that fill the buildable volume established by present building and zoning regulations. Residents
of Chevy Chase are concerned about the changing character of their neighborhoods brought about by
this trend. The effects on community character have been apparent and dramatic. In locations
throughout the Town, two- and three- story structures sometimes with more than double the square
footage of the surrounding houses have been constructed. Often self-referential in their site planning
and architecture and developed without sufficient attention to community design, these larger structures have altered long-standing and
unique characteristics of the community.

Other problems that have lead to changes in the character of Chevy Chase include additions to non-
conforming setbacks, increases to building height, large additions, and projections into setback
areas. Additions to houses that are in non-conformance with the setbacks ordinance can allow
houses that are already very close to one another or the street
to amplify existing problems. Additions over porches can
interrupt the established building line of the street. Large
additions to existing houses that extend rearward along side
yard setbacks can create a canyon effect between houses. The
permitted height of new buildings is much taller than existing
structures in many areas. Currently, height is measured from
the elevation of the finished grade of houses, but when the “finished” grade is elevated through
reconstruction, the result can be a house that towers over adjacent structures.

2
 Chevy Chase, MD

2.2 BACKGROUND MAPPING

The following maps contributed to the study of community character in the Town: aerial imagery, general arrangement of structures and
open spaces, streets, topography, parcel boundaries, and street trees. These maps are presented on the following pages.

3
 Chevy Chase, MD

Aerial

The orange line

follows the
boundary of the
Town of Chevy
Chase.

Development
occurred in the
early 1900’s in
four different
phases and is
largely reflected
in the character
of the
neighborhoods
today.

4
 Chevy Chase, MD

General arrangement

This illustration shows the

pattern of buildings and
open spaces in Chevy
Chase.

It is clear from this

illustration that buildings
are closer together in some
areas, such as the
southwest section of Town.
In other areas, there are
more open spaces such as
around institutions and in
the central part of Town.

Source: Town of Chevy Chase

5
 Chevy Chase, MD

Streets

This illustration shows the

pattern of streets in Chevy
Chase.

It is included here for use as

a reference to more detailed
discussions of character
areas later in the report.

Source: Town of Chevy Chase

6
 Chevy Chase, MD

Topography

This illustration shows

topographic contour lines,
lines of equal elevation on the
earth’s surface. Lines that
are close together indicate
areas of steeply sloping
terrain. Lines that are farther
apart indicate areas of level or
gently sloping terrain. Also
discernable are the ravines
and the ridges that contribute
to the natural character and
impact building practices
throughout the Town.

Source: Town of Chevy Chase

7
 Chevy Chase, MD

Parcel boundaries

This illustration shows the

arrangement of lots in Chevy Chase.

This illustrates that there are some

areas with smaller lots, such as the
southwest corner and some large
lots such at that at the center of the
map. The very large lots are
institutional uses, such as the
Leland Center and the elementary
school.

This image also illustrates the

varying shapes of lots in the Town.

Source: Town of Chevy Chase

8
 Chevy Chase, MD

Street trees

This illustration shows the

arrangement of street trees.
Each circle represents a
street tree and the density of
the circles indicates the
relative extent of the tree
canopy over the street.

Source: Town of Chevy Chase

9
 Chevy Chase, MD

2.3 CHARACTER AREAS

Community character describes the physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural and built environment; in this case the neighborhoods of
the Town of Chevy Chase. It, by definition, includes the principal elements of residential architecture, the vertical and horizontal spatial
relationships between buildings and between buildings and open spaces, the layout of streets and lots, the arrangement of buildings and
impervious surfaces on lots, the presence of trees and tree coverage, and natural and human-made topographic variations.

The Land Use Committee relied on the aforementioned mapping, photography, and the results of town planning and architectural fieldwork
to discern the elements that define community character in Chevy Chase. The process began with a Town-wide assessment. Geographically,
the study found that the Town is comprised of one recreational, one institutional, and eight residential character areas—that is, ten distinct
districts. Among other things, these ten areas differ with respect to street width, presence of sidewalks, side and front yard setbacks,
building height, tree canopy, open space, tree coverage and topographic changes. The term “fabric” was adopted to describe these
qualities.

After much deliberation, the land use committee decided that any regulatory framework designed to protect community character should be
flexible enough to work equitably within each of the Town’s distinct character areas. The character areas—fabric areas-- are mapped on the
next page.

10
 Chevy Chase, MD

Character Area Map

11
 Chevy Chase, MD

Character Fabric Area Descriptions

Valley District (Fabric A): The Valley District runs along Meadow Road and a small section of Oakridge
Drive, the valleys of Chevy Chase’s hilly terrain. Green spaces along the roads are created by larger lots,
broad front yard setbacks, and large street tree planting strips. These elements contribute to the park-like
character of this district.

Springhill District (Fabric B): The Springhill District is the largest character area in Chevy Chase. In many
ways it is the area that pulls all the districts together and provides cohesiveness to the Town. Both gentle
and dramatic changes in topography provide interest and variety to the streets. Houses in the Springhill
District are closer to the street. Green spaces in Springhill Districts are created by larger side setbacks.

Historic Urban Enclave (Fabric C): The Historic Urban Enclave is the character district in closest proximity
to Bethesda. The enclave is characterized by narrower streets, sidewalks, and on-street parking. Buildings
appear not to be as tall here than in other districts, creating a pedestrian scale environment.

Historic Ridge Core (Fabric D): The Historic Ridge Core is located in the center of Town along a ridgeline.
This area runs along Ridgewood and Maple Avenues. The street is characterized by mature trees and
smaller, historic houses which vary in style and size. Green space dominates this district; the houses seem
to integrate well with the surrounding natural landscape.

12
 Chevy Chase, MD

Park District (Fabric E): The Park District lies between Leland Street and East-West Highway, bordered and
characterized by the Leland Center’s open space and Zimmerman Park. Streets in the Park District cut
through the hills, creating steeply sloped front lawns between the street and houses. Spacing between
houses and steeply down-sloping land adds to the green space in the Park District.

Estate Edge (Fabric F): The Estate Edge occurs along Connecticut Avenue, East-West Highway, and Bradley
Lane. These areas are characterized by the large front yards that balance the wide streets. Broad lawns
characterize the streetscape, with large houses surrounded by large front and side yards.

Georgetown Valley (Fabric G): This small district is located along East-West Highway, to the east of the
Georgetown Branch Trail, a former Railroad line. The natural vegetation dominates the front yards. In size,
the houses are smaller than along the Estate Edge, as a result of the topography. They are also located
closer to the street than houses in other edge areas and are buffered from the traffic on East-West
Highway by mature vegetation in their front yards.

Enclave Edge (Fabric H): The houses fronting on Bradley Lane south of the Historic Urban Enclave combine
the elements of the Estate Edge with the charm of the Historic Urban Enclave. Building heights are lower
and houses are smaller than other houses along Bradley lane, but have large front and side yards. Unlike
any other area in Chevy Chase these houses face the street at an angle.

13
 Chevy Chase, MD

2.4 EXISTING REGULATIONS

Setbacks Regulations

One of the Land Use Committee’s first charges in considering community character was to review the recently adopted setback ordinance.
It did and decided not to alter it. For reference purposes and to acknowledge the continuity of the Town’s ongoing consideration of physical
town planning and zoning issues, the review is summarized here. What this evaluation suggests is that the original goals of the setbacks
ordinance can be better achieved with additional attention to design compatibility. Chevy Chase’s setback ordinance was developed to
accomplish six goals:

1. Maintain privacy and space between properties,

2. Ensure flow of air and light
3. Maintain safe passageways in case of fire or other emergency,
4. Encourage appropriately sized construction in keeping with the character of the Town,
5. Maintain green and open space between properties throughout the Town,
6. Promote fair and reasonable rules that take into account the various needs of owners of different sized and shaped lots.

These six goals are described in detail below. Additionally, the effectiveness of the existing setbacks ordinance in response to these six
goals is evaluated.

Evaluation Summary

Maintaining privacy and space between properties: The space between two structures allows homeowners to maintain privacy in their
houses. The space between properties, the yard, is the optimal place for social interaction between neighbors.

Maintaining privacy and space between properties can be accomplished through regulation of setbacks. The current setbacks ordinance
increased the required side setbacks, providing a distance of no less than 16 feet between houses for new construction and preventing
house additions from reducing the distance between houses. This increases the possibility of privacy between theses houses.

Ensuring flow of air and light: The flow of light and air into and around a house adds to the character of a neighborhood and the quality of
life of its residents. Large structures can block sun light into neighboring houses and into adjacent properties. Tall houses with straight walls
can also increase the wind turbulence between houses. The result of these changes can be a reduction in quality of life of existing
residents.

14
 Chevy Chase, MD

The ability to ensure an adequate supply of air and light around houses through the current setback ordinance is limited. The setbacks
ordinance is not able to regulate neither the height of new houses nor the extent to which a new house extends along the side setback line.
Height can be a major factor in blocking light and disrupting the flow of air. The rear-ward extension of building mass along a side yard can
create a canyon effect and substantially impair the flow of light. Rear setbacks that are tied to lot size are present in the existing setbacks
ordinance; these requirements have helped to alleviate this problem to the extent possible when using setbacks as a tool.

Maintaining safe passageways in case of fire or other emergency: Safety during emergency situations is essential. Emergency response
personnel must have ample and safe routes to the side and rear of a house in times of emergency.

The setback ordinance is an effective tool for ensuring that safe egress is available during emergencies. Providing ample room between
houses allows for safe exit. However, projections from the house into these setback areas can cause problems in achieving this goal when
variances from the setbacks ordinance are permitted.

Encouraging appropriately sized construction in keeping with the character of the Town: Chevy Chase is a unique town with eight distinct
character areas. Each of these areas is characterized by a certain lot size and coverage that helps to define its character. Houses that tower
over existing houses disrupt the architectural rhythm of the street and reduce the unique qualities that define community character.

The existing setbacks ordinance is limited in its ability to achieve this goal. While the ordinance does reduce the footprint of new structures
and additions, building height can still cause disruption in the fabric of streets. Houses built before the ordinance was in place project into
the previously established setbacks. Additionally, variances have been granted for second story additions over porches. Arguably, this can
pull forward the front setback line, and it can have the affect of making the structure feel taller.

Maintaining green and open space between properties through the Town: Green space and open space can help define the character of a
town. These spaces provide form, balance, and rhythm to a streetscape. Much of the defining characteristics of Chevy Chase’s character
areas are created by the green spaces between houses and between houses and the street. Large houses that are in close proximity
encroach on this green space; the houses themselves, rather than the natural landscape begin to dominate character.

Improvements have been made in maintaining areas of green space between. The setbacks ordinance applies uniformly over the entire
Town; different areas of the Town have different characters, created by varying side setbacks.

Crafting fair and reasonable rules that take into account the various needs of owners of different size and shape lots within the Town: Lots
in Chevy Chase vary in size and shape. Some lots are very small; others are shaped in such a way as to require creative placement and
expansion of houses. Creating a set of rules that allows for reasonable expansions of existing houses, but prevents construction that
disrupts the fundamental character of Chevy Chase are necessary.
The setbacks regulations include general rules along with calculations based on lot size. This allows the regulations to provide flexibility
based on lot size. While some lots will still require variances because of unique location, shape, and size conditions, the setbacks
regulations are fair and reasonable for the majority of lots.

15
 Chevy Chase, MD

Setback Standards

The Town’s existing setback regulations as they vary from Montgomery County regulations are summarized in the table below.

Development Standard Setbacks Ordinance

Minimum Lot Area 6000 sq. feet
Minimum Lot Width
At front building line 60 feet
At existing or proposed street line 25 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 35%
Main Buildings
35 feet when measured to the highest point of roof surface, regardless of roof type OR 30 feet to the mean
Height height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, mansard, or gambrel roof, subject to the following: The
height must not exceed 2.5 stories
Setbacks
Interior Lots
Minimum Front Setback Greater of 25 feet or established building line
Minimum Side Setback
Total Side Setbacks Greater of 16 feet or 30% of lot width of the lot at the minimum front setback
One side Greater of 8 feet or 40% of the total side setbacks
20 feet for lots 100 feet deep or less; 20 feet plus 70% of lots between 100 and 120 feet deep; 25 feet plus
Minimum Rear Setback
70% of lot deeper than 100 feet for lots over 120 feet deep
Corner Lots
Minimum Front Setback Greater of 25 feet or established building line;
When adjoining lot on one street
does not front on that street 15 feet
setback from that street line
8 feet for lots that are greater than 70 feet wide at the minimum front setback; for lots 70 feet wide or less: lost
Minimum Side Setback
recorded prior to 06/01/58 - 7 feet, lost recorded prior to 3/16/28 with a frontage of 40 or 50 feet - 5 feet
20 feet for lots between 120 feet deep or less; 20 feet plus 70% of lot deeper than 100 feet for lots over 120
feet deep (Giveback-for lots greater than 120 feet in depth, the Town will give a credit of 1 foot subtracted form
Minimum Rear Setback
the rear setback for every foot that the established building line is greater than 30 feet.) At no time will the rear
setback be less than 20 feet.
(Table continued from previous page)

Setback exemptions for projections

16
 Chevy Chase, MD

Uncovered steps, stoops, decks, terraces and porches

Interior lot Not more than 9 feet into rear yard setback, or 3 feet into side yard setback
Either front yard setback of 25 feet or greater, rear yard setback not more than 9 feet. When a side yard is less
Corner lot
than 25 feet wide, no side yard encroachment is allowed.
Covered, unenclosed steps, stoops,
exterior stairways and terraces Not more than 9 feet into rear yard setback; roof covering not more than 3 feet into front or rear setback
Covered, unenclosed porches Not more than 9 feet into rear yard setback; roof covering not more than 3 feet into front or rear setback
Bay windows, oriels, entrances, Not more than 1 story height; not more than 3 feet into front or rear setback and 2 feet into side setback. For
vestibules or balconies 10 feet or less in buildings described in 4(b)(2)b.2 the structure must be 6 feet from the side lot line. Not more than 2 bay
width windows may project into any required setback
Cornices and Eaves 2.5 feet but not less than 2 feet from the vertical plane of any lot line
Outside Stairways no more than 5 feet over minimum rear yard only
Chimneys 2 feet into minimum front, rear, or side yard setback.
Chimneys used as walls Not permitted to project into any setback
Not more than 5 feet into any front or rear yard. Additional projection permitted for noise abatement devices.
Air Conditioners or Heat Pumps
Those existing before 7/27/82 will not be non-conforming and may be continued and replaced.
Accessory Buildings
Location must be in rear yard
Maximum Rear Yard Lot Coverage 25%
Height 25 feet from existing grade, not to exceed 2 stories
Setbacks
Interior Lots
Minimum Front Setback 60 feet
5 feet for those less than 12 feet to the highest point of the roof OR 7.5 for those greater than 12 feet to the
highest point of the roof. For those greater than 12 feet for a flat roof or 15 feet for a gabled roof, side yard
Minimum Side Setback setback increases at a ratio of 1.5 feet of additional setback for each foot in excess or 12 (or 15) feet ,
whichever results in a greater setback. For those along a side property line grater than 24 feet, side yard
setback increase at a ration of 1.5 feet for every foot beyond 24 feet.
5 feet. For those greater than 12 feet to the highest point of the roof. For those greater than 12 feet for a flat
roof or 15 feet for a gabled roof, side yard setback increases at a ratio of 1.5 feet of additional setback for each
Minimum Rear Setback
foot in excess or 12 (or 15) feet , whichever results in a greater setback. For those along a side property line
grater than 24 feet, side yard setback increase at a ration of 1.5 feet for every foot beyond 24 feet.

(Table continued from previous page)

Corner Lots

17
 Chevy Chase, MD

Minimum Front Setback 60 feet

Minimum Side Setback
Minimum Rear Setback
Corner lots adjoining lot on a side street has frontage on that side street, setback from that street line- 25 When
no lot on the side street with frontage on the side street in the same block and on the same side of the street,
setback from the side street line - 15 feet
10 feet. For those greater than 12 feet for a flat roof or 15 feet for a gabled roof, side yard setback increases at
a ratio of 1.5 feet of additional setback for each foot in excess or 12 (or 15) feet , whichever results in a greater
setback. For those along a side property line grater than 24 feet, side yard setback increase at a ration of 1.5
feet for every foot beyond 24 feet.

Variances

Ten variance requests, made after the setbacks regulations were in place, were studied as part of this process. Two variance requests were
found to be most relevant to the Committee. One of these requests was made in the instance of a uniquely shaped lot. The second request
was made for extending a second story over a front porch that was already within the setback. Additionally, two variances were granted for
front porches; one of these reduced the porch encroachment into the setback. These porches both conformed to the established porches of
the streets on which the houses front.

18
 Chevy Chase, MD

Buildable Envelope under Current Ordinance

The images on pages 20-23 outline the hypothetical buildable envelope on six typical lots in Town. The term “envelope” is used here to
mean the physical volume of space permitted by code to be filled with a building. The image on page 24 shows the buildable envelope for
main building projections that would be permitted under existing regulations. The image on page 25 illustrates accessory building
envelopes.

For these evaluations a 25-foot front setback was assumed. However, it is important to note that the actual buildable envelope would be
somewhat smaller as the established building line would prevail in setting the front setback line. The extent of the difference may vary
somewhat depending on the location of the lot in the Town. With this exception, these illustrations were critical to the Committee’s
understanding of the potential building volume permitted under current regulations and hence its appreciation of the seriousness of the
problem.

19
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Envelope Evaluation: Wide Lot (110 feet by 142 feet)

(subject to E.L.B.)

20
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Envelope Evaluation: Typical Lot Fabric B

(subject to E.L.B.)

21
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Envelope Evaluation: Typical Lot Fabric C

(subject to E.L.B.)
22
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Envelope Evaluation: Typical Lot Fabric E

(subject to E.L.B.)

23
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Envelope Evaluation: Encroachments into Setback Areas

24
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Envelope Evaluation: Accessory Structures

25
 Chevy Chase, MD

2.5 HOUSE BILL 1232

The Maryland General Assembly adopted House Bill 1232 in 2006. This new Maryland law gives municipalities in Montgomery County the
authority to create a zoning ordinance that imposes additional or stricter building regulations than those that exist at the County level. The
new law provides new municipal authority to regulate the following elements in areas zoned single-family residential:

• Height, bulk, massing, and design dimensions of structures

• Lot coverage and impervious surface area

Montgomery County Municipalities were able to regulate the following items before these additions were added:

• Fences, walls, hedges, and similar barriers

• Signs
• Residential parking
• Residential storage
• The location of structures, including setback requirements

The two new elements can help to reduce the actual and perceived size of new houses that are built in existing communities. In total
regulations that address setbacks, height, bulk, massing, design, dimensions of structures, lot coverage, and impervious surface areas are
key to protecting community character in process of redevelopment.

26
 Chevy Chase, MD

2.6 TOOLBOX FOR IMPLEMENTATION

This section summarizes the Land Use Committee’s investigation of options which may be available to towns to implement the authority
given by House Bill 1232. It is included here for reference and to demonstrate the breadth of the Committee’s study before its selection of
an approach focused primarily on building height, floor area ratio, and design guidelines.

Building Height

Building height is the measurement from a base to some vertical point on a

structure. There are various ways to measure height such as; height above
pre-development grade, height above average grade, height above finished
grade, height to roof peak, height to roof base, or height to midpoint of
pitched roof. How height is measured greatly affects the overall size of the
house. The illustration to the left shows one method of measuring height to
the mean of a pitched roof, and how this relates to interior height.

Volume

Building Volume Ratio (BVR): Building Volume Ratio is the residential building volume compared to the lot area, expressed as a ratio. It
effectively measures the entire volume of the building above finished grade as a percentage of the lot area. This establishes a three
dimensional measure of the building and provides builders with more flexibility to increase floor area while at the same time reducing the
overall mass of the structure.

Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR): The landscape volume ratio measures the soft vegetative volume as a percent of the total lot area; mature
trees and vegetation contribute to higher landscape volumes. The result is that in areas where sizable mature vegetation is present relatice
to the total site area, the LVR will be high. When combined with BVR the resulting Site Volume Ratio (SVR) creates incentives for preserving
mature vegetation.

Site Volume Ratio (SVR): Site Volume Ratio is calculated by subtracting the BVR from the LVR. The result of a positive SVR is that if a
teardown were to occur, preserving the existing vegetation (thereby reducing the impact on community character) would allow a larger
building. If all existing vegetation was removed, the volume of the building permitted would be reduced.

27
 Chevy Chase, MD

Breaks in wall planes and rooflines of building

By interrupting the consistent planes of building walls and rooflines, the structure can be
made to appear both smaller in mass and more compatible in character. This could create a
setback that is different for the first 30 feet of the house, for example across the width of
the lot. Any additional width of the house would have to be set back further creating a break
in uniform surface. This can occur on both the front and the side of houses; the separation
creates visual interest and prevents the house from appearing massive. The illustration to
the left shows an example of an interrupted wall plane.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Floor Area Ratio is the gross floor area of all buildings as a percentage of the total lot area. Application of floor area ratio standards can
result in taller structures that have a smaller footprint on a given lot, or conversely, shorter structures that cover more lot area. Floor area
ratio can be used rather than regulating lot coverage and height together. When regulating FAR it is important to have a detailed set of rules
for measuring the floor area, taking into consideration basements and steeply pitched roofs if necessary. The illustration shows two
different FARs on the same size lot.

28
 Chevy Chase, MD

Setbacks

The Town of Chevy Chase has an

existing setbacks ordinance which
regulates the distance the outside
walls of a building can be from
the property lines. The setback
lines effectively establish the
limits on the location of a building
on a lot. Regulating setbacks can
help to ensure privacy and open
areas between houses. Different
setback requirements currently
exist for main buildings, accessory
structures, and projections from
existing houses.

Lot Coverage

Lot (of building) coverage refers to the horizontal area within the lot
that is covered by the main building and any accessory structure as a
percentage of the total lot area. Regulating the lot coverage can
reduce the overall footprint of accessory structures as well as the
main building. Lot coverage ties the footprint of a structure to the
overall size of the lot on which it is located, creating a situation under
which the footprint of the house and accessory structures are in
proportion to the existing lot.

29
 Chevy Chase, MD

Impermeable Surface Coverage

Impermeable surfaces are those surfaces on a lot covered by materials that do not permit water to flow into the ground. Included in this
definition are the main and accessory structures on a lot as well as any paving, such as driveways and walkways. Establishing a ratio for the
area that impermeable surfaces would be permitted to cover creates trade-offs between driveway and walkway size and building footprint.

Open Space Ratio

An open space ratio is the area of the lot that is not covered by structures or paved surfaces as a percentage of the total lot. Requiring a
certain open space ratio is a way to reduce the footprints of the impermeable surfaces on a lot.

Planting Requirements

Landscaping requirements can contribute to the overall appearance of a community and to the character of the street. Landscaping can
also reduce the large appearance of new buildings by visually breaking down the buildings’ mass. Maintaining existing mature landscaping
can help to ensure preservation of community character despite changes as infill occurs. Two of the many ways to accomplish this are
through tree preservation ordinances, as the Town has, or through requiring that a percentage of building cost be spent on landscaping.
Landscaping requirements should also include a list of native trees and shrubs that are permitted.

Design Guidelines

Creating design guidelines within a community can help to guide development in a way that is consistent with community character. Design
guidelines can address driveways, walkways, storm water management, plantings, and building facades. Design guidelines can be
encouraged through the use of incentives. For example, front porches that comply with standard design guidelines would not be counted
against impermeable surface ratio. Another way to encourage use of design guidelines would be to create zoning regulations that are
restrictive and provide exemptions from these regulations upon approval of plans by a Town’s administrative staff or design review
committee.

30
 Chevy Chase, MD

3.0 ANALYSIS

An analysis of the size and height of a selection of recently developed house sites in Town follows. This analysis, along with consideration
of the existing conditions described in the previous section, informed recommendations regarding building height and floor area ratio (FAR).

This section also outlines contributing elements to the Town’s character. Section 3.1 details recent development examples that help to
relate previously discussed concepts, such as lot coverage and FAR to actual conditions in Chevy Chase. Section 3.2 and 3.3 examine
community character and design compatibility.

31
 Chevy Chase, MD

3.1 RECENT DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLES

32
Chevy Chase, MD

33
Chevy Chase, MD

34
Chevy Chase, MD

35
Chevy Chase, MD

36
Chevy Chase, MD

37
Chevy Chase, MD

38
Chevy Chase, MD

39
Chevy Chase, MD

40
Chevy Chase, MD

41
Chevy Chase, MD

42
 Chevy Chase, MD

3.2 QUANTIFYING CHARACTER

Based on the Fabric Area characterization and other analyses presented in previous sections of this report, several elements were found to
be essential contributors to the overall character of the Town. These elements are building height, floor area ratio, wall plane height, curb
cuts, and accessory buildings. These essential elements and associated recommendations are described and illustrated on the following
pages. Some of these elements were previously described in the “Toolbox for Implementation” section of this report. These specific
elements were used to guide regulations to protect the Town’s character. The Land Use Committee determined that these elements were
essential to be addressed in all new construction and should therefore be regulated as part of the Town’s building code.

43
 Chevy Chase, MD

Building Height

Many houses constructed in recent years in the Town of Chevy Chase “tower” over existing houses. In some cases, the existing houses may
only reach one to two stories while adjacent new houses reach 2.5 stores and have the appearance of being even taller. Building height is
one of the major contributing factors to the disruption of character caused by new construction. The existing height regulations allow new
houses to be much taller than existing ones; a lower height regulation would bring new construction in line with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood.

The illustration to the left

The illustration below shows one method for
shows the relationship bringing the height of
between the increase in new structures closer to
size (width) of new that of existing, thereby
structures and the
increasing compatibility.
resulting increase in
height.

The illustration above shows a second method for

increasing compatibility, by allowing taller structures to
be built in areas where the existing height of buildings is
taller. This method uses an established building height
definition similar to the Town’s existing established
building line definition. 44
 Chevy Chase, MD

Wall Plane Height

Wall Plane Height is the maximum vertical distance, at any point on any side of the building, between the grade elevation on the exterior
wall and the roof line. Since the building height is measured from the average elevation above the grades, a house can have one wall plane
that is significantly taller than the permitted building height. This leads to a situation where a building appears to be much taller than it is.
Structures that are or appear to be significantly taller than the existing established building height along a street are not consistent with the
character of the Town.

This diagram illustrates wall plane height. The wall plane

in the first figure is common in new construction. This
configuration creates a height along one area of the
building that is significantly higher than permitted for the
whole, creating the feeling that the building is “towering”
over the street and its neighbors.

Curb Cuts

A curb cut is the area along the street, where the curb is absent to allow vehicle access to individual lots (via a driveway). In Chevy Chase
the traditional character of the Town includes relatively narrow curb cuts. There is typically only one curb cut per lot. The increasing size and
number of cars per household, has increased the demand for wider curb cuts. Reducing the size and limiting the number of curb cuts will
help ensure that new construction is compatible with the neighborhood.

45
 Chevy Chase, MD

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

FAR is the ratio of the total floor area of the buildings on a site to the total site area. The total floor area is the sum of the horizontal areas of
the several floors of all buildings on a lot, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls. This includes basements, half-stories and
attics, stairwells at each story, floor space used for mechanical equipment (with structural headroom of 5 feet or more), attic space
(whether or not a floor has actually been laid, providing structural headroom of 6 feet 6 inches or more). Areas with ceiling heights
(measured from floor to roof) greater than 14 feet count twice in the calculation of gross floor area. In any accessory structure that is
greater than 240 square feet, the area greater than 240 square feet counts toward floor area. The following three illustrations show a
variety of FARs on lots of varying size. The lots shown are typical size lots for the Town. This typical-lot site analysis was key to
understanding and setting an appropriate FAR for the Town of Chevy Chase.

46
Chevy Chase, MD

47
Chevy Chase, MD

48
 Chevy Chase, MD

Accessory Buildings

Accessory buildings in the Town of Chevy Chase are typically smaller structures that serve as storage areas or garages accommodating up
to one small vehicle. The vehicles driven today are larger than they once were and so too are accessory buildings. As accessory buildings
grow in size they can and have changed community character. Reducing the height of accessory structures and regulating the width of their
doors can help to create new construction that reflects the character of Chevy Chase. The illustration below shows what is allowed under
current regulations as compared with what is typical of the character of the Town. Lowering the permitted height and width of accessory
structures can improve compatibility with the Town’s character.

49
 Chevy Chase, MD

3.3 ELEMENTS OF DESIGN COMPATIBILITY

There are several additional elements that can enhance the design compatibility of new and larger structures with the unique character of
Chevy Chase. These elements are described and illustrated in this section. Each of these elements is included in a checklist of design
elements that allow for the construction of larger houses. The Land Use Committee determined that the combination of these elements
would reduce the perceived size of larger construction, increasing its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Front yard paving

The traditional character of Chevy Chase exhibits little paving in the front yard. On lots
with existing houses, driveways are small and do not have paved parking areas or
turnarounds. On lots with additions or new construction, parking areas are wider and
often include turnarounds and parking pads for multiple vehicles.

Shade Trees

Tree canopy is a predominant contributing element to character in Chevy Chase. Large

shade trees create a canopy over streets as well as rear and side yards. The Town has
a Tree Ordinance that prohibits the removal of healthy canopy trees without a permit.

50
 Chevy Chase, MD

Lot coverage

Lot coverage refers to the portion of a lot which is covered by buildings or other raised structures as a percentage of the total lot area. It
does not include structures that are not raised such as walkways, patios, terraces, driveways, swimming pools, and tennis
courts. Restricting lot coverage can reduces the amount of impervious surfaces and can limit a building to a smaller portion of a lot. The
exhibit below shows the relationship between a building footprint and the potential lot coverage on three typical lot sizes in Town.

51
 Chevy Chase, MD

Impervious Surface Coverage

Impervious lot coverage is any surface that does not allow water to drain, seep, filter, or pass through into the ground below. It includes, but
is not limited to, any main buildings, accessory buildings, driveways, sidewalks, walkways, patios, grade-level decks, terraces, tennis courts,
swimming pools, and other similar surfaces. Impervious surfaces reduce the amount of rainwater that is absorbed by the ground. This can
result in increased flooding of cellars and basements on a property and its neighbors. Impervious surface replaces green space and can
alter the character of the Town.

Complex Foot print

A complex footprint serves to break down

the mass and scale of structures that are
larger than those existing. A complex
footprint breaks up the wall plane length,
reducing perceived mass and bulk of a
structure. The picture to the right shows
a front wall plane that is uninterrupted.
The illustration (far right) shows how an
interruption in the wall plane can reduce
the perceived mass of a structure.

52
 Chevy Chase, MD

One Story Element

A one story element is a single-story projection from the main building. This
projection helps to reduce the perceived size of a structure and can help larger
structures appear more compatible with their neighbors. The use of one-story
elements is common throughout Chevy Chase. Examples of one-story elements
are circled in the picture to the right.

Roof Gable Orientation

Roof gable is the direction of the wall that forms a

triangle under the end of a pitched roof. Uniform roof
gable orientation helps existing and new structures to
be more compatible. Consistent orientation of the
roof gable appears in some character areas in Chevy
Chase, while it is not a character element in others.

53
 Chevy Chase, MD

Front door and front walk

The front door orientation to the street is a consistent

pattern throughout Chevy Chase. Most front doors
are located at street level or slightly above, as the
natural topography of the Town dictates. The
presence of a front walk to this door is also found
consistently in the Town, as can be seen in the image
to the right where the front walks are marked with
red lines.

Entry feature

An entry feature is an architectural element, other than trim, that is part of the door that
differentiates the main entrance. It is generally above the sill of the main door. An entry
feature includes elements such as canopies, awnings, and covered porches. The picture to
the right shows one type of entry feature.

54
 Chevy Chase, MD

Side Yard Projections

Side yard projections are elements that enter into the side yard setback, such as bay windows, awnings, and heating and cooling
equipment. Limiting the side-yard projections reduces the perceived mass and scale of the house while increasing the perceived distance
between the main structure and neighboring main structures.

Shared Driveways

A shared driveway is a driveway that provides access to and from more than one property. Shared
driveways are found throughout Chevy Chase. They reduce the amount of paving in the front yard and
reduce the amount of impermeable surfaces. The image to the right shows a shared driveway that
consists of two concrete strips, one in each lot.

Garages

Different character areas have different types of accessory buildings and attached garages. Some areas have small rear-yard garages; other
areas have attached garages at the cellar level. One car garages are the predominant type of garage in the Town. As vehicles get larger and
each household has more vehicles, larger garages have become more popular. These new two car garages can disrupt the character of
Chevy Chase. Side entry garages can accommodate a larger number of vehicles while having less of an impact on the character of the
neighborhood.

55
 Chevy Chase, MD

Open Space / Green Space

Open space or green space is the area on a lot not occupied by

the main and accessory structures or other surfaces that are not
naturally occurring. Open space and green space between
properties is typical in Chevy Chase.

Historic Character

Chevy Chase has many historic houses. Several properties in the Town are
listed on the Maryland Historic Trust Inventory. The unique and historic
character of the Town is what the building regulation amendments in the next
section seek to preserve.

56
 Chevy Chase, MD

4.0 THE RECOMMENDED APPROACH

We recommend that amendments be made to the Town’s building code. The recommended approach consists of two principal parts. Their
first part includes requirements for some of the elements of building and site design that are central to compatible development—building
height, wall plane height, and accessory buildings. The second part consists of establishing a flexible incentive-based framework for
promoting compatible development. This part establishes a maximum FAR limit which reflects the average FAR on lots in Town. An applicant
for a building permit may exceed this limit provided the building plan shows adherence to basic elements of compatible building design. The
applicant is entitled to select from an extensive list of such elements and is granted increased FAR for each element selected. As a
consequence houses may be bigger provided they are compatible.

Part 1: Central elements of compatible development

Reduce the height of main buildings

Reducing the permitted height of buildings reduces the “towering” effect that taller houses have on their neighbors and on the street. A
reduced building height will help to create new structures that are more compatible with the neighborhood. It is recommended that the
building height not exceed either (whichever is greater) 33 feet from the average pre-development grade in front of the structure to the
highest point of roof surface or 28 feet from the average pre-development grade in front of the structure to the mean height level between
the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, mansard, or gambrel roof.

Because this recommendation seeks to reduce the impact on neighboring houses and on community character, an exception in areas
where character has been altered by taller homes is appropriate. This exception would allow the town manager to authorize construction of
a building that meets an established building height. The established building height is a height building line, which is the average height of
all buildings that are within 300 feet of each side lot line along the same side of the street. Still, the total maximum height should be
capped at either (whichever is greater) 35 feet from the average pre-development grade in front of the structure to the highest point of the
roof surface; or 30 from the average pre-development grade in front of the structure to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge
of a gable, hip, mansard, or gambrel roof. It should be the responsibility of the applicant seeking to build to document the established
building height.

Establish a limit on wall plane height

Building height is measured from the average pre-development grade in front of a structure. This means that one portion, or wall plane, of
the front of a house may be significantly taller than the maximum height. This also means that side and rear walls may be significantly taller

57
 Chevy Chase, MD

than the permitted building height. Establishing a limit on wall plate height will reduce the “towering” effect from front, side, and rear wall
planes that exceed the permitted building height by more than 3 to 5 feet. It is recommended that no wall plane of any wall on any facade
of any structure exceed 36 feet in height as measured from the lower of the pre- or post- development grade.

Reduce the height of accessory structures

Reducing the allowable height of accessory structures is also recommended. It is recommended that the height of an accessory building not
exceed either (whichever is greater) 15 feet from the average pre-development grade in front of the structure to the highest point of the roof
surface; or 12 feet from the average pre-development grade to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, mansard,
or gambrel roof.

Ensure that new garages are in keeping with the Town’s character

The existing character of Chevy Chase includes small one-car, front-loading garages. Newer garages with multiple wide doors disrupt this
character. Therefore, the recommended regulations would allow only one door for a front-loading garage per main building. This front-
loading garage door would not be greater than nine feet wide and would be set back or forward three feet from the main building.

Minimize impervious driveways

To address the stormwater runoff, it is recommended that any new or replacement driveways be pervious, thereby allowing water to drain,
seep, filter, or pass through into the ground below.

Part 2: Incentive-based framework for promoting compatible development

Regulation of FAR would establish a voluntary system of design compatibility through base and maximum FARs, while allowing property
owners to achieve higher FARs through an incentive checklist. This incentive checklist would allow larger houses, provided they meet a
number of objective criteria that reinforce the character of the Town. This checklist is shown on page 60. It is intended to be submitted by
the applicant with the application for a building permit.

A minimum, or base, FAR of 0.3 would be guaranteed to all lots. This base FAR is similar to the FAR on a typical lot with an existing house.
Because tearing down an existing house and replacing it with a new one can be disruptive to the Town’s character, additions to existing
structures would be allowed an additional 0.05 FAR. More floor area could be built than that permitted by the base FAR if elements of
design compatibility are met. Each incentive checklist element would provide an additional 0.01 FAR up to 0.15 additional FAR, for a
maximum of 0.45 FAR for new construction and 0.50 FAR for additions.

58
 Chevy Chase, MD

To ensure that these regulations are fair to smaller lots, a minimum standard floor area of 2,500 square feet should be guaranteed to all
lots. To ensure that excessively large and out-of-scale houses are not allowed on large lots under the FAR approach, all lots over 10,000
square feet in size should be treated as if they are 10,000 square feet for the calculation of FAR.

59
 Chevy Chase, MD

Compatibility Checklist & Floor Area Worksheet

Town of Chevy Chase
Step 1. Enter the permit application street address in the box at right. Street Address

Step 2. Enter the permit application lot size in the box at right Lot Area sf

Step 3. Check the box at right if the project is an addition Base FAR

Step 4. Check applicable credits in the list below. Credits will reviewed/ confirmed by building official.
1 Non-vegetative surface area in the front year is limited to no more than 10% of area of front yard.
2 No healthy shade tree will be removed and all protected trees are subject to a tree protection plan.
3 Credit 2 and at least one new shade tree of at least 3.5 caliper at the time of planting is added to lot.
4 Building coverage is 25% or less.
5 Building coverage is 20% or less.
6 Impervious surface coverage is 40% or less.
7 Retention or installation of new walkway intended solely for pedestrians and connecting street/sidewalk to front entry.
8 Front wall plane length limited to thirty-four (34) feet without offset of 2 feet deep and 5 feet long
9 Side wall plane length limited to thirty-four (34) feet without offset of 2 feet deep and 5 feet long
10 The main building does not exceed 2 stories
11 A front entry feature (may also qualify as an unenclosed porch, but not a one-story element)
12 A one-story, unenclosed front or side porch--minimum dimension 6 feet deep by 10 feet wide is retained or provided.
13 A one-story, unenclosed side porch--minimum dimension 6 feet deep by 10 feet wide in addition to a front porch
14 Unenclosed wraparound porch (side wrap min length & depth 50% of front porch. Also qualifies for 12 but not credit 13.
15 A one-story element is retained or provided.
16 Portion of structure above front loading garage that is located in cellar of main building does not exceed 1 story.
17 Roof gable orientation matches typical (at least 60% of houses) roof gable orientation on same side of same block.
18 There are no projection into any side-yard setback, except a chimney.
19 An existing shared driveway is retained as shared driveway, or new shared driveway installed. No other driveways on lot.
20 An attached garage is a side-entry garage
21 An accessory building is 240 square feet or less provided there is only one accessory building on the lot.
22 Land in Town is donated to Town in fee simple or conservation easement to be maintained as open space in perpetuity.
23 The main building is a historic landmark

Total credits (out of 15 max allowed)

Additional FAR allowed

Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio

Step 5. The maximum allowable gross floor area (in square feet) is calculated in the box here sf

Step 6. Print this worksheet and attach to the building permit application

All checklist items are subject to conditions and definitions of the Town of Chevy Chase building code.

© 2008 Jakubiak & Associates / Studio27Architecture

Revised January 10 2008

60
 Los Angeles CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
200 N. Spring Street, Room 532, Los Angeles, California, 90012-4801, (213) 978-1300
ww.lacity.org/PLN/index.htm

Determination Mailing Date: JUL 16 1007

CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. CPC-2007-2065-ICO
Room 395, City Hall
Location: 4CitYWi/
Applicant: City of Los Angeles Council Districts: 7"
Plan Area: Hollywood
Request: Interim Control Ordinance (ICO)

At its meeting of July 12, 2007, following a public hearing, the subsequent actions were taken by the City Planning
Commission:

1) Approved the following ordinance and recommended its adoption by the City Council:
The proposed Oaks Interim Control Ordinance (Revised Appendix A) to temporarily prohibit the issuance of
building permits in excess of certain floor area thresholds. The prohibition would remain in effect for a period of
one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions.

2) Directed staff to revise the proposed Interim Control Ordinance regarding the hardship exemption.

3) Approved the attached staff report of July 12, 2007.

4) Adopted the attached amended findings.

5) Adopted Categorical Exemption No. ENV-2007-2066-CE

Fiscal Impact Statement: There is a General Fund impact as administrative costs resulting from implementation are not
recovered throu9h fees.

This action was taken by the following vote:

Usher
Woo
Cardoso, Kezios, Hughes, Kay, Kezios
Montañez, Roschen
7-

r. e e WI iams, Commission Executive Assistant II

Ci Planning Commission

ite Commission's action is final and not further appealable to City CounciL.

The time in which a party may seek judicial review of this determination is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6. Under that provision, a petitioner may seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section is filed no later than the
90th day following the date on which the City's decision becomes finaL.

Attachments: Amended Findings/ Proposed Interim Control Ordinance/Staff Report

c: Geri Burge, Assistant City Attorney

Notification List
Blake Kendrick, Planning
Used with permission of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning.
 Los Angeles, CA

CPC-2007 -2065-ICO

FINDINGS

1. General Plan Consistency. Per Charter Section 556 and 558, the subject ordinance is in
substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the General Plan, and is in
conformity with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice in that the
proposed ordinance seeks to limit the adverse impacts of hillside development incompatible with the
scale of existing neighborhoods, including infrastructure and public services, by imposing a
temporary prohibition on the issuance of all building permits in excess of certain floor area
thresholds until the City adopts permanent regulatory measures that can be implemented.

The proposed ordinance is consistent with the following objectives of the Hollywood Community Plan,
adopted December 14, 1988:

The Hollywood Community Plan includes Objective 3, which encourages the preservation and
enhancement of the varied and distinctive residential character of the community. The Hollywood
Community Plan Objective 3 also encourages that hillside residential areas retain their natural terrain
and ecological balance, and provide a standard of land use intensities compatibility with street
capacity, public service facilities, utilities, and topography. The proposed ICO seeks to advance
these objectives, as part of a greater planning study for the neighborhood, by providing temporary
regulations as to floor area thresholds, until the City Planning Commission and City Council can vote
on the establishment of permanent regulations.

The Hollywood Community Plan Housing section calls for the creation of neighborhood preservation
plans which further refine and tailor development standards to neighborhood character. The Housing
section also calls for the intensity of residential land use and the density of population
accommodated thereon to be limited by the topography and geology of the land. The subject
ordinance would limit the adverse impacts of development incompatible with these adopted
objectives and policies in the Hollywood Community Plan and with current hillside development
trends by imposing a temporary prohibition on the issuance of all building permits in excess of certain
floor area thresholds.

2. Boundaries. The Interim Control Ordinance would include those properties generally
bounded by Griffith Park on the north; Griffith Park, Fern Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and Live Oak Drive

. . . _. .. .
on the east; Franklin Avenue and Foothill Drive on the south; Canyon Drive on the west including
properties west of Canvon Drive north of Arciosv Wav (attached as Exhibit E-1).

3. California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the
California Environrnental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), pursuant to Article ii, Section 2(rn), of the
City's guidelines in that it is a temporary measure to regulate floor area within the proposed areas
until the City Planning Commission and City Council can vote on the establishment of permanent
regulations.
 Los Angeles, CA

PROPOSED INTERIM CONTROL ORDINANCE

CPC-2007-2065-ICO (THE OAKS)

An ordinance imposing interim regulations on the issuance of building and

demolition permits in a portion of the Hollywood Community Plan Area for the
properties generally bounded by Griffith Park on the North; Griffith Park, Fern
Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and Live Oak Drive on the East; Franklin Avenue and
Foothill Drive on the South; Canyon Drive on the West including properties west
of Canyon Drive north of Argosy Way.

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2006 the City Council instructed the

Department of City Planning to initiate proceedings to develop planning tools to
reinforce existing residential character in many hillside neighborhoods
experiencing new infill development; and

WHEREAS, the subject area contains an eclectic mixture of older homes

in a variety of architectural styles, many sited on lots with significant topography;
and

WHEREAS, the Plan Areas are designated as hillside areas and these
hillside areas typically include ridge lines, canyons, desirable natural and
protected vegetation, including prominent and native trees, natural water
courses, and areas particularly abundant in wildlife; and

WHEREAS, many of these hillside areas are characterized by

substandard, steeply sloped lots and substandard infrastructure, such as narrow
roads and limited access for residents and emergency vehicles. These
substandard lots may require significant grading to develop single family homes;
and

WHEREAS, approximately 52 permits for the expansion of existing homes

and properties, as well as infill development on vacant lots have been issued
between 2001 and 2005. This development often results in insensitive, out-of-
scale development which is frequently incompatible in scale with the adjacent
properties and surrounding neighborhood and, in addition, requires extensive
hillside grading; and

WHEREAS, the impact of excessive grading in the hillside areas in the

Plan Areas increases the likelihood of soil erosion, landslides, deforestation and
depletion of plant and animal life; and

WHEREAS, the articulated objectives and policies of the Hollywood

Community Plan, which was updated in December, 1988, are to (1) preserve and
enhance the varied and distinctive residential character of the community, and
(2) to encourage that hillside residential areas retain the natural terrain and

1
 Los Angeles, CA

ecological balance, and (3) provide a standard of land use Intensities

compatibility with street capacity, public service facilities, utilities, and
topography; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Interim Control Ordinance is required in the

interest of the health, economic prosperity, and general welfare of the people.

NOW THEREFORE,

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, whenever used in

this ordinance, shall be construed as defined in this section. Words and phrases
not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Section 12.03 of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code.

Project: The demolition, construction, erection, reconstruction, or addition

to any building that increases floor area and which requires the issuance of a
building permit, grading permit, excavation permit, or foundation permit (Permit)
on any lot located in whole or in part within the area identified in Section 3 of this
ordinance. The term "Project" shall not include interior remodeling that does not
add to the square footage of any building on a lot.

Floor Area Ratio: A coefficient, which is multiplied by the gross lot area
to determine the maximum floor area of all buildings on a lot.

Floor Area: For purposes of this ICO, the Floor Area is as defined in
Section 12.03 and Section 12.21.1 A.5 of the LAMC, except that the square
footage of a garage shall not be counted as part of the total floor area provided
the garage does not exceed 500 square feet. Any square footage in the garage
in excess of 500 square feet shall be counted as part of the total floor area.

Addition: An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or

structu re.

Section 2. PROHIBITION.

1. No permit shall be issued for any Project that exceeds the following
thresholds. The square footage of a garage shall not be counted as part of

2
 Los Angeles, CA

the total floor area provided the garage does not exceed 500 square feet.
Any square footage in the garage in excess of 500 square feet shall be
counted as part of the total floor area. In no event shall the total permitted
floor area of all structures on a lot be less than 1,600 square feet.

The Floor Area Ratio shall be:

a. On lots 4,000 square feet or less, the maximum Floor Area Ratio shall be:
0.37:1

b. For lots greater than 4,000 square feet and up to 8,000 square feet in size,
the total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.27 of the amount of lot area
exceeding 4,000 square feet.

C. For lots greater than 8,000 square feet and up to 12,000 square feet, the
total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.17 of the amount of lot area
exceeding 8,000 square feet.

d. For lots greater than 12,000 square feet and up to 16,000 square feet, the
total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.1 of the amount of lot area exceeding
12,000 square feet.

e. For lots greater than 16,000 square feet, the total Floor Area shall be
increased by 0.025 of the amount of lot area exceeding 16,000 square feet.

2. An addition up to 250 total square feet, measured cumulatively from the

effective date of this Ordinance, may be permitted to any structure for which a
Certificate of Occupancy was acquired prior to the effective date of this
ordinance, provided the addition meets all relevant requirements of the
LAMC. These 250 square feet may be in excess of those limitations in
Section 2.1 of this Ordinance.

Section 3. INTERIM CONTROL ORDINANCE. The provisions of this ordinance

shall apply to any lot located whole or in part within the boundaries as shown on
the following map.

3
 Los Angeles, CA

\. ,,,

:l3,llc.

~i
--¡:
Thi'OaÄS Aro?a

CI
Zoniiig (DCP) P£~ I ~
?S~.l

RE'£ ~
,; PEH mOm
KE;,;
RE9
R\ i"\,l P;1:"-
il., ¡Ii Ii
~
~
'"

ll
Hilskl,. Str~Et:$ 1'1.1
~
~Ô-' '~'...,\: , l

Tl I ~~ A i- FRANKLIN AVE
L",;',::Ú:lh' r;;d(i71\Lì r~tii~p;ci 1111'" I ~~.'i! I ~Lin I ~ci: "",~:11 ~ i: l

4
 Los Angeles, CA

Section 4. EXCEPTIONS

A, The prohibition specified in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to

any construction for which a building permit or demolition permit is
required:

1, To comply with an order issued by the Department of Building and

Safety or the Housing Department to repair or demolish an unsafe or
substandard condition;

2. To rebuild as a result of destruction by fire, earthquake or other natural

disaster, provided that the development is not prohibited by any provision
of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

B, The prohibition specified in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to

any permit for a Project for which:

1, Architectural and structural plans sufficient for a complete plan check

were accepted by the Department of Building and Safety prior to the
effective date of this ordinance; and

2, A plan check fee was accepted by the City on or before July 12, 2007;
and

3, No subsequent changes are made to those plans, which increase or

decrease the height, floor area or occupant load by more than five percent
or change the use, or if any changes violate the Zoning Code regulations
in force on the date that the plan check fee was paid,

Section 5. EXTENSION OF REGULATIONS. The City may, by resolution,

extend the provisions of this ordinance for two additional 180 day periods not to
exceed 365 days so long as the City Council makes the following finding: That
the appropriate City agencies and officials are exercising due diligence to assure
that the appropriate land use regulatory controls for the subject area are being
expeditiously processed,

Section 6. HARDSHIP EXEMPTIONS. The City Council, acting in its legislative

capacity, and by resolution, may grant an exempiion from ihe provisions of this
ordinance in cases of extreme hardship pursuant to a set of defined criteria and
standards as set forth by the City CounciL. An application for hardship exemption
shall be filed with the City Clerk on forms provided by the Department of City
Planning,

5
 Los Angeles, CA

Section 7. APPLICABILITY OF THE ZONING CODE. The regulations of this

ordinance are in addition to those set forth in the planning and zoning provisions
of Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and any other ordinances and
do not contain any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions and
procedures contained in that chapter or any other ordinances.

Section 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be

unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance, which can be
implemented without the invalid provision, and, to this end, the provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be severable,

6
 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Los Angeles, CAI~
~iM
LOS Ar.GELES CITY
PLANNING
D F PA n T M F N T

Case No.: CPC-2007-2065-ICO

City Planning Commission ENV-2007-2066-CE
CEQA No.:
Date: July 12, 2007 Council No.: 4
Time: After 8:30 a,m, Plan Area: Hollywood
Place: City Hall, Room 1010 Certified NC: Hollywood United
200 North Spring Street GPLU: Very Low II, Low I, and Low
Los Angeles, CA 90012 II Residential
Zone: R1, RE9, RE11, RE15
Public Hearing Required
Not Further Appealable
City Council Action Required

PROJECT Properties generally bounded by Griffith Park on the north; Griffth Park, Fern Dell Drive,
LOCATION: Tyron Drive, and Live Oak Drive on the east; Franklin Avenue and Foothill Drive on the south;
Canyon Drive on the west including properties west of Canyon Drive north of Argosy Way,

PROPOSED Establishment of an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) to temporarily prohibit the issuance of
PROJECT: building permits in excess of certain floor area thresholds

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1, Approve the Interim Control Ordinance (Exhibit E-2), imposing a temporary prohibition on the issuance
of building permits in excess of certain floor area thresholds,
2, Approve the Staff Report and the Exhibits as the Commission Report,
3, Adopt Categorical Exemption No, ENV-2007-2066-CE
4. Adopt the attached findings,

S GAIL GOLDBERG, AICP

Director of Planning

. '. ~P.~
~~
~~ () -- ""
-- n
Dave Gay, Principal City Planner
fi~
Blake E, Kendrick, Planning Assistant
Telephone: (213) 978-1178

IÍ ~t
r--~, ~t',~==..
Kevin Keller, Cit iánner
 Los Angeles, CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Ana Iys is.....................................,...,............................................................... A-1

Project Summary
Background
Issues
Proposal
Conclusion

Fi nd i ngs.............................................................,........................................................ F-1

Exhibits:
E-1 - ICO Boundary Map

E-2 - Proposed Ordinance

E-3 - Council Motion

E-4 - Permit Research

E-5 - Environmental Clearance

E-6 - Proposed Floor Area Chart

CPC-2007-2065-ICO A-1
Los Angeles, CA

PROJECT ANALYSIS
Proiect Summary

The Oaks is a hillside residential neighborhood at the base of Griffith Park, within the Hollywood
Community Plan Area, Much of the hillside neighborhood is characterized by substandard,
steepiy sloped lots and substandard infrastructure, such as narrow roads and limited access for
residents and emergency vehicles, These substandard lots may require significant grading to
develop single family homes.

The purpose of the Interim Control Ordinance (ICO), attached as Exhibit E-2, is to protect the
hillside neighborhood character from out of scale development, and preserve the
neighborhood's sensitive hillside environment and natural features until a permanent study can
be completed and the proper regulatory controls instituted,

The enactment of the proposed ICO would:

. Prohibit the issuance of building permits in excess of certain floor area

thresholds,
. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the issuance of a building
permit for interior remodeling of a legally constructed building, or for construction
that does not increase the height or floor area of an existing structure.
. Remain in effect for a maximum period of one year (with two six month
extensions) or until permanent appropriate land use regulatory controls are
adopted by the City Planning Commission and City CounciL.

Upon adoption of the ICO, Planning staff will analyze floor area, lot coverage, impermeable
cover, and grading for the area, and prepare recommendations for permanent regulations,

Backqround

On September 29, 2006, Councilmember Tom LaBonge introduced a motion directing the
Planning Department and City Attorney to prepare and process an Interim Control Ordinance
(ICO) addressing limits on floor area, lot coverage, impermeable cover, and grading in 'The
Oaks" neighborhood, The proposed ¡CO would include those properties generally bounded by
Griffith Park on the north; Griffith Park, Fern Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and Live Oak Drive on the
east; Franklin Avenue and Foothill Drive on the south; Canyon Drive on the west including
properties west of Canyon Drive north of Argosy Way.

The original motion and the proposed ordinance reference the following areas of necessary
protection:

. hillside development appropriate in scale, and minimally disruptive of the natural terrain;
. protection of ridgelines, plant life, wildlife, landform;
. minimization of grading and soil erosion;
. adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles,

The Oaks is a single-family zoned neighborhood within the Hollywood Community Plan and
includes the R1, RE-9, RE-11, and RE-15 zoning designations, Despite these zoning
designations, existing lots within each zone vary considerably in size, and there are many lots
that do not conform to the minimum lot sizes of the zone in which they are located,
CPC-2007 -2065-ICO A-2
Los Angeles, CA

Many of the properties are in designated hillside areas and have significant topography. The
development of these lots is currently governed by the Hillside Ordinance, which provides
regulations for new construction, additions, and remodeling, and establishes regulations and
definitions for height, front and side yards, fire protection, lot coverage, parking, street access,
sewer connections, and grading.

On April 4, 2007, Planning Staff held a workshop in The Oaks in order to discuss community
concerns relative to recent development and to review the language of the proposed ICO,
Many residents were concerned that the existing Hillside Ordinance was not accomplishing
community goals, They were concerned about out-of-scale structures, lack of landscaping,
increased water run-off due to decreased permeability, parking shortages, and the disruption of
the existing neighborhood character. However, Planning Staff also heard comments that the
existing Hillside Ordinance was sufficient for The Oaks, and that current homeowners and
property owners would suffer if development was limited.

Issues
The Planning Department is preparing an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO), This proposed
ordinance is a temporary measure to reasonably limit construction of floor area, thereby
minimizing grading and the building footprint. These criteria will reduce the likelihood of soil
erosion, deforestation and depletion of plant and animal life, These criteria will also protect the
neighborhood from development that is inconsistent with the character and scale of the
community, During the ordinance's interim period, the City will review the planning and
environmental regulations, procedures, and strategies applicable to this hillside area,

Once the ICO is in place, the Planning Department will prepare a study of recommended
permanent regulations to address issues that may include floor area ratios, lot coverage,
impermeable coverage, building height, and grading, This process will include staff analysis of
existing conditions, a public hearing on the matter, and the preparation of a staff
recommendation report to be presented to the City Planning Commission at a later date, It is
anticipated that this process will occur over the one year duration of the ICO, The ICO, as
proposed, may be extended two additional six-month periods,

The majority of development in the The Oaks occurred during the 1930's, 40's, and 50's and
was relatively steady, Building permits issued for the period between 2001 and 2005 show that
development pressures are growing in the community, Development of properties in The Oaks
is primarily occurring in two different ways. The first is the infill development of homes on
vacant, substandard lots with steep topography. The second is the redevelopment of large lots,
through either additions or tear downs,

The traditional pattern of development in The Oaks was a modest-sized house on a large lot.
Many of the lots in the community are large, less steeply sloped, and appropriately zoned as
RE-9, RE-11, and RE-15. As development pressure has increased, the large lots have afforded
residents the opportunities to expand existing structures as well as build large secondary
structures, with some over 1,000 SF, Many of these developments are significantly out of scale
with the surrounding community,

There are also many vacant lots in The Oaks, and these are often undersized with steep slopes
and substandard infrastructure such as narrow roads with poor access for residents and
emergency vehicles, Because these lots were subdivided prior to our modern zoning code, they
are legal lots, Historically, the cost of engineering new homes on these steep lots was
prohibitively expensive, However, with escalating property values and advances in engineering,
these vacant lots are becoming more desirable for single-family home development. There is a
CPC-2007 -2065-ICO A-3
Los Angeles, CA

need to develop specially tailored land use tools to integrate new development on these lots into
the existing community. The impacts of gradual, inappropriate development in this kind of
terrain constitute a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community due to soil erosion
and excessive grading, loss of permeable surfaces, and the depletion of plant and animal
habitat

Proposal
Staff proposes an Interim Control Ordinance that would prohibit the issuance of building permits
in excess of certain floor area thresholds. These interim thresholds were developed by
analyzing the existing relationship between lot size and floor area for properties in The Oaks,
best pr¡3ctices citywide, and a review of hillside regulations of similar municipalities, The interim
thresholds are significantly lower than what is permitted under the Hillside Ordinance (see Chart
1, next page). Because the lots vary considerably in size, the proposed thresholds are based on
lot size, rather than Zoning Designation. As the lot size increases, the permitted floor area
increases, but at a slower rate (attached as Exhibit E-6),

New construction and additions to existing structures would be regulated by this ordinance, In
any event, the proposal would allow additions of up to 250 square feet for properties that were
issued a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the start date of the ordinance, even if the property is
in excess of the specified floor area thresholds, The proposal also exempts up to 500 square
feet of garage square footage. Regardless of lot size, a minimum total floor area of 1,600 SF is
permitted

Conclusion
The Oaks is an important resource to the City, retaining many of its original design features,
natural resources, and community character, However, without protection, The Oaks will
continue to be susceptible to inappropriate vacant lot infil development and the redevelopment
of properties, resulting in the loss of character, scale, and pattern of development of this
established single-family residential neighborhood, The enactment of the proposed Interim
Control Ordinance (ICO) is necessary to establish temporary protection for the community, while
still allowing property owners and developers the ability to obtain building permits for projects
under the threshold established in the regulations until the City Council can act on the
establishment of appropriate land use regulatory controls,
CPC-2007-2065-ICO A-4
Los Angeles, CA

Chart 1: Comparative Maximum Floor Area Permitted

~O( 5;" - FAR.

o - 4,000 37
4"OOO-8,00~ ,27
8,000-12,000 id17
12,000-16,000 1
O\fer 16,000 ,025
NOTE: Permitted FAR is additive, see example below,

LOT AREA IN SF THE OAKS ICO' HILLSIDE

ORDINANCE"
8,000 0,37 x 4000 - 1480 40% lot coverage x 36'
0,27 x 4000 = 1080 height
1480 + 1080 = 2,560 SF TOTAL = 6,400 SF TOTAL
12,000 2560 SF Permitted for lot up to 8000 SF 40% lot coverage x 36'
0,17 x 4000 = 680 height
2560 + 680 = 3,240 SF TOTAL =9,600 SF TOTAL
16,000 3240 SF Permitted for lot up to 12000 SF 40% lot coverage x 36'
0,1 x 4000 = 400 height
3240 + 400 = 3,640 SF TOTAL =12,800 SF TOTAL
20,000 3640 SF Permitted for lot up to 16000 SF 40% lot coverage x 36'
0,025 x 4000 = 100 height
3640 + 100 = 3,740 SF TOTAL = 16,000 SF TOTAL
*
The proposed ICO excludes garages up to 500 SF in the definition of floor area,
The LAMC excludes garages in the definition of floor area,
.. Based on a two-story structure and 40% lot coverage.
CPC-2007-2065-ICO F-1

Los Angeles, CA
FINDINGS

1. General Plan Consistency, Per Charter Section 556 and 558, the subject ordinance is
in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the General Plan,
and is in conformity with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good
zoning practice in that the proposed ordinance seeks to limit the adverse impacts of
hillside development incompatible with the scale of existing neighborhoods, including
infrastructure and public services, by imposing a temporary prohibition on the issuance
of all building permits in excess of certain floor area thresholds until the City adopts
permanent regulatory measures that can be implemented.

;The proposed ordinance is consistent with the following objectives of the Hollywood
Community Plan, adopted December 14, 1988:

The Hollywood Community Plan includes Objective 3, which encourages the

preservation and enhancement of the varied and distinctive residential character of the
community. The Hollywood Community Plan Objective 3 also encourages that hillside
residential areas retain their natural terrain and ecological balance, and provide a
standard of land use intensities compatibility with street capacity, public service facilities,
utilities, and topography, The proposed ICO seeks to advance these objectives, as part
of a greater planning study for the neighborhood, by providing temporary regulations as
to floor area thresholds, until the City Planning Commission and City Council can vote on
the establishment of permanent regulations.

The Hollywood Community Plan Housing section calls for the creation of neighborhood
preservation plans which further refine and tailor development standards to
neighborhood character. The Housing section also calls for the intensity of residential
land use and the density of population accommodated thereon to be limited by the
topography and geology of the land, The subject ordinance would limit the adverse
impacts of development incompatible with these adopted objectives and policies in the
Hollywood Community Plan and with current hillside development trends by imposing a
temporary prohibition on the issuance of all building permits in excess of certain floor
area thresholds,

2, Boundaries. The Interim Control Ordinance would include those properties generally
bounded by Griffith Park on the north; Griffith Park, Fern Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and
Live Oak Drive on the east; Franklin Avenue and Foothill Drive on the south; Canyon
Drive on the west including properties west of Canyon Drive north of Argosy Way
(attached as Exhibit E-1).

3, California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), pursuant to Article II, Section
2(m), of the City's guidelines in that it is a temporary measure to regulate floor area
within the proposed areas until the City Planning Commission and City Council can vote
on the establishment of permanent regulations,

4. California Government Code Section 65858. The proposed ordinance is intended to

protect the public safety, health, and welfare of residents of the proposed area by
prohibiting the issuance of building permits for structures in excess of certain floor area
CPC-2007 -2065-ICO F-2
Los Angeles, CA
thresholds. Because it may take an additional year for the adoption of a pertinent
planning tool to establish appropriate mitigation, or find other solutions to address the
issues in a long term manner, interim measures are needed to regulate permitted floor
area for this area until the City Planning Commission and City Council can vote on
the establishment of permanent regulations,
 Los Angeles, CA
m
x
0,
0,
r;

os.iXL

RD1MXl

Ri-)

""~1"l R1.'
--11 w
R01.,5-1XL RÐ1'5-1XL
'-1- ¡;RéjIi"
z"
----I
QJPF.1XL
.
w ~
"
R1-'
.
W
RE9-.1

Ra-~
!RJ.' C1_1O

R3.1 ~ ~ ~ r~IJ-t;:í~~ Rl L
FRANKLIN AVE R3~
l~_ RJ-~_:_ C~1_D :",,1
RJ_11
L
q I

L
~~l,
The Oaks
Interim Ccmtrol Ordinance l
~ J
c'
C 0 -" ~'-?
~
I

,
The Oaks

CI
Zoning (DCP)
Area
.. 2:
N
---- F~d
200 400
/
RE15 P'''",e"b,t1"'D,""c,,,"tQ'C;)'~I.'",;',
",I,,. ,,"ie m.'I"- ,,,,"_., "'"
RE11
REg Area
Il-"
-
R1
Hillside Streets
~
..11
"b'''pm"""",,,,,,,,t"''c"'~''c,o,,'m'';",
of"',Cti"Lu"\'-,ele,
Mapped

M., ~","".""t: :11'

 Los Angeles, CA

EXHIBIT E-2

DRAFT

The Oaks Interim Control Ordinance

An ordinance imposing interim regulations on the issuance of building and

demolition permits in a portion of the Hollywood Community Plan Area for the
properties generally bounded by Griffith Park on the North; Griffith Park, Fern
Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and Live Oak Drive on the East; Franklin Avenue and
Foothill Drive on the South; Canyon Drive on the West including properties west
of Ganyon Drive north of Argosy Way,

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2006 the City Council instructed the

Department of City Planning to initiate proceedings to develop planning tools to
reinforce existing residential character in many hillside neighborhoods
experiencing new infill development; and

WHEREAS, the subject area contains an eclectic mixture of older homes

in a variety of architectural styles, many sited on lots with significant topography;
and

WHEREAS, the Plan Areas are designated as hillside areas and these
hillside areas typically include ridge lines, canyons, desirable natural and
protected vegetation, including prominent and native trees, natural water
courses, and areas particularly abundant in wildlife; and

WHEREAS, many of these hillside areas are characterized by

substandard, steeply sloped lots and substandard infrastructure, such as narrow
roads and limited access for residents and emergency vehicles, These
substandard lots may require significant grading to develop single family homes;
and

WHEREAS, approximately 52 permits for the expansion of existing homes

and properties, as well as infill development on vacant lots have been issued
between 2001 and 2005, This development often results in insensitive, out-of-
scale development which is frequently incompatible in scale with the adjacent
properties and surrounding neighborhood and, in addition, requires extensive
hillside grading; and

WHEREAS, the impact of excessive grading in the hillside areas in the

Plan Areas increases the likelihood of soil erosion, landslides, deforestation and
depletion of plant and animal life; and

WHEREAS, the articulated objectives and policies of the Hollywood

Community Plan, which was updated in December, 1988, are to (1) preserve and

1
 Los Angeles, CA

enhance the varied and distinctive residential character of the community, and
(2) to encourage that hillside residential areas retain the natural terrain and
ecological balance, and (3) provide a standard of land use intensities
compatibility with street capacity, public service facilities, utilities, and
topography; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Interim Control Ordinance is required in the

interest of the health, economic prosperity, and general welfare of the people,

NOW THEREFORE,

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, whenever used in

this ordinance, shall be construed as defined in this section, Words and phrases
not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Section 12.03 of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code.

Project: The demolition, construction, erection, reconstruction, or addition

to any building that increases floor area and which requires the issuance of a
building permit, grading permit, excavation permit, or foundation permit (Permit)
on any lot located in whole or in part within the area identified in Section 3 of this
ordinance, The term "Project" shall not include interior remodeling that does not
add to the square footage of any building on a lot.

Floor Area Ratio: A coefficient, which is multiplied by the gross lot area
to determine the maximum floor area of all buildings on a lot.

Floor Area: For purposes of this ICO, the Floor Area is as defined in
Section 12,03 and Section 12,21,1 A,5 of the LAMC, except that the square
footage of a garage shall not be counted as part of the total floor area provided
the garage does not exceed 500 square feet. Any square footage in the garage
in excess of 500 square feet shall be counted as part of the total floor area.

Addition: An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or

structu re,

2
 Los Angeles, CA

Section 2. PROHIBITION.

1, No permit shall be issued for any Project that exceeds the following
thresholds. The square footage of a garage shall not be counted as part of
the total floor area provided the garage does not exceed 500 square feet.
Any square footage in the garage in excess of 500 square feet shall be
counted as part of the total floor area, In no event shall the total permitted
floor area of all structures on a lot be less than 1,600 square feet.

The Floor Area Ratio shall be:

,a. On lots 4,000 square feet or less, the maximum Floor Area Ratio shall be:
0,37:1

b. For lots greater than 4,000 square feet and up to 8,000 square feet in size,
the total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.27 of the amount of lot area
exceeding 4,000 square feet.

c, For lots greater than 8,000 square feet and up to 12,000 square feet, the
total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.17 of the amount of lot area
exceeding 8,000 square feet.

d. For lots greater than 12,000 square feet and up to 16,000 square feet, the
total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.1 of the amount of lot area exceeding
12,000 square feet.

e. For lots greater than 16,000 square feet, the total Floor Area shall be
increased by 0.025 of the amount of lot area exceeding 16,000 square feet.

2, An addition up to 250 total square feet, measured cumulatively from the

effective date of this Ordinance, may be permitted to any structure for which a
Certificate of Occupancy was acquired prior to the effective date of this
ordinance, provided the addition meets all relevant requirements of the
LAMC, These 250 square feet may be in excess of those limitations in
Section 2,1 of this Ordinance,

Section 3. iNïERiiv CûNïRûL ûRûiNANCE. Tbe provisions of tbis ordinance

shall apply to any lot located whole or in part within the boundaries as shown on
the following map,

3
 Los Angeles, CA

J~ _Ii ~

The Oaks ArE'a

o~~,
CI
Zoning iDCP) FlElO,1

IT RE~5
6.'~
RE ~t
;i~¡I'_M""
¡ii~
FE';'
~ Pl.t ì ,;- ; RM --- ---!
F-l
p~ i R11 -- "~~ ¡,

R;
ll
HiIsi,j¿. Str-eets
:'.1:': ---
1'1_1

Tl i I ~A_l i r:-i FRA~KUN AVE

LF6i-.f~1'Li r;:õl-~~I£l r¡;i:fh1i,CJ ~-1.,t ~~.~: I I Iii,',' I I~:\'i: I "-.Lml \ê'¿~I: ¡::~-=1 GT¡

4
 Los Angeles, CA

Section 4. EXCEPTIONS

A. The prohibition specified in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to

any construction for which a building permit or demolition permit is
required:

1. To comply with an order issued by the Department of Building and

Safety or the Housing Department to repair or demolish an unsafe or
substandard condition;

2, To rebuild as a result of destruction by fire, earthquake or other natural

disaster, provided that the development is not prohibited by any provision
of the Los Angeles Municipal Code,

B. The prohibition specified in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to

any permit for a Project for which:

1, Architectural and structural plans sufficient for a complete plan check

were accepted by the Department of Building and Safety prior to the
effective date of this ordinance; and

2, A plan check fee was accepted by the City on or before July 12, 2007;
and

3. No subsequent changes are made to those plans, which increase or

decrease the height, floor area or occupant load by more than five percent
or change the use, or if any changes violate the Zoning Code regulations
in force on the date that the plan check fee was paid,

Section 5. EXTENSION OF REGULATIONS. The City may, by resolution,

extend the provisions of this ordinance for two additional
180 day periods not to
exceed 365 days so long as the City Council makes the following finding: That
the appropriate City agencies and officials are exercising due diligence to assure
that the appropriate land use regulatory controls for the subject area are being
expeditiously processed.

Section 6. HARDSHIP EXEMPTIONS. The City Council, acting in its legislative

capacity, and by resolution, may grant an exemption from the provisions ûf this
ordinance in cases of extreme hardship duly established to the satisfaction of the
City CounciL. An application for hardship exemption shall be filed with the City
Clerk on forms provided by the Department of City Planning.

5
 Los Angeles, CA

Section 7. APPLICABILITY OF THE ZONING CODE. The regulations of this

ordinance are in addition to those set forth in the planning and zoning provisions
of Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and any other ordinances and
do not contain any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions and
procedures contained in that chapter or any other ordinances,

Section 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be

unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance, which can be
implemented without the invalid provision, and, to this end, the provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be severable.

6
¡-
I

ISEP ¡t S mJ&
Extiibit E-3 ~ Los Angeles, CA

~ MOTION
PLANNING and LAND USE MGT.

Los Angeles is a city marked by a diverse collection of residential neighborhoods.

Many of these residential neighborhoods are in hillside locations, with a strong
need to balance building footprints, floor area ratios (FAR), grading, and
impermeable cover with the surrounding hillside context and existing residential
character. One of these neighborhoods is "The Oaks" in Los Feliz, within the
Hollywood Community Plan,

"The Oaks" is a residential district abutting Griffith Park, and is home to a wide
array of architectural styles and homes generally sharing similar proportion and
. scale.

Currently the Planning Department is analyzing single family zones in non-

hillside areas, focusing on residential structures that are out of scale with existing
neighborhood character and massing, There is a strong need at this time to
develop planning tools to reinforce existing residential character in many hillside
neighborhoods experiencing new infill development. An interim measure is
needed in "The Oaks" to protect the neighborhood from development that is
inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan, which seeks to prevent
development that is out of scale to the current character of the neighborhood,

i THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of City Planning and the City Attorney
be directed to take appropriate steps to develop an Interim Control Ordinance
(ICO) addressing limits on FAR, lot coverage, impermeable cover, and grading
for those single family zoned properties generally bounded by Canyon Drive to
the west, Griffith Park to the north, Fern Dell Drive to the east, and Foothill Drive
to the south,

PRESENTED BY
M LABONGE,
Councilmember, 4th District

( ~J) 1o,~
SECONDED BY j;;P~
~rol°G'(O&
'UlJ
8fp 2 Cf: ~ - ;/34-:;
9 ?nn~

l--
 Permit Date for The Oaks Neighborhood Study Area
Year 2001 - 2005

SUFFIX IWORK DESCRIPTION SQUARE FOOT ,TOTAL UNITS STORIES 'ZONING

PERMIT TYPE IISSUE PATE !NUMBER P1RECTION ISTREET NAME
Addition and renovation to single
S~-05 2311 N --Alto 0"" ,J2--lve ___ '~amily r~s~dencf3:_____ _
597 o 2 RE11-1
Bldg-Addiicn --+ i IAdditions and alterations to single
Mar-04 5769 W Briarcliff Road ~mily residence. __ 499 o 0 RE9-1
Bldg-Additi~ T--
1- I House remodel and addition on
'both sides. One side is one-story
Dec-01 2332 N Bronson Drive addition, other side is two-story 361 o 2 RE9-1
Blcg-Addition-- ¡fwa story addition, add1 st floor
bathroom (8' x 10') and enlarge
Blq9.=-~dditi~ Jul-05 2633 N CanX'~n Drive j!ving roo_m. __ _ ___ _ 1385 o 2 R1-1
! Demolish detached two carage
i garage, to be replaced by new
Jul-05 2633 N ~çariY~ Drive _Ç!ar~ge on s~parte PE!rmit. ___ -360 0, 0 R1-1
Bldg-Dema-lit!?~ 514 o RE11-1
Bldg-New u Jul-05 2413 N __ ¡ G,?nyon O~_ Drive ! New pool accessory building, 350
Jul-05 2413 N ----! Car:yg-n Oa_~ - ! Drive- ¡Addition to study an--iay -room:-
135 o 1.RE11-1
Bldg-Add!t_i~
-, Remodel existing -i=story--singi
family dwelling. 14' x 5'6" 1st floor
Aug_,05 2460 N G?ny~n O~t Drive addition to front. 215 o 2 RE11-1
BI_a-Q-A?dition _
Ö-emolishSTn-gi-e fã-rI-¡ly home-with
2505 N C~~~_n Oak____ Drive attac;hed g_C3rage.. _ __ -1654 -1 -1 R1-1
BI?9-Demolition Mar-04
: New single fami-Iy dwelling, 2-story,
with attached two carage garage,
Drive 2354 SF. 4817 1iR1-1
Bldg-Nevv MaX,04 2505 N Canyon Oak ---- -- --- -
¡Single family dwelling / garage, two
7165 2 RE11
Bldg-New Mar-01 5532 W 'Dell Oak ¡i Drive i story with a basement.
----Suppiemental--permit to-re-vise

Drive ~cation of buil~!_n_9 onlqL_ 204 o 2!RE11-1

B Idg,Ne", Sep-03 __ 5532 W Dell Oak
Supplemental permit to 02014~
; 1 0000-08623 to add additional 200 2435 o 2 RE9-1
,_Bidg-Addition Apr-05 2227 N Fern Dell Place
Drive 315 o 1 RE9
Bldg,New Aug-01 22~i1 N Fern Dell _New carpqrt. __ __ __ __ _
Convert existing garage to den and
_~dd car_E(JEt. ___ ______ 367' o o RE9-1
Bldg-Alter/Rep,, . __Aug-Ol- 2251 N Fern Dell Drive
: Revise franIng per engineer plans,
315 o 1 RE9-1
Bldg-Alter/Repa _ Aug-01 22!i1 N Fern Dell Drive 'details t0l'ermit01 01 0-10000:
28i SF firsffloor addition, deck
Place addition at second floor. 282 o 2'RE9-1
Bldg-Ildditici_ Dee-01 2251 Fern Dell
--T2nd floöraddrÜûntosTng-le family
-- I
496 o 2 RE11-1
Bldg-Addition M")-02 2052 N : GrarT~rcy Place nOn:E;_ ~~er l~vJ.ro0rT~_ _
Add 120 SF to existing dwelling,
expand the bedroom in basement
an~__th~_~PPE!_r:Jloor. ____ ____ 402 o 1 RE15-1
Bldg,Addition Feb-01 5524 W Green Oak Drive
200 sqft kitchen expansion at 2nd
Los Angeles, CA

floor above (E) çiarage, and 210 410 o 2 RE15-1

Blda-Addition Feb-05 5605 W Green Oak :Drive

Page 1 Exhibit E-4

 Permit Date for The Oaks Neighborhood Study Area
Year 2001 - 2005

,SUFFIX ¡WORK DESCRIPTION SQUARE FOOT ¡TOTAL UNITS STORIES ,ZONING

PERMIT TYPE ¡ISSUE PATE INUMBER PIRECTION ¡STREET NAME
'New dining room addition and
; convert existing garage into a
¡ habitable room (604 sq. It) abd add
new attached 2 car garage, to be
604 0 o RE-,5-1
Jun-02 5800 W 'Green Oak Drive ; attached
--- ---- 10' wide
----
with a - -breeze-
Bidg-Addilon
Add recreation room to single
family home, one-story attached to
__.the gar_age. 0 2_.RE1î 1
Bldg-l:dditi?r:_ Dec-Q1 2338 N :Hlgh_Qak Drive - - ---- 449,
Proposed 2nd story additon to
--- -- existing single family home. __ 2376 0 2 RE11
Bid\l-Addiuo-r Jan-04 5740 W HiilOak Drive
Proposed masterbedroomaddition
Drive at third floor and interior 644 0 3,RE"IÎ-
Bldg'.AcJition Mar-04 5682 W Hoily Oak ------ ----- - ----remodel.
---
--- Interior remodel of existing 2nd
¡Drive :flosi_r_~n_cludir:g~~ batti _?_dditi9~~__ 435 0 3'RE11-1
_Bicg-Addltion --- Jun-04 , W : HoIiyOak
-- -- .5682 1238 0 1 RE11-1
__Aug-OL_ 5689 W 0(jliy Oak --Orive _ New 2-story recreation room.
Bidg__New
Addition tomain house- consisting
Drive ¡ of a powder room and kitchen 461 0 31RE9-1
Bldgi'dditiori__ May-05 5693 W ,Hoily Oak
'2nd floor addition and remodei.
Remodel 1st floor home theater
and one-half bath. 160 0 2 RE11-1
Bidg-Additio"-____ _ Jun-OS ---- '2126 N Live Oak Drive ----- ----- ---- ---
-- Bathroom addition below existing
Drive ~?Icony~______ __ __ 63 0 ORE9-1
Bldg~Addition Nov-04 2158 N Live Oak --
~dition_~_Rarag~_§_nd se~ond 239 0 2 RE11-1
Bidg-Alter/Repa Ma\'il1 2166 N _--Live()_c:~_ Drive
-~ Revise the work description on
99014-20000-07114 (00LA06001) 7092 0 2 RE;1-1
Bid9:Addition M_a~-01 2175 ----- W Live Oak Drive
---!19'-a;~-adaTtiontõ2ñd- st"õ-ryto create
Bldg-,A,dition
- Mar-04 2175 --- W
,
i Live Oak Drive ! mater bathroom. 735 0 2iRE11-1
i ! Repl-ace damag-eC: garage wall:
! Mountain Oak footings, an~__~~taining ~all. ___ 400 0 1 RE11-1
Bid9:Alter/Repa u_ S ep-D5 2200 N !Drive
New 40' x 30'4" irregularly shaped
accessory structure to include
recreation room. 1178 0 1 RE11-1
Bidg-Ne"' Dec-03 2232 N Mountain Oak Drive
'Proposed 3rd-a-ñd second floor--
Drive addition and interior remodeL. 749 0 3 REí1-1
Bid¡-Addition Jun-04 24Ei8 --- N Park Oak
Addition of b-aicony ancrxpansion
Drive : of existing deck. 148 0 OiRE11-1
Bldg-Aiter/Repa Nov-04 2459 -- N --f:ark Oak
,Propose¡rregui- st & 2nd floor
addition & remodel to existing 1
Park Oak Drive __sto~__VYL~aser:_~L ___ __u_
1622 0 3.RE11-1
Bldg-Addit°n Feb-04 2544 ,--- N
Supplemental permit to revise
Drive !!?undati~~ and fr~ming pI9ns~__ 1622 0 3RE11-1
Bldg-Addition Mar-04 2544 N ___on. Park Oak
~ New detached 2.story pool house
Los Angeles, CA

Drive and recreation room. 1029. 0 2'RE15-1

Bidg-New Dec-05 2568 N i Park Oak

Page 2 Exhibit E-4

 Permit Date for The Oaks Neighborhood Study Area
Year 2001 - 2005

PERMIT TYPE ,ISSUE PATE NUMBER DIRECTION STREET NAME SUFFIX WORK PESCRIPTION SQUARE FOOT TOTAL UNITS .STORIES 'ZONING
Enclose existing open patio area,
remodel existing storage room into
Blig-~Jter/Repa Apr-02 21í'7 N__. Pon~t_ 'Drive _~cr~ation__~~om. __ _ 274 0 O. RE11-1
_ê!~g-Additíon
! '-L Apr_-O-l_
;Add wood __Pon~1__
2224 Ndeck at __ Drive ,Addit.ign
rear to _kitchE~n an~ rem_C?del. 556 1 2 RE-i 1-1
of existing
,-i:i1d9_-Addition_ Aug-O_~__ 5720 W Spring Oak Drive residence _____ ______ 180 1 QR1-1
26' x 46' 3-story single family home
Bldg-New ¡Oct-OS 57:)2 W ¡Spring Oak Terrace with attached garage, 2575 SF. 2975 1 2 R1-1
, Addition to connect dwelling and
----, --1 --- -------- ----- ---- ---- - ------ ------
BIcl-AçJdition __ Jun-04 5505 W 'Tuxedo Terrac~~l?abana:____
New 3-story SFD _____n___
with _attached --E9-1
___ 888 02- -
Bldg-New Mar-04 5843 W Tuxedo Terrace car garage. Combined permit. 2844 1 3 RE1 ,
,_êldg~A9dition Jul-01 5630 ~ W -- ~=J.Y?lleyOa_~ Drive~~~~~¿'dd~ti(J_ri to sìii_9Ie-f_~_rnil_y-home.- 737: 0 1 REi 1-1
i i Enclose area under existing deck to
Bldg-Addition Jun-05 221)5 _ N I Verde Oak IDrlve___makeroorn fora~~dy (9.0a' x 18.) 156 0 2'RE11-1
Two story a-ddition to-existing 2-
Bldg.Addition S,ep-04
- ------" ----- --, 2400 N Wild Oak Drive story singlefamily home. 623 0, 2 RE11-1
--NewsinglefamHy--dwelliñ-gwlth
Bldg-Ne""____Oct-03 24130 N Wild Oak Drive_~tached_garage.
Supplemental permit to PCIS
__ 3770 1 2 RE"-'
Bldg-New
---- ---May-04
- - - --24130
-I NewN !Wild Oak Drive
2-storY:14. 102010-10000-034137. 410R 0 2 RE"-'
x 24':S"Accessory"-
Elldg-New __ -i May-05 :25t1
i 1 ~st and 2nd
N 'Wild Oak--DrlveLivlngOuarter.
floor remodel and Combined permit. 510 1 2 RE11
Bldo-Addition Mav-05 2511 N Wild Oak f)rivp. addition to IE) SFD_ Combined 1391 0 2, RE11
Los Angeles, CA

Page 3 Exhibit E-4

 EXHIBIT E-5
Los Angeles, CA
COUNTY CLERK'S USE CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY CLERK'S USE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
ROOM 615. CITY HALL EAST
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
(Article 19 of the California CEOA Guidelines)
Submission of this form is optionaL. The form shall be filed with the County Clerk, 12400 E. Imperial Highway, Norwalk, CA 90650,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 (b). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167 (d), the filing of this notice
starts a 35-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval of
the project. Failure to file this notice with the County Clerk
results in the statute of limitations being extended to 180 days.
LEAD CITY AGENCY: COUNCIL DISTRICT
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning 4
PROJECT TITLE: LOG REFERENCE
The Oaks Interim Control Ordinance ENV-2007 -2066-CE
CPC 2007-2065-ICO
PROJECT LOCATION:
The proposed project is the establishment of The Oaks Control Ordinance (ICO) to temporarily prohibit the issuance of
building permits in excess of certain floor area thresholds until the adoption of appropriate land use regulatory controls,
The Oaks ICO area is generally bounded by Griffith Park on the north; Griffith Park, Fern Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and
Live Oak Drive on the east; Franklin Avenue and Foothill Drive on the south; Canyon Drive on the west including
properties west of Canyon Drive north of Argosy Drive.
DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE, AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT:

Establishment of The Oaks Interim Control Ordinance (lCO) .

NAME OF PERSON OR AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT, IF OTHER THAN LEAD CITY AGENCY:

CONTACT PERSON AREA CODE i TELEPHONE NUMBER I EXT.

Blake Kendrick 213 978-1178

EXEMPT STATUS: (Check One)

STATE CEOA STATE EIR
GUIDELINES GUIDELINE
Sec. 15268
0 MINISTERIAL
Sec. 15269
0 DECLARED EMERGENCY
Sec, 15269
0 EMERGENCY PROJECT
Article II, Section 2(m) Sec. 15061 (b) (3)
,/ GENERAL EXEMPTION
(City of Los Ange!es Guidelines)
Article 19 , Sec. 15308 Sec. 15300 et seq.
,/ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION

Classes 8 Category (California CEOA Guidelines)

o OTHER (See Public Resources Code Sec. 21080 (b) and set forth state and city guideline provision.
 EXHIBIT E-5
Los Angeles, CA
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROJECT EXEMPTION See attached narrative.
CERTIFIED DOCUMENT OF EXEMPTION FINDING
TITLE DATE
Senior City Planner June 26. 2007
REC'D. BY DATE
N/A N/A
DISTRIBUTION: (1) County Clerk, (2) City Clerk, (3) Agency Record
Form Gen. 183 (Rev 8-90) (Appendix AI (C.S. 4/98) (P.C. 5/02)

THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT HE OR SHE UNDERSTANDS THE FOLLOWING:

Completion of this form by an employee of the City constitutes only a staff recommendation that an exemption
from CEQA be granted, A Notice of Exemption is only effective if, after a public review and any required public
hearings, it is' adopted by the City agency having final jurisdiction (including any appeals) over the project
application. If a CEQA exemption is found inappropriate, preparation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report will be required, IF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IS INCORRECT OR
INCOMPLETE SUCH ERROR OR OMISSION COULD INVALIDATE ANY CITY CTIONS ON THE PROJECT,
INCLUDING CEQA FINDINGS,

XCharlie Rausch ~
NAME (PRINTED) SI
Exhibit E-6 Los Angeles, CA

The Oaks Total Development Square Footage

Structure Size Chart
4000
Q)
OJ
-o
fa

o
u. !I
Q)
3000
..
fa i ¡
::
0'
, en
1: 2000

it
Q) i I I
E
c. . j J , I~ II i I!
o
Q)
;:
Q) 1000
iI.III'
Cl I III i IITII ii
-o
fa
ITI I L-- I
I, ! II I ii-III-"i i . .1+-11!T-
I- , I i' ! i I, . ¡ I
o o 0
o 00 00 0
0 00 00 0
0 0 00 00 00 0
0 0 00 0 0
0o. 0o. 00
o. 0
0 o. 0 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. 0 0_ 0 o.
0N
0 ~
~ N~ t'~ "" '" in "- '"
,- --- ---:-
"" cr in "-

" _ Dwelling Unit Size (SqFt)~

'" Q)
~ ~ ~
Lot Size (SqFt)
~ ~ Q)~
Used with permission of the City of Manhattan Beach, CA.
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
 City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

INCREASE OPEN SPACE AND SETBACKS

Section 10.12.030 and A.12.030 Property Development Regulations: RS,

RM, and RH districts related to minimum setbacks
10.12.030 Property development regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts.
The following schedule prescribes development regulations for residential zoning
districts in each area district, as defined in Section 10.01.060(A)(2) and designated on the
zoning map. The columns establish basic requirements for permitted and conditional
uses; letters in parentheses in the “Additional Regulations” column refer to “Additional
Development Regulations” following the schedule.
This section shall not be amended to increase the Standards for Maximum Height of
Structures or Maximum Buildable Floor Area, or to reduce the Standards for Minimum
Setbacks, Minimum Lot Dimensions or Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit, unless the
amendment is first submitted to a city-wide election and approved by a majority of the
voters.

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS I AND II

Area District I Area District II

Additional
RS RM RH RS RM RH Regulations
Minimum Setbacks

Front (ft.) 20 20 20 20 20 20 (A)(B)(D)(T)

Side (percentage-ft.) 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 (D)(E)(F)
min.;5 min.;5 min.;5 min.;5 min.;5 min.;5
Corner Side 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 (D)(E) (T)
(percentage- ft.) min.;5 min.;5 min.;5 min.;5 min.;5 min.;5
Rear (percentage- ft.) 12 min 12 min 12 min 12 min 12 min 12 min (D)(E)(F)(G)
10;25 10;25 10;25 10;25 10;25 10;25

Note: In the RS districts, the enclosed area for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots with less than 4,800 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with
more than 4,800 square feet, is excluded from the determination of the maximum amount
of buildable floor area. In all residential districts, fifty percent (50%) of habitable room
floor area in a basement located entirely below grade is excluded from the determination
of buildable floor area. See Section 10.04.030 Definitions, Floor Area, Buildable for
parking, loading and basement areas excluded from Buildable Floor Area.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 1 of 26
 City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS III AND IV

Area District III Area District IV

Additional
RS RM RH RH Regulations
Minimum Setbacks

Front (ft.) 5 5 5 5 (A)(B)(D)

Side (percentage- ft.) 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 min.;5 (D)(E)(F)
min.;5 min.;5 min.;5
Corner Side (ft.) 1 1 1 1 (D)
Rear (ft.) 5 or 10 5 5 5 (D)(E)(F)(G)
Note: In the RS district, the enclosed area for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots with less than 2,700 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with
2,700 square feet or more, is excluded from the determination of the maximum amount of
buildable floor area. In all residential districts, fifty percent (50%) of habitable room floor
area in a basement located entirely below grade is excluded from the determination of
buildable floor area. See Section 10.04.030 Definitions, Floor Area, Buildable for
parking, loading and basement areas excluded from Buildable Floor Area.

Section 10.12.030 (E) and A.12.030 (E) Side Setbacks and Rear Setbacks
of the Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
E).Side Setbacks. Ten percent (10%) of lot width but not less than three feet (3’). and
need not exceed five feet (5’).
(1) Exceptions--Reverse Corner Side Setback. Reverse corner lots in Area Districts I
and II shall have the following side yards:
(a) On the lot side line which adjoins another lot the side yard shall be determined in the
same manner as for an interior lot.
(b) On the street side line, the width of the required side setback shall be the same as for
the interior side setback on the lot except that the size and shape of such required side
setback nearest the lot rear line shall be increased to include all of that portion, if any, of
a triangle formed in the following manner:
(i) On the common lot line of the reverse corner lot and the key lot, a point shall be
established where the rear line of the required front yard on the key lot intersects such
common lot line;
(ii) On the street side line of the reverse corner lot, a point shall be established distant
from the common street corner of the key lot and the reverse corner lot equal to the depth
of the required front yard on the key lot;
(iii) The third side of the triangle shall be a straight line connecting points (i) and (ii) of
this section. If an alley intervenes between the key lot and the reverse corner lot, the
width of the alley shall be included in determining the length of the line on the street side
line of the reverse corner lot.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 2 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
Rear Setback:
(1) In Area Districts I and II, the rear setback (RS) shall be determined as follows: RS =
0.3 x (lot depth in feet)--20; provided that the minimum setback is ten twelve feet (10’)
(12’) and the maximum required setback is twenty-five feet (25’).
(2) In Area District III, RS District, non-alley lots abutting residential at the rear with
2,700 square foot or more in lot area, the rear setback shall be 10 feet.

Section 10.12.030 (F) and A.12.030 (F) Building Height and Required
yards of the Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH
districts
(F) Building Height and Required Yards. Except as provided below, the width of a
required interior side, corner side or rear yard adjoining a building wall exceeding
twenty-five feet (25’) twenty-four feet (24’) in height, excluding any portion of a roof,
shall be increased three feet (3’) over the basic requirement.
(1) Exceptions. If the lot width is less than thirty-five feet (35’), no increase in the side
yard is required.

Section 10.12.030 (H) and A.12.030 (H) Maximum Height of Structures

of the Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
(H) Maximum Height of Structures. See Section 10.60.050, Measurement of height,
and Section 10.60.060, Exceptions to height limits. The maximum number of stories
permitted shall be three (3) where the height limit is thirty feet (30’) and two (2) where
the height limit is twenty-six feet (26’). A floor level may be divided between portions
qualifying as a story and portions qualifying as a basement. Any portion of a floor level
qualifying as a story shall be considered to have a minimum dimension of twenty feet
(20’) measured perpendicular from the outside face(s) of the exterior building wall(s)
which defines that area as a story. (See Graphic Illustration under “Basement” definition-
-Section 10.04.030).
A deck or balcony may shall not be located directly above a second story where the
height limit is twenty-six feet (26’) or the third story where the height limit is thirty feet
(30’), if the following criteria is met. Such decks shall be located adjacent to an interior
living space and shall provide additional setbacks as follows; in all Area Districts the
interior side setback shall be 3 times the minimum side setback; In Area Districts I and II
the rear setback shall be 2 times the minimum rear yard setback and in Area Districts III
and IV the rear setback shall be 15 feet. The surface elevation of any deck or balcony
shall be no higher than nine feet (9’) below the height limit.
Whenever new construction or alterations and additions to existing structures involves
grading or scraping, a survey acceptable to the Director of Community Development is
required as a condition of issuance of a demolition or building permit (see Section
10.80.010). The Director shall require that survey markers be set.
The Community Development Director shall determine compliance with this subsection
by reviewing two (2) vertical cross-sections through the property (front-to back and side-
to-side) that show the relationship of each level in a new structure and new levels added

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 3 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
to an existing structure to both existing and finished grade on the property and adjacent
land within five feet (5’) of the property line.

Section 10.12.030 (M) and A.12.030 (M) Open Space Requirement of the
Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
M) Open Space Requirement. The minimum usable open space (private and shared) in
RS, RM and RH Districts shall be provided as follows:
(1) For single family dwellings in Area District III and IV and multifamily dwelling units
in all districts, containing 2,333 square feet or less of buildable floor area, the minimum
requirement is 15 percent of the buildable floor area per unit, but not less than 220 square
feet. For calculating required open space, basement areas shall be calculated as 100%
buildable floor area, and 15% open space shall be required for the basement square
footage.
(2) For single family dwellings in Area Districts III and IV and multifamily dwelling
units in all districts, containing greater than 2,333 square feet of buildable floor area, the
minimum requirement is 350 square feet per dwelling unit.
(3) The amount of a dwelling unit’s required open space located above the second story
shall not exceed the proportion of the unit’s total Buildable Floor Area which is located at
the same level or story (where permitted by height regulations) shall not be more than
one-half (1/2) of the total required open space.
(4) Where new buildable floor area is added to an existing dwelling unit located in Area
District III or IV, or within an RM or RH zone in Area District I and II, additional usable
open space shall be provided equal to 15% of the added buildable floor area, until the
total open space requirement provided in this Section is attained.

Section 10.12.030 (T) and A.12.030 (T) Additional Front Setback

Requirements- RS Properties- Area Districts I and II of the Property
Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
(T) Additional Front and Corner Side Setback Requirement--RS Properties, Area
Districts I and II. In addition to the minimum front and corner side setback shown on
the chart, an additional front and corner side setback area shall be provided as follows:
1. On interior lots, the area shall directly abut the front yard setback, shall be equal to six
eight percent (6%) (8%) of the lot area, and shall be located entirely within the front one-
fifth (1/5) [twenty percent (20%)] of the lot’s buildable depth.
2. On corner lots, the area shall be equal to eight percent (8%) of the lot area, and the area
shall be divided between directly abutting the front and the streetside yard setbacks. A
minimum of 45% and a maximum of 55% of the total required area shall directly abut
both the required front and streetside yard setbacks. Adjacent to the front yard, the
portion of the area shall be located entirely within the front one-fifth (1/5) [twenty
percent (20%)] of the lot’s buildable depth. Adjacent to the corner streetside yard the
portion of the area shall be located entirely within the front one-third (1/3) [thirty-three
percent (33%)] of the lot’s buildable width. Adjacent to the corner streetside the area
shall provide a minimum of 3’ of depth or width and shall be distributed to provide
building wall articulation.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 4 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
3. The ground level construction in this area shall be limited to fourteen feet (14’) in
height for areas with less than 3:12 roof pitch and seventeen feet (17’) in height for areas
with 3:12 or more roof pitch, as measured from local grade. Areas not having a minimum
3:12 roof pitch located behind minimum 3:12 roof pitch areas shall be set back a
minimum of three feet (3’) beyond the front building line of the pitched roof area (See
Graphic Illustration).
3. A maximum of one-half (½) of said area shall be designed or useable as roof top deck
surfaces.
4. Building projections above said area shall be considered as projections within a front
yard.
Exceptions:
1. Interior non-alley lots fifty-five feet (55’) or less in width with all parking spaces
located within the rear half of the lot shall not be required to provide the additional front
setback area.
2. This requirement may be reduced for a small, shallow, or multiple front yard lot if it
prevents the lot from attaining its permitted buildable floor area subject to approval of a
minor exception.
3. Corner lots, which provide driveway access along the interior side property line from a
front property line curb cut with all parking spaces located within the rear half of the lot,
shall not be required to provide the additional front setback area.
4. This requirement may be modified for the remodel/addition of existing homes if the
additional setback area is provided elsewhere on the lot subject to approval of a minor
exception.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 5 of 26
 City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

LIMIT LOT MERGERS

Section 10.12.030 entitled “Property Development Standards For Area
Districts I and II” and “Property Development Standards For Area
Districts III and IV”
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS I AND II

Area Area Area Area District Area Area Additional

District I District I District I II RS District II District II Regulations
RS RM RH RM RH
Minimum
Lot
Dimensions

Area (sq. ft) (A) (B) (C)

Minimum 7,500 7,500 7,500 4,600 4,600 4,600 (K)

Maximum 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,800 10,800 10,800

Width (ft) 50 50 50 40 40 40
Minimum

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS III AND IV

Area District III Area District III Area District III Area District IV Additional
RS RM RH RH Regulations
Minimum
Lot
Dimensions

Area (sq. ft) (A) (B) (C)

Minimum 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 (J) (K)
Maximum 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

Width (ft.)
Minimum 30 30 30 30

(K) Lot Dimensions- Area. Minimum and maximum lot area numbers represent a
range of permitted lot areas applicable to new subdivisions and building sites created by
merging, and/or the lot line adjustments for lots or portions of lots. Pre-existing
unmerged developed lots which exceed the maximum lot area may continue to be used as
one lot until such time as new structures, enlargements or alterations are proposed, in

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 6 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
accordance with the 50% building valuation criteria in Section 10.68.030 E, Alterations
and enlargements of nonconforming uses and structures. At that time when the 50%
building valuation criteria is exceeded then the new lot(s), and new development on those
lots, shall comply with the current Zoning Code property development regulations, and
any other applicable Manhattan Beach Municipal Code regulations.
Exceptions.
1. Properties zoned RM, RH and CL in Area Districts I and II that are
developed with three or more dwelling units, in order to encourage development
of multi-family housing in these areas.

2. Existing Legally Created Merged Lots. Any building site composed of

merged lots in excess of the maximum lot area as prescribed in this section, which
has been legally created or approved prior to (date of approval of this Ordinance).

3. Non-alley RH lots in Area District III on Manhattan Beach Boulevard east

of Ardmore, since vehicles are not allowed to back out onto the street in this area
and lots need to be merged in order to allow adequate on-site turning movements
so vehicles can safely exit onto Manhattan Beach Boulevard traveling in a
forward direction.

4. Religious assembly and public or private schools uses, used as a single

building site, subject to the Director of Community Developments approval of a
Certificate of Compliance, and in accordance with Section 11.04.050 Certificate
of Compliance. These lots may continue to be used as one building site without
requiring a merger of parcels, and the expansion of existing religious assembly
and public or private schools is permitted without the recordation of a merger of
the parcels, in accordance with Chapter 11.32, Reversion to Acreage and Mergers.

5. The RS-D7 Design Review Overlay-Longfellow Drive, which has larger

lots that are established through a Precise Plan and are required by the Overlay
district.

6. The RSC- Residential Senior Citizen Zone, which has a minimum lot size
of 40,000 square feet per the Zoning Code requirements.

7. The RPD- Residential Planned Development Zone which has a minimum

lot size of 40,000 square feet per the Zoning Code requirements.

Section 11.32.090 and A.32.090 Reversions to Acreage and Mergers

Chapter 11.32 REVERSIONS TO ACREAGE AND MERGERS
11.32.010 Reversions to acreage.
11.32.020 Merger of contiguous parcels.
11.32.030 Merger of contiguous parcels--Conditions.
11.32.040 Merger of contiguous parcels--Notice of intent.
11.32.050 Merger of contiguous parcels--Hearing.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 7 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
11.32.060 Merger of contiguous parcels--Determination of merger.
11.32.070 Merger of contiguous parcels--Determination of non-merger.
11.32.080 Merger of contiguous parcels--Request by property owner.
11.32.090 Merger of contiguous parcels-- Religious assembly and Public or Private
School use

11.32.090 Merger of contiguous parcels-- Religious assembly and Public or

Private School use
A merger of parcels shall not be required for existing religious assembly and public or
private school uses, when the site is used as a single building site, subject to the Director
of Community Developments approval of a Certificate of Compliance, in accordance
with Section 11.04.050 Certificate of Compliance. These lots may continue to be used as
one building site without requiring a merger of parcels, and the expansion of existing
religious assembly and public or private schools is permitted without the recordation of a
merger of the parcels.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 8 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

ENCOURAGE THE RETENTION OF EXISTING

SMALLER HOMES
Sections 10.84.010 and A.84.010 Use Permits, Variances and Minor
Exceptions
Section 10.84.010 Purposes.
This chapter provides the flexibility in application of land-use and development
regulations necessary to achieve the purposes of this ordinance by establishing
procedures for approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of applications for use
permits, variances and minor exceptions.

Use permits are required for use classifications typically having unusual site development
features or operating characteristics requiring special consideration so that they may be
designed, located, and operated compatibly with uses on adjoining properties and in the
surrounding area.

Variances are intended to resolve practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships

that may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing
structures thereon; from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions on the site
or in the immediate vicinity; or from street locations or traffic conditions in the
immediate vicinity of the site.

Variances may be granted with respect to fences, walls, landscaping, screening, site area,
site dimensions, yards, height of structures, distances between structures, open space, off-
street parking and off-street loading, and performance standards.

Authorization to grant variances does not extend to use regulations because sufficient
flexibility is provided by the use permit process for specified uses and by the authority of
the Planning Commission to determine whether a specific use belongs within one or more
of the use classifications listed in Chapter 10.08. Further, Chapter 10.96 provides
procedures for amendments to the zoning map or zoning regulations. These will ensure
that any changes are consistent with the General Plan and the land use objectives of this
ordinance.

Minor exceptions are generally intended to allow certain alterations and additions to
certain nonconforming pre-existing structures. Minor Exceptions are also intended to
encourage home remodeling and small additions to existing smaller older legal non-
conforming homes. The provisions strive to balance the communities desire to maintain
smaller older homes while still allowing some flexibility to encourage these homes to be
maintained and upgraded, as well as enlarged below the maximum allowed square
footage instead of being replaced with larger new homes. Additionally, through the
review process, a project shall be found to be consistent with the intent of the non-
conforming Code provisions. The non-conforming provisions allow existing legal non-
conforming structures to remain, but limits their expansion, so that as these non-

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 9 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
conforming homes become older eventually their useful life will be depleted and the
structures will then be brought into conformance with the current Codes.

Sections 10.84.120 and A.84.120 entitled Use Permits, Variances and

Minor Exceptions
Section 10.84.120 Minor exceptions.

The Community Development Director may grant minor exceptions from certain
regulations contained in this ordinance for projects as follows:

Valuation less than 50%. Projects that do not exceed 50% reconstruction valuation
pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.68.030(E), as provided below.

Applicable Section Exception Allowed

10.12.030 Attachment of existing structures on a site in Area

District III or IV which result in the larger existing
structure becoming nonconforming to residential
development regulations.

10.12.030 Site enlargements (e.g., mergers, lot line

adjustments) which result in existing structures
becoming nonconforming to residential
development regulations.

10.12.030 and 10.68.030 D. Construction of a second or third story residential

addition that would project into required setbacks or
required open space when the pre-existing first or
second story was legally constructed.

10.60.040(H) and, r Reconstruction of raised grade stairways,

architectural archways, covered entries, and covered
porches in required yards and required open space
for pre-existing structures.

10.60.050 Alternative reference point for height measurement

for pre-existing structures that have height
nonconformities.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 10 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
Valuation no limitation. Projects that involve new structures or remodels without limits
of project valuation [ie. may exceed 50% valuation provisions of Section 10,68.030 (E)],
as provided below. Notice may be required for Exceptions to Sections 10.68.030 D and
E., and 10.12.030 and 10.12.030 (R), see Section 10.84.120 A and B below for noticing
requirements.

Applicable Section Exception Allowed

10.12.030 Attachment of existing structures on a site in Area

District III or IV which result in the larger existing
structure becoming nonconforming to residential
development regulations.

10.12.030 Site enlargements (e.g., mergers, lot line

adjustments), not exceeding the maximum lot area,
which result in existing structures becoming
nonconforming to residential development
regulations.

10.12.030 (M) Reduction in the 15% open space requirement for

dwelling units that are largely 1-story in 2-story
zones and for dwelling units that are largely 2-story
in 3-story zones.

10.12.030 (P) Construction of retaining walls beyond the

permitted height where existing topography
includes extreme slopes.

10.12.030 (T) Reduction in percentage of additional 6% front yard

setback, or 8% front/streetside yard setback on
corner lots, required in the RS Zone- Area Districts
I and II, 15% open space requirement, side yard
setbacks, and/or rear yard setback for small, wide,
shallow and/or multiple front yard lots, where the
building is not able to obtain its permitted Buildable
Floor Area.

10.12.030 (T) Reduction in percentage of additional 6% front yard

setback required in the RS Zone- Area Districts I
and II for remodel/additions to existing dwelling
units if the additional setback area is provided
elsewhere on the lot.

10.12.030(T) Reduction in percentage of additional 8%

front/streetside yard setback required on corner lots
in the RS Zone- Area Districts I and II for

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 11 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
remodel/additions to existing dwelling units if the
additional setback area is provided elsewhere on the
lot.

10.12 – 10.68 Non-compliant construction due to Community

Development staff review or inspection errors.

10.68.030 D and E, 10.12.030 Construction of a first, second or third story

and 10.12.030 (R) residential addition that would project into required
setbacks or required building separation yards,
matching the existing legal non-conforming
setback(s).

10.68.030 D. and E. Alterations, remodeling and small additions

(enlargements) to existing smaller older legal non-
conforming structures dwelling units.

10.68.030 E. Alterations and remodeling to existing legal non-

conforming structures.

A. Minor Exception Application without Notice. All applications for minor

exceptions may be approved administratively by the Director of Community
Development without notice, except as provided in Section B below.
Additionally, a minor exception from Section 10.68.030 D and E. must meet the
following criteria:

1. Alterations, remodeling, additions (enlargements) to existing smaller legal

non-conforming structures. The total proposed Buildable Floor Area, as
defined in Section 10.04.030 which excludes certain garage and basement
areas from BFA, does not exceed 66% of the maximum allowed (Area
Districts III and IV) and 75% of the maximum allowed (Area Districts I and
II) or 3,000 square feet, whichever is less .

2. Alterations and remodeling to existing legal non-conforming structures.

No limit to the total existing Buildable Floor Area, as defined in Section
10.04.030 which excludes certain garage and basement areas from BFA, but
no further additions (enlargements) permitted.

B. Minor Exception Application with Notice.

1. Applications for minor exceptions from Section 10.68.030 D and E. which do
not meet the criteria in Section A 1. above, may be approved administratively by
the Director of Community Development, with notice. A minor exception from
Section 10.68.030 D and E. must meet the following criteria, and notice as
provide in Section D below, must be provided:

a. Alterations, remodeling, additions (enlargements) to existing

smaller legal non-conforming structures. The total proposed Buildable

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 12 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
Floor Area as defined in Section 10.04.030 which excludes certain garage
and basement areas from BFA, does not exceed 66% of the maximum
allowed (Area Districts III and IV) and 75% of the maximum allowed
(Area Districts I and II) and the Buildable Floor Area exceeds 3,000
square feet but does not exceed 4,000 square feet.

2. Applications for minor exceptions from Sections 10.68.030 D, 10.12.030, and

10.12.030 (R). may be approved administratively by the Director of Community
Development, with notice. A minor exception from Sections 10.68.030 D,
10.12.030, and 10.12.030 (R). must meet the following criteria, and notice as
provide in Section D below, must be provided:

a. Construction of a first, second or third story residential addition

that matches the existing non-conforming setback(s). The total
proposed Buildable Floor Area, as defined in Section 10.04.030 which
excludes certain garage and basement areas from BFA, does not exceed
66% of the maximum allowed (Area Districts III and IV) and 75% of the
maximum allowed (Area Districts I and II) or 3,000 square feet,
whichever is less.

C. Submittal requirements- all Minor Exceptions Applications. Applications for

all minor exceptions shall be initiated by submitting the following materials to the
Community Development Department.

1. A completed application form, signed by the property owner or authorized

agent, accompanied by the required fees, plans and mapping documentation in the
form prescribed by the Community Development Director.

2. Written statements to support the required findings and criteria of this Code
section.

3. A vicinity map showing the location and street address of the development site.

D. Submittal Requirements- Minor Exception Applications with notice.

Applications for minor exceptions with notice shall be initiated by submitting the
following materials to the Community Development Department:

1. A completed application form, signed by the property owner or authorized

agent, accompanied by the required fees, copies of deeds, any required power of
attorney, plans and mapping documentation in the form prescribed by the
Community Development Director.

2. Written statements to support the required findings and criteria of this Code
section.

3. A vicinity map showing the location and street address of the development site;

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 13 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

4. A map showing the location and street address of the property that is the
subject of the application and of all lots of record within 300 feet of the
boundaries of the property; and

5. A list, drawn from the last equalized property tax assessment roll or the records
of the County Assessor, Tax Collector, or the City's contractor for such records
showing the names and addresses of the owner of record of each lot within 300
feet of the boundaries of the property. This list shall be keyed to the map required
by subsection 4 above and shall be accompanied by mailing labels.

E. Notice to Property Owners- Minor Exception with Notice. After receipt of a

completed Minor Exception application, the Community Development Director
shall provide notice to surrounding property owners as provided in Section D
above. with application submittal items 3 and 4 above. Said notice shall include:
a project description, information regarding where and when project plans can be
viewed, a request for comments regarding said exception, and a commenting
deadline date. No public hearing shall be required.

F. Director's Review and Action-All Minor Exceptions.

1. Notice of Decision. After the commenting deadline date, if any, and within 30
days of receipt of a completed application, the Director shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the required exception. The Director of
Community Development shall send the applicant and City Council a letter
stating the reasons for the decision under the authority for granting the
exception, as provided by the applicable sections of this ordinance. The letter
also shall state that the Director's decision is appealable under the provisions
of subsection (K) below. Notice of the decision also shall be mailed to all
those individuals who received the initial notice to property owners described
in subsection (E) above. previously noticed pursuant to A and B above.

2. Findings. In making a determination, the Director shall be required to make

the following findings: consider the following criteria:
a. The proposed project will be compatible with properties in the surrounding
area, including but not limited to, scale, mass, orientation, size and location of
setbacks, and height.
b. There will no significant detrimental impact to surrounding neighbors,
including but not limited to impacts to privacy, pedestrian and vehicular
accessibility, light, and air.
c. There are practical difficulty which warrants deviation from Code
standards, including but not limited to lot configuration, size, shape, or
topography, and/or relationship of existing building(s) to the lot.
d. That existing non-conformities will be brought closer to or in conformance
with Zoning Code and Building Safety requirements where deemed to be
reasonable and feasible.
e. That the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the
purposes of this title and the zoning district where the project is located, the

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 14 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
Local Coastal Program, if applicable, and with any other current applicable
policy guidelines.

G. Additional Criteria- Sections 10.68.030 D and E or Sections 10.68.030 D and

E, 10.12.030 and 10.12.030 (R). When making a determination to approve an
exception to Section 10.68.030 D. and E, or Sections 10.68.030 D and E,
10.12.030 and 10.12.030 (R),the Director shall also require consider the following
criteria to be met, in addition to the criteria findings in Section 10.84.120 (F) 2.,
as stated above:

1. Whether deviation from Code is minor in nature.

2. Evidence that significant detrimental impact to surrounding neighbors is
absent.
3. Evidence of significant practical difficulty or economic hardship which
warrants deviation from Code standard.
4. Whether the application is in compliance with any current policy
guidelines for Minor Exceptions as may be adopted by the City Council.

2. When making a determination to approve an exception to Section

10.68.030 E, the Director shall also require compliance with the following
criteria, in addition to the criteria stated above in Section 2:

a. The maximum total Buildable Floor Area of the existing dwelling unit
plus the addition(s), as defined in Section 10.04.030, which excludes
certain garage and basement areas from BFA, may not exceed 2,000
square feet in area.

1. New construction must conform to all current Code requirements except as

permitted by this Chapter.

2. Structural alterations or modifications, as regulated by Chapter 10.68, to

existing non-conforming portions of structures shall only be allowed as
follows:
a. To comply with Building Safety access, egress, fire protection and other
safety requirements (i.e. stairs, windows) as determined to be significant by
the Building Official.
b. For architectural compatibility (ie roof pitch and design, eave design,
architectural features design) as determined to be necessary by the Director of
Community Development.
c. Minor alterations to integrate a new 2nd or 3rd floor into an existing 1st
and/or 2nd floor, as determined to be necessary by the Director of Community
Development.
d. Architectural upgrades, including those associated with construction of
new square footage, as determined to be necessary by the Director of
Community Development.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 15 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
e. Other minor alterations or modifications as determined to be necessary by
the Director of Community Development.

a. A minimum of 25% of the existing dwelling unit, based on project valuation

as defined in Section 10.68.030, shall be maintained.

3. A minimum of 10% of the existing structure, based on project valuation as

defined in Section 10.68.030, shall be maintained.
4. Parking spaces may remain non-conforming with respect to the number of
spaces, except as provided below, as well as the size, consistent with the
provisions in Section 10.64.090 Exceptions, which allows a 1 foot reduction
in dimensions. Other minor parking non-conformities, including but not
limited to, garage door width, turning radius, driveway width, and driveway
visibility, may remain as determined by the Director of Community
Development to be impractical to bring into conformance with Code
requirements.
5. All existing parking, required in accordance with Chapter 10.64, or by the
provisions of this Section, shall be retained and shall not be reduced in
number or size.
6. Projects under 2,000 square feet in area per dwelling unit shall provide a
minimum 1-car fully enclosed garage per dwelling unit.
7. Projects 2,000 square feet in area and up to 2,800 square feet per dwelling unit
shall provide a minimum 2-car off-street parking with one fully enclosed
garage and one unenclosed parking space per dwelling unit, which may be
located in a required yard subject to Director of Community Development
approval.
8. Projects 2,800 square feet in area and up to 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit
shall provide a minimum 2-car fully enclosed garage per dwelling unit.
9. Projects 3,600 square feet in area per dwelling unit and over shall provide a
minimum 3-car fully enclosed garage per dwelling unit.
10. All development on the site which is existing legal non-conforming
development for Zoning regulations may remain, however non-conformities
shall be brought closer to or in conformance with current Zoning requirements
to the extent that it is reasonable and feasible.
11. The existing legal non-conforming portions of the structure that remain shall
provide a minimum of 50% of the required minimum setbacks, unless there is
an unusual lot configuration and relationship of the existing structure to the lot
lines for minor portions of the building, then less than 50% of the minimum
required setback may be retained.
12. All development on the site which is existing legal non-conforming for
Building Safety regulations shall be brought into conformance with current
regulations to the extent feasible, as determined by the Building Official.
13. After completion of the project(s) that is subject to the Minor Exception
approval(s), no further addition(s) shall be permitted unless the entire
structure is brought into conformance with the current Code requirements.
This shall not preclude the submittal of multiple Minor Exceptions that meet
the Code established criteria.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 16 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

H. Additional Criteria- Section 10.12.030 (T). Interior Lots. When making a

determination to approve an exception to Section 10.12.030 (T) for a reduction in
percentage of additional front yard setback for alterations, remodeling and additions
(enlargements) to existing homes if the additional setback area is provided elsewhere,
the Director shall also require compliance with the following criteria, in addition to
the criteria stated above in Section 10.84.120 (F) 2:

1. A minimum of 3% of the additional front setback shall be provided within the

front and shall meet the criteria established in Section 10.12.030(T).
2. The percentage of area that is provided outside of the additional front setback
area, as established in Section 10.12.030 (T), shall be required to be two times
the percentage if it was provided in the front yard. [ie 6% required, if 3% in
the front (3% balance due)- provide 6% outside of the front yard= 9% total].
3. The area provided outside of the additional front setback area shall be located
adjacent to a required setback (ie, not an interior courtyard).
4. The area provided outside of the additional front setback area shall meet all of
the criteria established in Section 10.12.030 (T) 2.-4.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Purpose stated in Section
10.12.010 H.

I. Additional Criteria Section 10.12.030 (T) – Corner Lots. When making a

determination to approve an exception to Section 10.12.030 (T) on corner lots for
alterations, remodeling and additions (enlargements) to existing homes if the
additional front setback area is provided on the streetside frontage, the Director shall
also require compliance with the following criteria, in addition to the criteria stated
above in Section 10.84.120 F 2:

1. A minimum of 3% of the additional front setback shall be provided within the

front and shall meet the criteria established in Section 10.12.030 (T).
2. A minimum of 3% of the additional front setback shall be provided in a
location that is largely directly abutting the streetside setback, and the balance
of the required 8% shall be located adjacent to another required setback (ie not
an interior courtyard).
3. The area abutting the streetside setback shall meet all of the criteria
established in Section 10.12.030 (T) 2.-4.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Purpose stated in Section
10.12.010 H.

E.J. Conditions of Approval. In approving a minor exception permit, the Director

may impose reasonable conditions necessary to:

1. Achieve the general purposes of this ordinance and the specific purpose of the
zoning district in which the minor exception will be located, or to be
consistent with the General Plan;

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 17 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
2. Protect the public health, safety, and general welfare; or
3. Ensure operation and maintenance of the minor exception in a manner
compatible with existing uses on adjoining properties in the surrounding area.

F. K. Effective Date: Appeals. Unless appealed in accordance with Chapter 10.100 of

the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code., a minor exception decision shall become
effective after expiration of the time limits for appeal set forth in Section 10.100.030
Manhattan Beach Municipal Code.

Sections 10.64.030 and A.64.030 Off-Street Parking and Loading

Regulations- Off-street parking and loading spaces required

OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED

Off-Street
Loading Spaces:
Off-Street Parking Spaces: Schedule B
Use Classification Schedule A Group Number
Residential

Single-Family Residential: 2 enclosed per unit.(See Minor

Dwelling with Buildable Exception- Chapter 10.84 for existing
Floor Area (BFA), plus any structure provisions)
exempted basement floor
area, totaling less than 3,600
square feet
Dwelling with Buildable Area 3 enclosed per unit. .(See Minor
(BFA), plus any exempted Exception- Chapter 10.84 for existing
basement floor area, totaling structure provisions)
3,600 square feet or more

Sections 10.68.010 and A.68.010 Nonconforming Uses and Structures-

Specific Purposes
10.68.010 Specific purposes.
This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by
restricting their enlargement, prohibiting their re-establishment after abandonment, and
their alteration or restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. While
permitting the use and maintenance of nonconforming structures, this chapter is intended
to limit the number and extent of nonconforming structures by prohibiting regulating and
limiting their being moved, altered, or enlarged in a manner that would increase the
discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards prescribed in this chapter and
by prohibiting (commercial structures only) their restoration after destruction.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 18 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

Sections 10.68.030 and A.68.030 Alterations and enlargements of

nonconforming uses and structures
10.68.030 Alterations and enlargements of nonconforming uses and structures.
D. No nonconforming structure shall be structurally altered or reconstructed so as to
increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yards,
side yards, rear yards, height of structures, maximum allowable floor area, distances
between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed in the regulations for the zoning
district and area district in which the structure is located, except as provided for in
Chapter 10.84, Minor Exception. No nonconforming structure shall be moved or enlarged
unless the new location or enlargement shall conform to the standards for front yards,
side yards, rear yards, height of structures, maximum allowable floor area, distances
between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed in the regulations for the zoning
and area district in which the structure is located, except as provided for in Chapter 10.84,
Minor Exception.
E. If any structure on a site does not conform to the standards for front, side or rear yards,
height of structures, distance between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed for
the zoning district and area district where the structure is located, then no structure shall
be enlarged or altered if the total estimated construction cost of the proposed enlargement
or alteration, plus the total estimated construction costs of all other enlargements or
alterations for which building permits were issued within the preceding sixty (60) month
period (twelve (12) months in an IP district), exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the total
estimated cost of reconstructing the entire nonconforming structure unless the proposed
enlargement or alteration would render the structure conforming. Any enlargements or
alterations shall conform to requirements in effect at the time of issuance of the building
permit. For the purposes of this section, estimated construction and reconstruction costs
shall be determined by the Community Development Director in the same manner as the
Community Development Director determines final valuation for the purposes of
building permit fees.
Exceptions.
1. Where a structure is nonconforming only by reason of one (1) substandard front or
interior yard, provided that all nonconforming interior yards are not less than three feet
(3’), the structure may be enlarged or altered, as defined in this title without regard to the
estimated construction cost, provided that no portion of the structure which occupies a
required yard is altered, unless the alteration results in the elimination of the non-
conformity.
2. Where a structure is nonconforming only by reason of a substandard street side yard or
rear yard adjacent to a public street or alley, the structure may be enlarged or altered, as
defined in this title, without regard to the estimated construction cost, provided that no
portion of the structure which occupies a required yard is altered, unless the alteration
results in the elimination of the non-conformity.
3. Where a pre-existing, legally constructed building is nonconforming by reason of the
method of measuring height prescribed by Section 10.60.050, an alteration or
enlargement that conforms to all other regulations of this title shall be permitted without
regard to the estimated construction cost.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 19 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to projects for which an application for
exemption under Ordinance No. 1787 (nonconforming exemptions) has been made,
processed through the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council.
5. A chimney projection shall not be considered a nonconforming substandard yard, and
therefore shall be allowed in addition to the one non-conforming yard in Section 1 or 2
above. See Section 10.60.040(G), Building projections into required yards or required
open space—Chimneys, for standards.
5. 6. Where a minor exception to allow extra retaining wall height, reduced additional
front yard setbacks, non-compliant construction due to staff error, or for remodeling and
small additions to existing smaller homes, has been approved in accordance with Chapter
10.84 of this Code.

Sections 10.60.040 H. and A.60.040 H. Minor Exceptions Site

Regulations-All Districts- Building projections into required yards or
required open space
10.60.040 Building projections into required yards or required open space.
Projections into required yards or required open space shall be permitted as follows:

H. Minor Exceptions. The Community Development Director may grant minor

exceptions: for the construction of a second or third story residential addition that would
project into required setbacks or required open space when the pre-existing first or
second story was legally constructed; and, from the limits on projections of reconstructed
raised grade stairways, architectural archways, covered entries and covered porches into
required yards and required open space for pre-existing structures under the provisions of
Section 10.84.120. (Reserved)

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 20 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

ALLOW ACCESSORY USE OF ADJACENT COMMON

OWNERSHIP LOTS
Sections 10.04.030 (Definitions)
Guest House (or Accessory Living Quarters): Any living area located within a main or
an accessory building which does not have direct interior access to the dwelling unit.
Such quarters shall have no kitchen facilities and shall not be rented or otherwise used as
a separate dwelling unit. Such guest quarters, or accessory living quarters, shall be
permitted only on a lot with one single family residence, except as provided for in
Section 10.52.050 F / A.52.050 F Residential Zones- Adjacent Separate Lots with
Common Ownership. This guest house, or accessory living quarters, shall be a maximum
of 500 square feet in size, limited to one habitable room, and contain a maximum of three
plumbing fixtures.

Sections 10.52.050 B. and A.52.050 B. Accessory Structures

B. Location. Except as provided in this chapter, accessory structures shall not occupy a
required front, side, or building separation yard. Mechanical equipment and storage
buildings shall be prohibited beyond the front building line of the principal structure
on a site. No accessory uses shall be permitted off-site; this shall not prohibit
development allowed in subsection F. below.
Exceptions.
1. Ornamental accessory structures may be located in the front yard of a site if they
do not exceed 42 inches in height.
2. One flagpole may be located in the front yard of a site if it does not exceed 15 feet
in height.
3. One decorative lamp post may be located in the front yard of a site if it does not
exceed 8 feet in height.
4. Architectural screen walls may be located in the front yard of a site pursuant to
Section 10.12.030(P).
5. One basketball hoop/post may be located in the front yard of a site if it does not
exceed 13 feet in height.
Mechanical equipment and storage buildings shall be prohibited beyond the front
building line of the principal structure on a site. No accessory uses shall be permitted
off-site.

Sections 10.52.050 F. and A.52.050 F. Accessory Structures

F. Residential Zones-Adjacent Separate Lots with Common Ownership. Contiguous
residential lots under common ownership may be developed as one site, with only
detached accessory structure(s) on one or more of the lots, subject to the following
criteria.
1. Development shall be compatible with adjoining properties in the surrounding
area (scale, mass, setbacks, height).

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 21 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
2. The development has no significant detrimental impact to surrounding neighbors
(privacy, pedestrian and vehicular accessibility, light, air, noise).
3. One of the lots must be developed with a residential dwelling unit as the principal
structure.
4. The development is in compliance with current Zoning Code standards and any
policy guidelines. For development standards the lots shall be treated as separate,
except that parking shall be provided for the total Buildable Floor Area on all of
the common ownership lots combined.
5. The recordation of a covenant shall be required, and shall provide for the removal
of the accessory structure(s) or the construction of a dwelling unit on the lot that
only has the accessory structure prior to selling the lots as separate lot(s). The
covenant shall stay in effect until such time as the lot(s) that does not have a
residential dwelling unit on it is developed with a dwelling unit, or the accessory
structure(s) are removed. The covenant shall be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any accessory structure on the lot(s) without the dwelling unit.
6. A development plan for the entire site, all of the contiguous lots under common
ownership, shall be submitted.
7. Development on the lot(s) that do not have a residential dwelling unit shall be
limited to the following accessory structures, and shall be in compliance with all
requirements of this title :
a. Guest House (or Accessory Living Quarters) in compliance with the
requirements of Section 10.04.030/A.04.030.
b. Other accessory structures in compliance with Section 10.52.050 E/A.52.050
E.
c. Garages and parking areas, provided the garages or parking is not required for
the dwelling unit on the contiguous lot.
d. Other accessory structures that are not included as gross floor area or square
footage, including but not limited to, pools and spas, sports courts, decks, and
patios.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 22 of 26
 City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

MISCELLANEOUS CLEAN-UP ITEMS

Section 10.04.030- Definitions- Floor Area, Buildable-Areas excluded

from a determination of Buildable Floor Area

Single Family Residential Districts:

Area Districts I and II: The area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400 square
feet on lots with less than 4,800 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with more
than 4,800 square feet. That area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400 square
feet on lots where 2 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided, and up to 600
square feet where 3 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided. Up to 200 square
feet of basement area for purposes of storage and mechanical equipment use. Basement
areas located entirely below local grade, and the related wells if they are the minimum
size required by the UBC. A condition of “entirely below local grade” exists where the
vertical dimension between the local grade elevation and finished floor of the next floor
above is no greater than two feet (2’).

Area Districts Ill and IV: The area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots with less than 2,700 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with
2,700 square feet or more. That area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots where 2 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided, and up to
600 square feet where 3 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided. Up to 200
square feet of basement area for purposes of storage and mechanical equipment use.
Basement areas located entirely below local grade, and the related wells if they are the
minimum size required by the UBC. A condition of “entirely below local grade” exists
where the vertical dimension between the local grade elevation and finished floor of the
next floor above is no greater than two feet (2’).

Section 10.12.030 Property Development regulations: RS, RM and RH

districts
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS III AND IV
Area District III Area District IV
Additional
RS RM RH RH Regulations
Minimum Setbacks

Front (ft.) 5 5 5 5 (A)(B)(D) (G)

Side (percentage- ft.) 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 10%-3 min.;5 (D)(E)(F)
min.;5 min.;5 min.;5
Corner Side (ft.) 1 1 1 1 (D)
Rear (ft.) 5 or 10 5 5 5 (D)(E)(F) (G)

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 23 of 26
 City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
(G) Rear Alley Setback Exceptions: Area Districts I and II: The width of a required rear
yard adjoining an alley shall be measured from the alley centerline, provided the rear
yard width is not less than five feet (5’) as measured from the rear property line. See
Section 10.64.110; Aisle Dimensions.
Area Districts III and IV: The width of a required rear yard adjoining an alley, or a
required front yard where the front yard adjoins an alley, may be reduced to two feet (2’)
at height elevations not less than eight feet (8’) above the street grade at the rear, or front,
property line. See Section 10.64.110; Aisle Dimensions.

Section 10.12.030 Property Development regulations: RS, RM and RH

districts

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL AREA DISTRICTS

Additional Regulations
Minimum Usable Open Space (M)
Required Landscaping Adjoining Streets (O)
Fences, and Walls, and Hedges (P) and 10.60.150
Building Separation (R)
Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 10.64 (Q)
House Moving (S)
Underground Utilities See Section 10.60.110
Refuse Storage Area See Section 10.60.100
Outdoor Facilities See Section 10.60.080
Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 10.60.090
Solar-assisted Water Heating See Section 10.60.140
Performance Standards See Section 10.60.120
Nonconforming Structures and Uses See Chapter 10.68
Signs See Chapter 10.72
Condominium Standards See Section 10.52.110
Minor Exceptions See Section 10.84.120
Telecommunications Facilities See Chapter 13.02 of MBMC
RS, RM and RH DISTRICTS: Additional Development Regulations
Substandard Lots See Section 10.60.020 and 11.32.030 and (J)
Building Projections into Setbacks See Section 10.60.040
Landscaping See Section 10.60.070
Accessory Structures See Section 10.52.050
Exterior Materials See Section 10.52.020
Home Occupation See Section 10.52.070
Tree Preservation See Section 10.52.120

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 24 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07

Section 10.12.030 (P) and A.12.030 (P) Fences and Walls of the Property
Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
(P) Fences, and Walls, and Hedges. The maximum height of a fence, or wall, or hedge
shall be 6 feet in required side or rear yards, and 42 inches in required front yards. In
addition, all fences, and walls and hedges shall be subject to the driveway visibility
requirements of Section 10.64.150, and the traffic vision clearance on corner lots of
Section 10.60.150 (Chapter 3.40).
For the purposes of this section, fence/wall/hedge height shall be measured from the
lower adjacent finished grade (which may include a neighboring private or public
property’s grade) adjacent to any portion of a vertically oriented barrier (including solid
hedges, but excluding structures and buildings, etc.) to the corresponding top of the
fence/wall/hedge said barrier portion, including any attachments. If more than one (1)
fence/wall/hedge is located within a required yard, any portion of a fence/wall/hedge that
projects above a forty-five (45) degree daylight plane inclined inward from the top of the
lowest adjacent fence/wall/hedge, shall be counted toward the height measurement of the
lowest fence/wall/hedge.
Exceptions:
1. A fence, or wall or hedge having additional non-retaining height shall be permitted
wherever a six (6) foot fence is allowed, provided such additional height over six (6) feet
meets one of the following criteria.
a. The additional portion is required, for safety purposes, by the City’s Building Official;
is constructed of primarily vertical railing that is continuously at least seventy-five
percent (75%) open; and, the total combined fence/wall height does not exceed eleven
(11) feet.
b. The additional portion is sloped inward (open or solid) at an angle of not less than
thirty (30) degrees and no more than forty-five (45) degrees from vertical, and provided,
further, that such additional portion shall not make the total height of the fence more than
eight (8) feet and shall not extend closer than three (3) feet to any part of any building.
c. The additional portion is approved in writing by each owner of property (the City in
cases of public right-of-way) abutting the property line along which the fence is located,
and provided, further, that such additional portion shall not make the total height of the
fence more than eight (8) feet, or the combined height of adjacent neighboring retaining
walls and fences more than twelve (12) feet. If a coastal development permit is required
for a fence by Sections 10.96.040 and 10.96.050 of this title, the additional height of the
fence may be approved only if the additional height does impede public views of the
ocean, the beach, or to and along the shoreline.
2. Architectural screen walls not to exceed six (6) feet six (6) inches in height may be
erected in the required front yard in Area Districts I and II provided that such walls are
placed not less than fourteen (14) feet back from the front lot line and not less than the
required setback from the side property line, nor extend for more than one-half (1/2) the
lot width.
For the purposes of this section, fence/wall height shall be measured from the lower
finished grade (which may include a neighboring private or public property’s grade)
adjacent to any portion of a vertically oriented barrier (including solid hedges, but
excluding structures and buildings, etc.) to the corresponding top of said barrier portion,

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 25 of 26
City Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Manhattan Beach, CA
Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07
including any attachments. If more than one (1) fence/wall is located within a required
yard, any portion of a fence/wall is located within a required yard, and portion of a
fence/wall that projects above a forty-five (45) degree daylight plane inclined inward
from the top of the lowest adjacent fence/wall, shall be counted toward the height
measurement of the lowest fence/wall.

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08- Redline strikeout summary of code language-Exhibit A.doc
Page 26 of 26

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
11-14-07
EXISTING
AD I RS • 8% BV-ALL LOTS
AND II
• SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’-5’
• SIDE/REAR SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
WALL > 25’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• REAR SETBACK- RANGE 10’-25’
• DECKS ABOVE 2ND STORY NOT PERMITTED
RM • OPEN SPACE -15% OF BFA -RANGE 220 SF- 350 SF
RH • SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’-5’
• SIDE/REAR SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
WALL > 25’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• REAR SETBACK- RANGE 10’-25’
• DECKS ABOVE 2ND/3RD STORY NOT PERMITTED
AD III RS • NO 8% BV
• NO 15% OPEN SPACE OF BFA-RANGE 220 SF- 350 SF
• SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’-5’
• SIDE/REAR SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
WALL > 25’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• REAR SETBACK- 5’
• DECKS ABOVE 3RD STORY NOT PERMITTED
H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08 PLANNING COMMISSION recomendations chart- Exhibit B.doc
Manhattan Beach, CA
PROPOSAL
• 6% BV – INTERIOR LOTS
• 8%- CORNER LOTS
• SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’ WITH NO 5’ CAP
• SIDE/REAR/CORNER SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
WALL > 24’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• REAR SETBACK-RANGE 12’-WITH NO 25’CAP
DECKS ABOVE 2ND STORY PERMITTED- ADJACENT TO LIVING
AREA WITH INCREASED SETBACKS
• OPEN SPACE 15% OF BFA-RANGE 220 SF WITH NO 350 SF CAP
• SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’ WITH NO 5’ CAP
• SIDE/REAR/CORNER SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
WALL > 24’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• REAR SETBACK- RANGE 12’-WITH NO 25’ CAP
• DECKS ABOVE 2ND/3RD STORY PERMITTED- ADJACENT TO
LIVING AREA WITH INCREASED SETBACKS
• NO 6% OR 8% BV
• OPEN SPACE 15% OF BFA-RANGE 220 SF NO 350 SF CAP
• SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’ WITH NO 5’ CAP
• SIDE/REAR/CORNER SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
WALL > 24’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• REAR SETBACK- 10’ ON NON-ALLEY LOTS, REAR ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL, 2700 SF MIN
• DECKS ABOVE 3RD STORY PERMITTED- ADJACENT TO LIVING
AREA WITH INCREASED SETBACKS
EXHIBIT B –CITY COUNCIL 1-15-08
 Manhattan Beach, CA

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
11-14-07
EXISTING PROPOSAL
AD III RM • OPEN SPACE 15% OF BFA-RANGE 220 SF- 350 SF • OPEN SPACE 15% OF BFA-RANGE 220 SF NO 350 SF CAP
(RM-RH) RH • SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’-5’ • SIDE SETBACK- 10%- RANGE 3’WITH NO 5’ CAP
AND IV • SIDE/REAR SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING • SIDE/REAR/CORNER SETBACK- LOTS > 35’ WIDE, BUILDING
(RH) WALL > 25’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK WALL > 24’ TALL, ADDITIONAL 3’ SETBACK
• DECKS ABOVE 3RD STORY NOT PERMITTED • DECKS ABOVE 3RD STORY PERMITTED- ADJACENT TO
LIVING AREA WITH INCREASED SETBACKS

NOTES:
1. PROVIDE A REVIEW PROCESS TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION FOR A REDUCTION TO THE SIDE OR REAR SETBACK,
THE 6% OR 8% BV REQUIREMENT, OR THE 15% OPEN SPACE FOR SMALL, WIDE, SHALLOW, AND/OR MULTIPLE
FRONT YARD LOTS THAT CAN NOT MEET THEIR BFA DUE TO THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS.
2. PROVIDE A REVIEW PROCESS TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCTION IN THE 15% OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMENT FOR 1-STORY CONSTRUCTION IN THE 2-STORY ZONES AND 2-STORY CONSTRUCTION IN THE 3-
STORY ZONES.

EXHIBIT B –CITY COUNCIL 1-15-08

H:\Work Plan 2005-2007\Mansionization\CC 1-15-08 PLANNING COMMISSION recomendations chart- Exhibit B.doc
 Teardown/Mansionization Bulletin:
Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Montgomery County Department of Planning
Historic Preservation Section
August 2006

1 Department of Planning, Historic Preservation Section.

Used with permission of the MNCPPC - Montgomery County
 Montgomery County, MD

Appointed Officials

The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

Samuel J. Parker, Jr., Chairman
Royce Hanson, Vice Chairman

Commissioners
Montgomery County Planning Board
Royce Hanson, Chairman
Wendy Perdue, Vice-Chairman
Allison Bryant
John Robinson
Meredith Wellington

Historic Preservation Commission

Julia O’Malley, Chairman
Jef Fuller, Vice-Chairman
Caroline Alderson
Nuray Anahtar
Lee Burstyn
Timothy Duffy
Warren Fleming
Thomas Jester
David Rotenstein
 Montgomery County, MD

Teardown/Mansionization Bulletin: Protecting Older Neighborhoods with

Newer Tools, Montgomery County, Maryland

Table of Contents

Goals and Methodology i

Introduction 1

Tools: Traditional Historic Districts 4

Tools: Overlay Zones 5

Tools: Architectural Covenants 6

Legislative Initiatives 9
Height Amendment 9
Forest Conservation Law Amendment 9
Stormwater Management Amendment 11
Demolition Moratorium 12

Tools: Neighborhood Conservation Districts 14

Tools: Improving Builder / Resident Communication 17

Appendix A: Map of Teardowns 19

Montgomery County, MD

Goals and Methodology
This Bulletin was prepared to show a snapshot
in time of one county in the state of Maryland
grappling with the issue of teardowns and infill
development, often referred to as mansionization.
The Bulletin is intended as a case study that
outlines a variety of planning and regulatory tools
available for addressing this issue. The work on the
project was partially funded by a grant from the
Maryland Historical Trust’s Certified Local
Government fund, and was undertaken by staff in
the Historic Preservation Section of the
Montgomery County Department of Planning.
In order to understand the issue, Historic
Preservation Section staff attempted to get
information and input from both sides of the
debate: the real estate/building community and
neighborhood residents. One goal of the project
was to understand and frame the economic forces
in Montgomery County creating this trend. A
second goal was to identify the concerns of
neighborhoods and communities with regard to the
trend. A third goal was to report on the planning
and regulatory tools being used in the county by
various communities taking action on aspects of the
teardown/mansionization trend.
Due to the relatively small nature of the grant,
the effort did not involve conducting a completely
comprehensive study of the issue, but rather aimed
at understanding how various, sample
neighborhoods have responded to
teardown/mansionization forces. The Historic
Preservation Section worked with several builders
and concerned neighborhood residents to analyze
the problem, but it did not, by any means, contact
every person or organization involved in home
construction or neighborhood conservation.
The first step in undertaking the research for
the Bulletin involved the convening of a half-day
builder/realtor/new homeowner workshop to
discuss the issues associated with
teardowns/mansionization in Montgomery County.
Several builders attended, as did two real estate
agents who sell new properties and a homeowner
building a large house to replace an older, smaller
i
Montgomery County, MD
house. As preparation for this meeting, the Historic
Preservation Section prepared a series of questions,
titled “Questions for Builder/Realtor Teardown
Workshop” as well as a “Partial List of Issues
Associated with Teardowns/Infill Construction.” Two
staff from the Historic Preservation Section took notes
on the content of the meeting, particularly the
builders/realtors/new homeowners’ perspectives on
neighborhood character, housing market trends, the
problems of retrofitting existing houses, and issues
associated with recently introduced legislation. The
group was informed that the Section would be writing
a Bulletin on Teardowns and Mansionization, and that
their input on a draft would be welcomed. During the
course of the next several months, staff had occasion
to call a few of the builders/realtors with specific
questions.
A second step was to convene a meeting of
residents concerned with teardowns/ mansionization.
Again, the group was not comprehensive in its
geographic scope, but staff made an effort to find
people from neighborhoods that had taken action or
were contemplating action in the face of teardown
activity. Representatives from the Town of Chevy
Chase, Woodhaven, Green Acres/Glen Cove,
Somerset, Kensington, Brookdale, English Village,
Greenwich Forest, Woodmoor, greater Bethesda, and
the county’s civic federation were invited to
participate. This group exchanged information on
what was happening in the county on the topic.
Participants discussed the specific concerns of their
neighborhoods, as well as the tools their
neighborhoods were using or contemplating to retain
community character due to loss of buildings and
trees. Subjects under discussion included:
neighborhood conservation districts, demolition
moratoriums, tree ordinances, stormwater management
controls, incorporation into municipalities versus
remaining unincorporated, design guidelines, local
historic districts, etc.
Some of the residents in this group worked
together outside the context of preparation of this
Bulletin to begin drafting enabling legislation to create
neighborhood conservation districts as a tool in
Montgomery County. The citizens took the lead on
drafting this legislation, with Historic Preservation
Section staff acting as a resource on historic
preservation issues and current-day county planning

processes. This draft legislation has not yet been
introduced.
Historic Preservation Section staff incorporated
all the information gained from the meetings
mentioned above, and conducted additional
research. This research focused on various planning
tools being used across the country to address
teardowns and mansionization, the monitoring of
local events regarding task force efforts on
environmental issues and building regulations, and
a review of legislation contemplated or introduced
by the County Council on issues ranging from
building height to forest conservation to stormwater
management. All of these factors led to the
development of a rough draft Bulletin, which was
sent to the builder/realtor/new homeowner group in
June for comment. Historic Preservation Section
staff actively solicited comments. Comments that
were received were considered very carefully. In
the case of one builder who supplied detailed,
ii
Montgomery County, MD
written comments, almost 100% of those comments
were incorporated into a revised draft.
Similarly, as the document proceeded towards
completion, staff issued a draft to the neighborhood
resident group in July. As with the builder/realtor/new
homeowner group, comments that came in were
reviewed carefully, and a majority of the comments
were incorporated as appropriate into the document.
Finally, the document was reviewed by staff at the
County Attorney’s office for legal accuracy, by the
staff at the Maryland Historical Trust, by the Acting
Chief of Countywide Planning, and by the Acting
Director of the Department of Planning.
The resulting document provides useful
information for communities experiencing a large
number of teardowns and infill construction. It is an
educational publication that explores a variety of tools
that have been used or may be used in the future to
address this important planning issue.
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Introduction
Although teardowns and mansionization
are occurring nationwide, Montgomery
County could easily serve as the “poster
child” for the phenomenon. The reality in
lower Montgomery County is that
significant numbers of older, modest-sized
houses are being razed to make way for
substantially larger homes. This is a concern
because these replacement houses often are
incompatible with the existing height, scale,
massing or materials of the surrounding,
established neighborhood. Moreover, the
resulting increases in lot coverage have
contributed greatly to the loss of mature tree
canopy and an increase in stormwater
runoff. Neighboring property owners also
report “quality of life” impacts such as
diminished air, light, ventilation and
privacy.
This trend is primarily being undertaken
by small-scale homebuilding companies,
rather than large development firms. These
builders have been operating, for the most
part, in accordance with existing building
and zoning codes. The builders are unified
This brand new house in Glen Echo Heights dwarfs the modest
ranch and Cape Cod houses of the original neighborhood, one of
which can be seen amongst the mature trees behind it.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
-1-
Montgomery County, MD
in their stance that they are not creating the
market, but rather responding to it.
According to builders, the current market is
demanding large houses in close-in,
established neighborhoods. Their clients,
ranging from young families to empty
nesters, want abundant square footage along
with a manageable automobile or Metro
commute to downtown and closeness to
shops and restaurants. According to these
builders, their clients tend to view older,
existing houses as “obsolete” or “starter
homes” that are appropriate for removal.
The neighborhoods hardest hit presently are
those west of Rock Creek Park and just over
the District border; namely Bethesda and
Chevy Chase, but no neighborhood is
immune. There are “mansionization”
pockets in Kensington, Wheaton, and Silver
Spring.
Many socio-economic factors contribute
to this extremely fast-paced trend:
1) A rise in affluence and buying power
within the Washington metropolitan
community;
2) Land that is valued more highly than
existing houses;
3) A zoning code that is inconsistent
with existing conditions; one that in fact
permits as a matter of right, Floor Area
Ratios (FARs) and lot coverages at great
odds with existing neighborhood
development patterns;
4) A perspective on the part of the
builder community that the cost of repairing
older structural systems and/or replacing
potentially hazardous materials such as lead-
painted surfaces is not money well spent;
5) A lack of appreciation for the
character of houses built in the second
through sixth decades of the 20th century;
6) A distrust of traditional historic
districts, still the best tool for protection
against demolition;
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

7) A growing elderly population which Partly because out-of-scale, infill

can fall prey to sometimes misleading real development has been so rapid in its spread,
estate solicitations; and Montgomery County has not yet developed
one specific policy to address the problem
8) The revitalization of certain
head on. Instead, as this bulletin points out,
downcounty, urban business districts, such
the tools being used in Montgomery County
as Bethesda and Silver Spring, which makes
have resulted primarily from grass-roots
neighboring lots all the more attractive.
efforts by concerned citizens working with
The issue is not just one of the
preservation of buildings; it is an issue of
preserving the character of older, established
neighborhoods and preventing a loss of what
is, relatively speaking, more affordable
housing. (Not only do smaller houses get
torn down for bigger houses, property taxes
rise as the neighborhood becomes more
affluent.) In other words, the teardown /
mansionization trend is not simply about
historic preservation; it is about
environmental health and protections,
neighborhood conservation, and housing
that can serve a diversity of people and
incomes. The issue embraces buildings,
streetscapes, trees, vegetation, open space,
water quality, wildlife, and, of course,
This is the type of house most threatened: a modest dwelling in
neighbors. a neighborhood close to downtown that lacks protection by
any preservation or planning tools.
The challenge lies in finding the point
where individual property rights end and
community property rights begin. It lies in the County Council, the Department of
defining how the other side of the “property Permitting Services, and the Department of
rights” coin is “property responsibility.” It Planning. Similarly, the builder community,
means recognizing that one person’s dream struggling to keep up with newly changing
house may become another neighbor’s regulations, has its own share of concerns.
newly flooded basement. Elected officials have responded through
regulation targeted at the teardown
It means exploring alternative tools and phenomenon’s most quantifiable problems.
new regulations that could have the positive As a result, Montgomery County is in the
effect of retaining existing community midst of analyzing a great number of
character. Protecting longstanding character legislative initiatives. This bulletin should
traits would prove a benefit to homeowners. be viewed, therefore, as a snapshot in time
It also means recognizing, however, that if of one county grappling with a multi-faceted
those regulations require limits on new land-use, environmental, and social policy
construction, current homeowners may lose issue.
some portion of their future resale income.

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

-2-
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
The list of tools available singly or in
combination to mitigate teardowns /
mansionization in Montgomery County thus
far includes:
♦ Traditional Historic Districts
♦ Overlay zones
♦ Architectural covenants
♦ An approved building height
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
♦ A proposed forest conservation
law amendment and/or separate tree
ordinance
♦ A proposed stormwater
management amendment
♦ Demolition moratorium
♦ Potential Neighborhood
Conservation District legislation
♦ A builder/resident
communication checklist
All of these tools are potentially
available to at least one or more
neighborhoods in the county. Some can
apply to the entire county.
This new house in the Sonoma area of Bethesda rises significantly higher than its
neighbors.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
-3-
Montgomery County, MD
At present, most planning and zoning
occurs under the umbrella of the
Montgomery County Department of
Planning and the Department of
Permitting Services. When it comes to
teardowns and mansionization, however,
not everyone is satisfied that the county is
the best watchdog to protect the character
of established neighborhoods.
Several lower Montgomery County
municipalities turned to the state
legislature to gain control over
mansionization within their borders. On
May 26, 2006, state legislation was
adopted that will give municipalities the
right to adopt stricter controls on the
dimensions of structures, including height,
bulk, massing and design, and on lot
coverage, including impervious surfaces.
This authority, granted through the
enactment of House Bill 1232, becomes
effective on October 1, 2006. In addition,
some unincorporated sections of the
county are considering incorporation as a
means of accessing these new planning
tools.
See:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bill
file/ hb1232.html
www.nthp.org/teardowns/resou
rce_guide.html
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

Tools: Traditional Historic verified as “dead or dying” by a certified

arborist.
Districts
For older, established neighborhoods
that meet the criteria for historic and
architectural significance, there is no
better tool for protection against
teardowns and inappropriate infill than the
traditional, local historic district. To be
designated a historic district, however, an
area must meet local criteria for
qualification. Once an older
neighborhood has been designated as an
historic district on Montgomery County’s
Master Plan for Historic Preservation, any
exterior alteration to a structure other than
routine maintenance requires an
application for a Historic Area Work
Permit (HAWP). Review of such an
application falls under the purview of the Top: This Victorian house in Somerset benefits from design
Montgomery County Historic Preservation standards developed as part of a traditional, local historic district.
Bottom: A streetscape in the Takoma Park Historic District illustrates
Commission. While demolition of how setback, massing, and overall character can be maintained
contributing buildings within an historic when historic districts are in place.
district is not outlawed as a matter of
right, it is extremely rare for the Historic
Preservation Commission to approve the
demolition of a “contributing” building.
Instead, the Commission typically works
with homeowners to expand smaller
houses through sensitive additions. As
long as such additions are compatible with
the overall character of a neighborhood,
they are usually approved in one form or
another.
A second benefit of local historic
district designation is that it requires an
added protection for trees over six inches
in diameter. Any removal of a tree that
size or greater within an historic district
requires a HAWP, unless the tree has been

See:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/govtmpl.asp?url=/content/government/AboutGo
vt/charter.asp.

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

-4-
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Tools: Overlay Zones
Another tool on the books in
Montgomery County is the overlay zone.
Through an overlay zone, a neighborhood’s
existing character can be partially protected
by the adoption and enforcement of stricter
building requirements than established under
the regular zoning code. Such a zone exists
in Garrett Park and could be used as a model
for other neighborhoods. See Zoning Code,
Sec. 59-C-18.11.
The Garrett Park Overlay Zone was
created as part of the North Bethesda/Garrett
Park Master Plan, which went into effect in
1993. The overlay zone seeks to “preserve
the unique park-like setting of the 19th
century garden suburb, maintain the
prevailing pattern of houses and open
spaces, and retain the maximum amount of
green area surrounding new or expanded
houses.” The overlay standards increase the
amount of front, rear, and side setbacks from
the street and adjacent properties; limit the
maximum percentage of net lot area that
may be covered to 20%; and limit the
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) to .375. All
of these standards are more stringent than
those for a typical R-90 zone.
In Garrett Park, the recent, Neo-Victorian house on the left rises
much higher than the smaller, older house on the right. Yet the
newer house was built in conformance with the overlay zone.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
-5-
Montgomery County, MD
One problem common to all properties
within R-90 zones, which includes Garrett
Park, is that allowable building height is
relatively tall compared to what was built
historically. In addition, until recently, the
county allowed 35-foot high structures to be
measured at the mid-point of the roof and
nothing prevented builders from building up
the lot’s grade to create a “terrace.” A
terrace, in turn, provided opportunity for an
even taller structure.
The Garrett Park overlay zone, while
mostly successful in protecting the
neighborhood’s open space patterns, has
been less able to mollify the effects of these
taller houses. The problem is particularly
acute in new houses with prefabricated,
trussed attics. These houses are permitted
under the Garrett Park Overlay Zone
because the formula used to determine gross
floor area does not consider unusable attic
space—exactly the type of space contained
in houses with trussed attics.
Despite these concerns, Garrett Park
citizens decided in the fall of 2005 not to
support the adoption of amendments to the
overlay zone that would change the
definition of gross floor area and how
building height is measured. (See next
section on Zoning Text Amendment on
Height.) The issue of whether or not to
amend the overlay zone is still an ongoing
discussion.
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

Tools: Architectural the construction, the color scheme; the

Covenants plans, specifications and details thereof, and
the lot plan, showing the proposed location
Architectural covenants are a third tool of the dwelling and driveways upon the lot,
for addressing teardowns and
shall all have been approved in writing by
mansionization. Covenants are restrictive
provisions typically created at the time of Wood Acres Construction Corporation, or
neighborhood establishment. They include a its successors . . .
set of standards that can be legally enforced
Even more pertinent to the teardown
by covenant beneficiaries. Most are
phenomenon are the “guidelines” that
safeguarded by a designated entity such as
accompany the architectural covenants.
the initial builder/architect and/or a civic
These guidelines stipulate that an owner
association covenant committee. In some
communities, the covenants are allowed to
sunset, but most are renewed and therefore
remain perpetual. In this way and because
they are restrictive--meaning they convey
with the lot and are attached to the deed—
they differ from zoning laws. Typically,
architectural covenants stipulate that new
construction must match the character that
already exists in the neighborhood and that
all new designs must be approved by a
design review board. In these ways,
architectural covenants can help ensure that
an existing housing stock is retained and that
additions are architecturally compatible.
A useful case study for assessing the
value of architectural covenants as a means
Top: A Wood Acres house from the street showing how the
to protect community character lies in the subdivision’s character is maintained through covenants. Bottom:
juxtaposition of two Montgomery County A different Wood Acres house, showing how covenants direct
additions towards the side and rear.
neighborhoods, Wood Acres and
Springfield. The former has architectural
covenants, while the latter does not. Wood
Acres was developed beginning in 1939 as a
neighborhood of modest, two-story, brick
Colonial Revival houses. The neighborhood
covenants state, in part:

. . . no improvements of any character

shall be erected thereon, and none begin
(sic), nor any change made in the exterior
design of such improvements after original
construction has begun, unless and until the
architect designing the same; the cost, type
and size thereof; the materials to be used in

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

-6-
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
wishing to demolish and rebuild an existing,
structurally sound house, must come up with
a design that is “consistent with the spirit of
the original Wood Acres house” to the point
that the lengths of the front, side, and rear
elevations shall not exceed those of the pre-
existing elevations unless setbacks break up
the mass. In addition, the floor-to-floor
heights of the new house must match those
of the pre-existing house. These restrictions
create a climate where conservation is prized
over newness. As of the date of this
bulletin, there have been no demolition
requests in Wood Acres. Instead, the
houses, which are small by nature (an
original footprint of approximately 750 feet
Top: An original Springfield house that was expanded, but
attempted to fit in with its neighbors. Bottom: The newer trend: a
series of large, new houses that replaced the older houses.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
-7-
Montgomery County, MD
and roughly 2000 square feet of living space
not counting a 150-foot screened porch),
have almost all received additions of one
sort or another. Most houses have seen the
one-bay garage on the front of the house
infilled to create a year-round room and
almost all houses have received some kind
of rear and/or side addition. Recently, such
additions have been quite sizeable, often
doubling the square footage of the houses.
While the loss of back- and side-yard trees
to accommodate these expansions has not
been ameliorated, the character of the
neighborhood as perceived from the street
has been maintained. Rooflines remain the
same, as does the overall scale as perceived
by a passerby.
Making existing architectural covenants
more protective to prevent teardowns is
easier to achieve than enacting covenants in
neighborhoods where they do not exist. In
order to create architectural covenants anew,
each property owner would have to agree to
covenants on his/her own property, in
addition to senior lien holders such as
mortgage companies signing on. Such
covenants could, in fact, dictate architectural
review criteria and/or stipulate against
demolition. While protecting the
neighborhood, however, covenants might
affect purchase price when it came time to
sell.
Another opportunity to stem teardowns
in older neighborhoods is the selling or
donating of easements to local preservation
organizations that could protect historic and
architectural character in exchange for tax
benefits. While façade easements are a
common form of this tool, there could, in
fact, be easements on development rights as
represented by height or massing. Such
easements would have to be very carefully
crafted, however, to meet stringent IRS
criteria for legality and enforceability. As
such, they are an unused tool in the
teardown kit.
Springfield, immediately adjacent to
Wood Acres, is not protected by
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

architectural covenants and because of this

difference, the neighborhood is becoming a
study in the domino effect of the
teardown/infill phenomenon. Built in the
early-to-mid 1950s, the community of brick,
split level houses continued to serve families
well for housing, but in the 1990s, some
owners began looking for more space. One
builder began to expand the houses by
raising the roofline of the lower level of the
split. This approach added square footage to
the houses while maintaining the overall
character of the neighborhood.
Starting around the year 2000, however,
this builder and others began to tear some of
the houses down, replacing them with
structures at least twice their size. What is
evident as one goes through the
neighborhood today is that a teardown on
one block virtually assures two, three, or
four others on that same block’s adjacent
lots. The newer trend also includes more
clear cutting of trees and the construction of
houses that do not necessarily attempt to
match the exterior character of the original
houses

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

-8-
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Legislative Initiatives
Legislation introduced in Montgomery
County on a number of fronts is beginning
to address teardown/mansionization issues.
Bills and zoning text amendments aimed at
the problems associated with over-scaled
buildings, loss of mature trees, and
stormwater runoff represent serious efforts
by the Montgomery County Council to
curtail the multi-faceted impacts of
inadequately regulated infill development.
Height Amendment
On October 18, 2005, the County
Council closed a loophole in the zoning
code by adopting an amendment to improve
the method of calculating residential
building height and reduce allowable
building height on single-family houses in
the R-60 and R-90 zones. (See Zoning Text
Amendment 03-27.) The legislation also
revised the definitions of basements and
cellars, and added a definition for pre-
development and finished grades. The new
zoning text amendment specified a height
limit in the R-60 and R-90 zones of 35 feet
as measured from the average finished grade
A large house under construction towers over its neighbor, but is
built according to code. Such disparities in height prompted
citizens to lobby the County Council for zoning revisions.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
-9-
Montgomery County, MD
in front of the house to the peak of the roof,
regardless of roof type, or 30 feet, as
measured to the mean height level between
the eaves and the ridge of a gable, hip,
mansard, or gambrel roof (or to the highest
point of a flat roof).
While most neighborhood groups view
the amendment as a definite step in the right
direction, it is not seen as a perfect solution.
Neighborhood groups still feel that
allowable building heights are excessive.
They also are concerned that the new
requirements are not being properly
enforced. (The County Council’s Office of
Legislative Oversight will conduct an
investigation into the laws applying to
teardowns and replacements as part of its
Fiscal Year 2007 work program.) Many
builders are also less than happy about the
new height regulations, viewing them as a
directive to design mansard-style or flat-
roofed structures if they are to obtain higher
interior ceiling heights. Builders also
indicate that the new rules effectively
prohibit the small, creative use of space that
might be employed to break down roof
massing. A not necessarily welcome result,
therefore, may be the introduction of roof
design consequences from legislation
intended only to solve problems of scale.
Forest Conservation Law
Amendment
In addition to over-scaled buildings,
nothing has provoked the ire of neighbors
more than the loss of mature trees that
typically accompanies an infill development
project for a large new house. The removal
of trees is often viewed by neighbors not
only as a loss of community character, but
as environmental destruction in the broader
sense since trees filter carbon dioxide from
the air and cool increasingly soaring
temperatures. In Montgomery County, two
task forces and a working group were
formed to focus on forest conservation and
urban tree canopy loss:
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

The C & O Canal Task Force

Put into place as a reaction to significant tree
loss on a National Park Service property
with the assistance of County Council
members and U.S. Congressman Chris Van
Hollen, this task force is working to improve
the county’s forest conservation law. Task
force members see several weaknesses to the
law, including enforcement issues and
limited citizen input. The group is
concerned that the current law is less
focused on tree retention than on re-
forestation. The goal of the C&O Canal Top : What was once a typical streetscape in Bethesda is
Task Force is to apply the law to a broader becoming a remnant, as lots are cleared of mature trees for
houses of greater scale. At present, there is no obstacle to
area of the county and to create a higher removing such trees. Bottom: A lot completely cleared of trees
threshold for the removal of healthy, mature while being prepared for construction. In the background is a
trees. typical neighborhood house, which is far smaller than what is
planned for the construction site.

The Montgomery County Urban Forest

Alliance
Formed to deal with the loss of tree canopy
in more urbanized areas, this informal
working group of citizens not affiliated with
county government began tackling the
challenge of crafting a tree and urban forest
ordinance separate from the Forest
Conservation Law for Montgomery County.
Such an ordinance is a tool in other parts of
the country and in local municipalities
including Takoma Park, the Town of Chevy
Chase, the Village of Chevy Chase, and
Somerset. In the absence of any ordinance,
some unincorporated sections of the county,
like Edgemoor, are grappling with the Planning convened a task force to look at the
problem by undertaking tree surveys so that implementation of the Forest Conservation
citizens can monitor construction that Law. This task force is made up of
negatively impacts mature trees. Several knowledgeable citizens, members of the
members of this working group have now environmental community, and
joined a Department of Planning task force representatives of the building community
to continue their efforts. who are working to improve the operation
and implementation of the existing law. The
original forest conservation law was put in
The Montgomery County Department of place in 1992 as Chapter 22A of the
Planning’s Task Force on the Forest Montgomery Code. When written, its goal
Conservation Law was primarily to protect upland forest in the
rural sections of the county. The increasing
In summer 2006, the Acting Director of the
number and complexity of cases has spurred
Montgomery County Department of
a reevaluation of how the law is working.

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 10 -
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

Houses of great size on high ground have the potential for stormwater runoff that causes flooding of
others’ yards and basements. Builders have a responsibility to implement stormwater management
plans for each new house to prevent such nuisances.

In September 2005, several members of
the County Council introduced Bill No. 27-
05 to amend penalties under the forest
conservation law. This amendment was
approved, but it is just a first step. The
amendment increases the penalties available
to be levied upon violators of the law and
makes actions against the law not only civil
but criminal. Additional staffing and
inspection support are still needed, however,
to improve enforcement.
Stormwater Management
Amendment
If trees are the first environmental issue
to be noticed with infill development,
stormwater runoff is the second. Several
factors have contributed to the predicament:
1) bigger house footprints and massing, 2)
the possibility of an artificially raised grade
(at least prior to the height amendment to
stop the practice), and 3) an expansion in
impervious surface area and loss of soil
cover. The result is larger houses that
sometimes tower over neighboring houses
set at a lower grade, with stormwater runoff
trailing onto other people’s property (and
into their homes) and damaging the
County’s important stream systems.
The most significant runoff issue
resulting from mansionization is surface
water on the site that is increased and
redirected due to more impervious area and
altered topography. Presently, the county
does not regulate this runoff because it has
no surface drainage grading ordinance.
While the stormwater management
ordinance applies to water collected in
streets, other paved areas, and entire
subdivisions, it does not apply to runoff on
individual lots at this time. A county grading

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 11 -
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

ordinance controlling water runoff on Demolition Moratorium

individual lots would go a long way toward
rectifying the problem of nuisance runoff to Citizens are not only active on a
adjacent neighbors. countywide basis, but are active in their own
municipalities. The Town of Chevy Chase
Working to improve the existing law,
is one neighborhood that has taken a strong
the Montgomery County Stormwater
stand against teardowns and mansionization
Partners Coalition is a citizens’ group that
in response to the alarming rate at which its
was formed to improve stormwater
houses have been demolished (55 in 4
management and protect streams. The
years). Incorporated in 1918, the town was
coalition is advocating that Council Bill 26-
developed primarily in the 1920s and 1930s
05 concerning stormwater drainage and
by a series of small builders. Although the
runoff contain language stipulating that a
county proposed historic district designation
minimal level of on-site infiltration be
for a portion of the town in the mid-1990s,
required on small, individual residential lots
its residents opposed the designation
in order to prevent further stream damage.
because they did not perceive a threat to the
The coalition also is pressing the Maryland
community at the time. Startled by the rate
Department of the Environment, and
at which the community has been losing its
Montgomery County, to adopt stronger
houses and trees, however, and by the size
pollution controls through the 2006 renewal
and scale of replacement housing, town
of the County’s water quality permit under
residents decided on a different course of
the federal Clean Water Act (National
action.
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or
“NPDES” permits). To help meet the At the request of over 500 petitioners
tougher permit requirements and to make the out of a town of 3000 residents, The Chevy
pollution reductions necessary to restore the Chase Town Council approved an
Anacostia, the Chesapeake Bay, and other emergency ordinance creating a six-month
waters, the Coalition urged the County moratorium on demolitions, additions, new
Council to put money and programs towards construction, and the removal of trees. The
LID stormwater retrofits. These techniques moratorium, adopted on August 10, 2006,
include bioretention filters (shallow
depressions in the landscape to collect, filter,
and absorb excess water and pollutants), rain
gardens, rain barrels, and green roofs. The
first result has been a Low Impact
Development Retrofit Initiative, approved
by the County Council, which provides 1.3
million dollars for retrofitting residential and
commercial properties in pilot subwatershed
areas downcounty. The initiative is funded
from dedicated stormwater fees, and it
provides incentive grants to builders who
make use of retrofit technologies such as
rain gardens and rain barrels. On August 1,
2006, the County Council unanimously
passed a resolution supporting higher permit
standards and asked the County’s A typical scene in the Town of Chevy Chase, where an older,
Cape Cod-style house on the left stands next to a newer, taller,
Department of Environmental Protection to significantly bigger house on the right. This type of new
report on ways to address pressing construction prompted residents to successfully petition the Town
government for a demolition moratorium.
storrmwater issues.

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 12 -
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Top: An original house in this section of the Town of Chevy Chase
is a small cottage-type dwelling. It is one of the only remaining
original houses on the block. Bottom: The houses directly across
the street are all new, giving the impression of a completely new
subdivision.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
- 13 -
Montgomery County, MD
was enacted over the objections of builders
and real estate agents who had been active in
the neighborhood and a minority of residents
concerned about property rights. One
builder successfully sued the town, enabling
him to build his project during the
moratorium period. Other projects were
also constructed through a variance process,
but overall, the demolition moratorium gave
the Town what it needed: time to craft a
vision and a plan.
During the moratorium period, the town
formed several citizen committees. These
committees were tasked with addressing
problems relating to visioning and strategic
planning, tree protection, stormwater runoff,
regulatory review enforcement, setback
restrictions, and the need for more authority
through state or county measures. In less
than a year, the town has a new tree
ordinance in place, setback controls, and
new enforcement measures. Through its
town-wide visioning process, the residents
developed a draft strategic planning guide,
and, most importantly, succeeded in
obtaining authority from the state (as one of
several municipalities) to regulate height,
bulk, massing, design, lot coverage, and
setbacks within its own borders.
 Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

Tools: Neighborhood zoning overlay districts or actual re-zonings.

Under either approach, special protections
Conservation Districts are put in place to ensure that the physical
and environmental hallmarks of that
No tool is more popular right now in
neighborhood—the development patterns
mitigating teardowns and mansionization
than the Neighborhood Conservation
District tool. Neighborhood Conservation
Districts (NCDs) are spreading across the
country as an effective means of preserving
the character of older, established
neighborhoods that are not registered as
local historic districts. One aspect of the
NCD model that is highly advantageous is
the self-determination that goes with it. An
NCD usually requires neighborhood
initiation and a strong level of participation,
or ‘buy-in,’ as part of the NCD application
process. In most cases, any limitations
imposed upon demolition or new
construction are decided by the
neighborhood after crafting a Neighborhood
Conservation Plan.
This street in the Brookdale neighborhood reveals the qualities
The National Trust for Historic inherent in potential neighborhood conservation districts: a
distinct sense of place, uniform height and setbacks, and mature
Preservation has published several excellent trees.
pamphlets that cover the subject either
exclusively or as one of several teardown
tools. These publications include: Julia that comprise its special qualities--remain in
Miller’s Protecting Older Neighborhoods place and serve as guideposts for new
Through Conservation District Programs; construction. Neighborhoods that seek NCD
Adrian Scott Fine and Jim Lindberg’s status typically are looking for a land-use
Protecting America’s Historic tool that protects character-defining
Neighborhoods: Taming the Teardown streetscapes threatened by inappropriate
Trend; Pratt Cassity’s Maintaining infill, excessive development, loss of
Community Character: How to Establish a buildings and / or loss of environmental
Local Historic District, and the National qualities. NCDs can be found in
Park Service issue paper Conservation Philadelphia, Atlanta, Austin, Boston,
Districts, a Cultural Resources Partnership Chapel Hill, Dallas, Indianapolis, Miami and
Note. As mentioned, the National Trust has many other areas. While those examples
also launched an entire website devoted to represent cities, NCD enabling legislation is
the subject. http:// www . nationaltrust . org also on the books in counties as close as
/ teardowns / resource _ guide . html Prince George’s and as far as Boulder
County, Colorado.
Neighborhood conservation districts
(NCDs) are typically formed in established Although NCDs vary widely, many
residential areas having a distinct physical provide neighborhood-specific development
and environmental character worthy of standards that require discretionary review.
protection. NCDs may be established as Such review would include a design review
process and/or a general prohibition on

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 14 -
 Teardown / Mansionization Case Study: Preserving Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools,
Montgomery County, Maryland
demolition as part of an NCD’s legal
structure and implementation package.
Parameters are developed in accordance
with each neighborhood’s character and
needs. Since the application of standards is
to a specific property and the outcome may
vary depending on the context, some type of
commission is typically required for
decision making.
In addition to discretionary review
items, many neighborhoods opt for
development controls that are non-
discretionary or ministerial in their
planning. These controls also come out of
Above: This street in English Village has been in a constant state
of construction for years. Almost all of the original houses have
been replaced. Below: This new house in Bethesda indicates the
trend for double facade garages and paved driveways,
regardless of established neighborhood patterns.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
- 15 -
Montgomery County, MD
the neighborhood planning process and
often focus on setbacks, building height and
width, roof pitch, floor area ratio, lot
coverage, garage location, demolition
thresholds, tree retention, and stormwater
runoff, etc. Some specify maximum square
footage for new construction, based on the
average of the existing buildings. Unlike
discretionary items, these items can be
reviewed by a program administrator
defined legally in an ordinance.
Thus, NCDs have some similarities to
local historic districts in that they can
involve design review, but they also can
have many differences. A key difference
between how a traditional, local historic
district and a neighborhood conservation
district are administered is the latitude in
crafting the process for NCDs. As noted, an
NCD can be administered by a planning
agency or official, by the local historic
district commission, and/or by a
neighborhood review body. Given the
detailed, lot-by-lot nature of NCD review, it
is particularly appropriate to have reviews
handled at a neighborhood level.
One important thing to take into
account, however, is that once an NCD
becomes an established planning tool in a
locality, it may become harder for that locale
to initiate traditional historic districts, the
controls of which are typically more
stringent.
Just how similar or different NCDs are
from traditional historic districts largely
depends on the guidelines developed by the
neighborhoods. In Cambridge,
Massachusetts, for example, some of the
neighborhood conservation districts have the
same review criteria as the local historic
districts, except that there is no requirement
to review paint color. In the Eastport section
of Annapolis, Maryland — where a long-
established neighborhood conservation
district program is in place—the situation is
quite different. The review criteria there are
looser than would be those of a traditional,
local historic district. As examples, large-
 Teardown / Mansionization Case Study: Preserving Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools,
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

scale additions can be added to small houses neighborhood conservation district’s

if they are well placed, and new materials
are incorporated liberally, even at the
expense of loss of original materials.
Eastport serves as an example of
emerging trends in neighborhood
conservation district planning. Whereas a
traditional historic district often aims for
protection of original building materials, a
neighborhood conservation district is
generally more lenient on that subject, while
concerning itself more with issues of scale,
bulk, and mass. And while demolition of a
contributing structure within a designated
traditional historic district is rarely approved
(unless there are strongly mitigating
circumstances), demolition of structures
within a neighborhood conservation district
may happen, again depending on whether
demolition controls are adopted by the
neighborhood at the time the NCD is put in
place. What a good neighborhood
conservation district always achieves,
however, is a replacement structure, the
height, bulk, and mass of which are in
keeping with the existing neighborhood.
This positive result is due to the fact that a
parameters for new construction must be
stricter than those of the underlying zoning
code.
The value of NCDs as a potential
planning tool came out of research for this
project. In preparing this bulletin,
concerned residents and members of the real
estate/builder community were asked to
provide input and ideas. Out of discussions
with residents, it became apparent that many
thought the neighborhood conservation
district model would be a very effective tool
for the unincorporated sections of
Montgomery County seeking protection of
community character, but not opting for
traditional historic district status. To that
end, a group of residents began reviewing
NCD ordinances from other parts of the
country, and decided to draft enabling
legislation that would allow for the creation
of NCDs. This draft legislation has not yet
been introduced, but may be soon.

While there is nothing wrong with Modern architecture per se, the scale and
massing of this new house in Edgemoor are completely at odds with those of its
neighbors.

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 16 -
 Teardown / Mansionization Case Study: Preserving Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools,
Montgomery County, Maryland
Tools: Improving Builder /
Resident Communication
While many residents have banded
together to discuss the issue of teardowns
and proposed a number of legislative
changes, some builders have actively
participated in the dialog as well.
There are many differences to overcome
before moving toward solutions. Builders
emphasize that they are fulfilling a market-
driven need; namely, the desire for larger
houses in close-in, established communities.
Builders describe their market as comprised
of people who insist on significantly more
living space than can be accommodated in
older neighborhood houses. For this market,
very large kitchens with attached family
rooms are the norm, as are extremely
generous master bedroom suites and baths,
and space for luxuries such as home gyms,
family theaters, his and her walk-in closets,
and nanny suites. Builders describe their
clients as expecting tall ceiling heights (9’ to
10’ on average) and a dining room capacity
ranging anywhere from 10 to 40 people for
In Woodhaven, the original house on the left was turned
sideways and moved to accommodate a new house to its
right. The existence of two recorded lots allowed such a
change. Although introducing a tighter density pattern into
the neighborhood, the residents were able to convince the
builder not to tear down the original house. The new house
also looked to its predecessor for Tudor Revival design cues.
Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication
- 17 -
Montgomery County, MD
large family gatherings.
When talk revolves around conserving
the “character” of a neighborhood, the
opposing groups frequently differ in their
attitudes. The builder, realtor, and new
homeowner communities will tell you that it
is the people who make up the character of a
neighborhood more than its structures or
vegetation. If the people contribute to a
community by sharing its values in desiring
good schools, easier commutes, and
accessibility to commerce, then nothing is
lost by the removal of a smaller, older home
and its trees. Builders also suggest that
change in the building stock promotes a
welcome diversity in housing types.
While long-term residents will agree
that the majority of new community
members want to participate in the
neighborhood’s life, they will disagree that
teardowns and large new houses introduce
diversity, either of housing type or of socio-
economic groups.
In looking at neighborhoods
experiencing teardowns as part of the
research for this project, it is clear that an
early 20th-century block face can easily
become an early 21st century block face
almost overnight, with no more or less
housing diversity attained in the end. In
other words, a block of 1940s Cape Cods
can become a uniform block of 2006 Neo-
Arts and Crafts mansions within a matter of
months. As for the economics, it appears
from direct observation for this project that a
neighborhood of somewhat varied income
tends to become one homogenized even
more by affluence. There is clearly a loss of
what is relatively speaking “affordable”
housing.
Both sides of the issue really only agree
on one thing: that the cultural divide
between the citizens who want controls on
teardowns and mansionization and the
builders/new homeowners who participate in
the process has reached the point of impasse.
One creative suggestion put forward by the
builder/real estate group convened for this
 Teardown / Mansionization Case Study: Preserving Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools,
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

study was to prepare a checklist for builders
and existing residents when undertaking any
demolition and/or major new construction in
established neighborhoods (perhaps at a
threshold of a size increase of 50% or more).
Such a checklist could improve the climate
between the neighborhood and the builders.
One future application of the checklist
might be to attach it to an actual building
permit so that all questions have to be
answered in the affirmative for a building
permit to be released by the County’s
Department of Permitting Services.

Checklist for residents and builders interested in improved communication

before and during major additions or demolition:
♦ Has a pre-construction meeting with the affected civic association been
scheduled for project inception? This meeting is the best way for the builder to
introduce his/her intended design and for neighborhood residents to explain their
concerns. Concerns might include scale, design, trees, stormwater capture, etc.
♦ Will the builder agree to keep the neighborhood informed at the 5%, 50%,
and 90% stages?
♦ If changes are made to building plans during the course of construction that
will be evident to neighbors, is there a system in place so that the builder can
apprise the residents of those changes? Is there a main neighborhood contact
person?
♦ If a neighborhood is not within a neighborhood conservation district, has the
builder conducted an analysis of the affected block face to inform his design?
Such an analysis should include block face averages such as: setbacks, height, lot
coverage, floor area ratio, existence and location of garages (if any), existence or
lack of driveways and curb cuts, ratio of green space to impervious surface, etc.
♦ Have the residents also familiarized themselves with the predominant
materials and architectural styles of the neighborhood or the block face so that
additions and/or new construction can be evaluated for harmoniousness to existing
materials and styles?
♦ Has a new roofline been designed to avoid going higher than the original
rooflines within the community, at least from the vantage point of the streetscape?
♦ Has an effort been made to disguise the allowable mass of any new
construction by breaking up the faces of the building into smaller planes, so that
what is perceived from the street is in keeping with the existing neighborhood
scale?
♦ Has the builder employed an arborist? If so, has he/she shared the arborist’s
tree and vegetation survey with the neighborhood, explaining how mature and/or
character-defining trees and shrubs will be saved and which trees, if any, are
suggested for removal?
♦ Has the builder explained his/her stormwater runoff plan?
♦ Have the builder and residents agreed to standard work hours, so as not to
disrupt basic neighborhood patterns?
♦ Have the builder and residents communicated about the setup and cleanup
of the construction site so that the builder can operate efficiently, but the
neighborhood can retain a reasonably tidy view from the streetscape?

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 18 -
 Teardown / Mansionization Case Study: Preserving Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools,
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

Appendix A: Map of Teardowns

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 19 -
Teardown / Mansionization Case Study: Preserving Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools,
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD

Montgomery County Department of Planning - Historic Preservation Section Publication

- 20 -
Teardown / Mansionization : Protecting Older Neighborhoods with Newer Tools
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County, MD
 Montgomery County, MD

This Bulletin was Made Possible by a Certified Local Government Grant

from the Maryland Historical Trust

Montgomery County Department of Planning

Historic Preservation Section
8787 Georgia Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20910
THE MARYLAND - NATIONAL
CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING
COMMISSION
 What to do about…  
MANSIONIZATION 
…encourage, prohibit or simply manage? 

COMMUNITY IMPACTS & POLICY ALTERNATIVES 
June 2006 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Institute for Regional Excellence
Regional Executive Development Program – Cohort 5

Mansionization Team
Traci Anderson, Montgomery County, Dept. of Health & Human Services
Greg Castano, Arlington County, Dept. of Human Services
Linden Renner, Fairfax County, Library
Tanya Spano, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Dept. of Environmental Programs

Used with permission of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Institute for Regional Excellence.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…...........................................................................1

I. PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE.....………………………………2

Definition of ‘Mansionization’
Focus on Residential Infill Development

II. STAKEHOLDERS AND VALUES……………….….....................……3

A Variety of Interests
Varying Perspectives
Impacts – A Function of Residential Infill Development

III. ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES DECISION CRITERIA….....….….…5

Whether To Take Action
What Action to Take
Take Action Alternatives
Evaluating Decisions and Alternatives Against Criteria

IV. RESPONSES TO ‘MANSIONIZATION’……………………………...8

COG Region
National Case Studies

V. RECOMMENDATIONS…….....................…………………….………. 10
1. Inclusive and Iterative Process
2. Neighborhood Scale
3. Comprehensive Scope
4. Guidelines/Pattern Books
5. Regional Workshop/Forum

REFERENCE AND SOURCE LIST……………….………….….………....…11

ATTACHMENTS…….....................…………………….………..………….…15
1. Examples of ‘Mansionization’
2. ‘No Action’/ ‘Take Action’ Alternatives Defined
3. Metropolitan Washington Region & National Case Studies Alternatives
Summary Table
4. Alternatives / Criteria / Stakeholders Matrices
5. Interview List
6. Questionnaire
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The metropolitan Washington region is currently experiencing a phenomenon that is often referred to as
‘mansionization’. The phenomenon is widespread and growing, and poses a considerable challenge for
policy makers in terms of whether and how to encourage, prohibit, or simply manage the phenomenon.
These same complexities and challenges are true nationally as well as locally. This policy memo defines
various policy options and recommendations for consideration by the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments’ (COG) Chief Administrative Officers, Planning Directors, and others charged with dealing with
this phenomenon within individual jurisdictions. These options were developed from research that was
conducted over the past seven months, and which provided the rationale for several recommendations that
will assist the region’s policy makers to effectively address this issue regionally and within their own
communities. For the purposes of this study, the Mansionization Team focused local and national research
efforts on the following definition of ‘mansionization’: “replacing (or constructing additions to) smaller
dwellings within established neighborhoods with significantly larger homes.” – which is synonymous
with residential infill development.

Research Results
The Team conducted an assessment of the many stakeholders involved in this phenomenon (e.g.,
homeowners, neighbors, builders and developers, home owner associations, historic preservation
associations, local government staff and elected officials) and compared them to the many values and
issues/concerns that each stakeholder brings to this discussion. While most stakeholder values could be
grouped into common categories (i.e., property rights, esthetics, environmental, and financial), the specific
concerns they expressed varied widely and were very intense. Reactions to ‘mansionization’ were found
to be inherently value-laden and often subjective in nature (e.g., property rights versus undesirable
neighborhood impact concerns).
The Team’s research and interviews revealed that a jurisdiction’s initial decision whether or not to ‘Take
Action’ regarding ‘mansionization’ was based on an assessment of the level of concern within the
community, and the ability and political willingness of local governments to consider implementing
regulations and/or other guidelines. The second decision point was once a jurisdiction determined that
there was sufficient information to select alternatives to implement. Therefore, the Team’s efforts focused
on what alternatives/options a community might take once a decision to ‘Take Action’ had been made.
This evaluation determined that there were essentially four major action alternatives being utilized
locally and nationally to address ‘mansionization’: 1) Community Awareness/Education;
2) Moratorium; 3) Study; and 4) Regulate. These alternatives were often developed in an iterative
manner that built upon the evaluations each jurisdiction made of their own situation – and sometimes what
their neighboring jurisdictions were doing. Some, like the use of moratorium, are temporary solutions used
only to hold-off on further changes until a clear policy has been developed. As this phenomenon is a
somewhat recent issue for the metropolitan Washington region, many of COG’s local governments have
not chosen to Take Action at this time, or are in the ‘Study’ phase. By comparison, the national cases that
were evaluated were inherently well studied and much cited as ‘mansionization’ had been an issue for
some time in their communities. As a result, several had already completed their ‘Study’ phase and were
actively implementing regulations and in many cases design guidelines. Those national examples
provided some ‘lessons learned’ and helped define several of the policy recommendations for this region.

Recommendations
The first four policy recommendations describe how best to implement a process to effectively manage
‘mansionization’ : 1) Ensure an Inclusive and Iterative Process; 2) Conduct an inventory and manage
the issues on a Neighborhood Scale; 3) Ensure that solutions are Comprehensive in Scope; and 4)
Utilize Guidelines/Pattern Books to supplement regulations. The final recommendation: 5) Host a
Regional Workshop/Forum for the COG region, would bring forward local and national examples and
experts to provide ‘lessons learned’ and to aid local planners in developing innovative solutions that are
also appropriate to their own communities.

-1-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

I. PROJECT SCOPE & OBJECTIVE

The metropolitan Washington region is currently experiencing a phenomenon that is often referred to as
‘mansionization’, ‘McMansionization’, ‘monster homes’, or ‘big-hair houses.’ The phenomenon may be
described broadly as replacing (or constructing additions to) smaller dwellings with significantly larger
homes. The issues surrounding this phenomenon have garnered a considerable amount of press
coverage, raised concerns of homeowners in communities throughout the region, and clearly gained the
attention of the region’s elected officials. This has also become an increasingly contentious issue, and
there are very strongly held and wide-ranging views on both sides of the issue. The phenomenon is
widespread and growing – which is posing a considerable challenge for policy makers in terms of whether
and how to encourage, prohibit, or to manage the phenomenon. These complexities and challenges are
true nationally as well as locally.

The objective of this team project was to develop a set of policy options for consideration by COG‘s Chief
Administrative Officers, Planning Directors, and others charged with dealing with this phenomenon within
individual jurisdictions. This decision memo summarizes the results of our research and provides rationale
for several policy recommendations that we believe will assist the region’s policy makers to effectively
address this issue regionally and within their own communities.

Definition of ‘Mansionization’
As might be expected, given the very personal views that Americans have regarding their homes and
property rights, what is considered to be a personal choice by one homeowner can also be viewed as
distasteful and inappropriate by another. 1 So, while many people might assume that examples of this
phenomenon would clearly be recognized and agreed to by others, many of the terms used to describe the
phenomenon are in fact very value laden and have different implications. For instance, the
‘McMansionization’ term more often refers specifically to very large, but very stylistically similar and
similarly sized new homes that are being built primarily in developments in the outer suburbs, while the ‘big
hair’ and ‘monster’ terms are very pejorative in nature. For purposes of this study, the term
‘mansionization’ was chosen because, while not completely neutral, it could be used to describe the
phenomenon being studied while avoiding the implications inherent in the more negative terms.

Focus on Residential Infill Development

Based on the Team’s research, the areas that expressed the greatest concern with the ‘mansionization’
phenomenon are inner suburbs and older communities. This phenomenon is generally a response to the
increased demand for and high cost of housing coinciding with the decreased availability of desirable
sites/housing stock within those inner communities. Given the overall national trend toward larger homes,
there are often very different views about what features are or aren’t desirable in the existing housing
stock. This has lead to increased numbers of tear-downs and remodeling efforts that are now of a scope
and scale that had not been seen in these communities in the past.

The common feature of these communities is that the replacement or modification of existing homes within
established neighborhoods is resulting in homes that are viewed by some as incompatible with surrounding
homes. This situation is primarily a function of residential ‘infill’ development – which accounts for the
majority of cases cited as ‘mansionization’. As a result, our analysis of select local and national cases
focused on this specific form of development to determine what could be learned from those examples.

For the purposes of this policy memo, mansionization is formally defined as “replacing (or constructing
additions to) smaller dwellings within established neighborhoods with significantly larger homes,” and is
synonymous with residential infill development.

1
Picture examples of ‘mansionization’ cases are presented in Attachment 1.

-2-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

II. STAKEHOLDERS AND VALUES

The Team’s research into this phenomenon included reviews and analysis of newspaper articles, studies,
and research proceedings, as well as conducting interviews with a variety of stakeholders. The
stakeholders included not only those within the COG region, but also from several other cities/regions that
had been or were also dealing with ‘mansionization.’ In addition, the Team contacted several local and
national experts to discuss their research and identify solutions they felt would be successful in addressing
the phenomenon of ‘mansionization.’ 2 The results of this research indicated that individual communities
are likely to have many specific and unique issues that define ‘mansionization’ within their communities.

A Variety of Interests
The phenomenon of ‘mansionization’ has raised concerns amongst a variety of stakeholders impacted by
residential infill development. As expected the issue is of concern to the actual homeowner remodeling or
rebuilding his/her home, and to their neighbors. In addition, because of the inherent zoning and
construction requirements associated with residential infill development, this issue is also of concern to
local governments charged with overseeing and regulating development, as well as to the elected officials
charged with the oversight and regulation of development - who must also balance the need to revitalize
and attract new residents to older neighborhoods with the concerns of existing residents to maintain a
sense of community. Further, several interest groups that are also involved include builders and
developers, as well as historic preservation groups and homeowner associations; as they all have a vested
interest in those activities which may or do impact growth and residential infill development.

Varying Perspectives
These stakeholders have varying set of interests and concerns. Homeowners are concerned with their
right to implement changes on their own property, while their neighbors are often concerned because of the
perceived negative impacts of the remodeling or rebuilding. The neighbors’ concerns include negative
financial, esthetic, and environmental impacts. Homeowner comments regarding the negative impacts of
‘mansionization’ often clearly express an element of class/wealth distinctions – but these concerns are not
always, and not solely limited to differences in esthetics. ‘Mansionization’ is often perceived as an issue
only in wealthy neighborhoods, but it is also consistent with the national trend of increased development in
older neighborhoods and the building of larger homes despite smaller family sizes. 3 It is to be expected
that greater divergences in views will occur given that shifts in demographics will change the face of
existing neighborhoods, i.e., by mixing younger homeowners with retirees, and foreign immigrants with
current residents. What is clear is that the concerns are not just an issue of existing versus new
homeowners. It is really an issue of different perspectives, values, and visions and the rights of an
individual homeowner to manifest their vision and meet their needs on their own property balanced against
the concerns of neighbors and larger community-wide impacts. This often raises issues of perceived
versus actual rights of the various parties within the development process itself. The reasons cited for
opposing the larger remodeled or rebuilt homes vary, but a common theme is that the esthetics of these
homes are seen as not in harmony with the current neighborhood.

It appeared that most stakeholders and their concerns could be grouped into common categories in order
to provide a broad understanding of this phenomenon and how various stakeholders are likely to perceive
the issues. 4 In addition, any proposed solutions would need to address the issues and impacts specific to
that community’s stakeholders and concerns. Table 1 provides a summary of these stakeholders,
categorized by values and issues. The information summarized below should not be viewed as all
inclusive, but it does capture the range of views and concerns raised when the topic of ‘mansionization’ is
discussed.

2
A detailed list of the material and people interviewed for this project is included under References and Sources.
3
Nat. Assoc. of Home Builders, Housing Facts, Figures & Trends report (March 2006), from US Census data.
4
A detailed matrix of the stakeholders, criteria, and alternatives is presented in Attachment 4.

-3-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

Table 1

Stakeholders Values / Issues (examples)

Property Rights – Desire to address their needs (family & personal) on their own
Residents: property; concern that limitations would preclude doing so; concern w/ restrictions that
would prevent changes that were originally allowable
Esthetics – Clear views re: what they view as acceptable & desirable; which may vary
significantly from neighbors (e.g., younger generation, foreign/immigrant families) 5 ;
Homeowners desire to maximize home features to meet needs in a desirable location
Environmental – Desire to reduce commuting & environmental impacts
Financial – Concerns re: loss of affordability & increased taxes due to larger homes
(e.g., retirees); concerns that incompatible homes/changes will reduce property values
Esthetics – Concern with loss of desirable neighborhood features/charm; dislike of
design features & perceived difference in values (e.g., conspicuous consumption, ‘new
money’, gentrification) & what is/isn’t viewed as ‘ugly’; concerns w/ oversized & looming
structures (e.g., blocking light, loss of landscaping, unfavorable contrasts w/ existing
Neighbors homes); and concerns that change occurs w/out their input or control
Environmental – Concern w/ landscaping changes (e.g., loss of mature trees,
increase in % imperviousness & degraded water quality)
Interest Groups:
Financial – Concern that new restrictions could severely delay, limit or preclude ability
Builders & to modify structures for clients in key development area w/ resulting economic loss
Developers
Financial & Esthetics – Similar concerns as Homeowners & Neighbors depending
Home Owner upon collective view of changes; in addition, questions about what controls they can or
Associations cannot invoke w/in neighborhood (i.e., covenants vs. zoning)
Historic Esthetics – Concern that unless homes/neighborhoods are formally designated as
Preservation ‘historic’ or as ‘historic districts’, that there are inadequate controls in place to preserve
Associations the sites and/or their unique characteristics.
Property Rights – Desire to respect Homeowner rights balanced against larger
social/community-wide interests
Local Government: Financial – Desire to maximize tax benefits of residential infill development (i.e.,
smart growth) & address citizen concerns w/out need for costly enforcement programs
Esthetics – Desire to manage change in a balanced manner w/out restricting positive
Staff growth & redevelopment
Environmental – Desire to manage residential infill development to minimize
negative impacts & maximize net benefits (i.e., smart growth)
Property Rights, Financial, Esthetics, & Environmental – Desire to respect
rights/interests of all parties/taxpayers while being mindful of the economic, social, &
Elected Officials environmental implications of change - for the community-as-a-whole

Impacts – A Function of Residential Infill Development

As summarized in Table 1, many of these stakeholder concerns are very personal and value-based; and
that there are many social, economic and cultural differences in how these concerns are expressed.
However, the Team’s research was not able to locate studies or evaluations though that addressed
whether the negative impacts that were being articulated were real or even quantifiable, so this is an area
where additional research would be beneficial. It should be noted that despite the current media focus on
the ‘mansionization’ phenomenon, it is actually only one aspect of the various issues and concerns
associated with residential infill development. Therefore, the impacts and solutions for addressing this
issue clearly need to be addressed within the larger context of effectively managing all aspects of
residential infill development. It is also crucial to address the concerns raised by various stakeholders
within the context of their own neighborhood by determining which values or factors are in fact applicable
to their situation (i.e., whether preservation of historical or desirable features are truly an issue, or whether

5
Examples: 3-car garage, home office, rooms for extended families, and landscape considerations (i.e., Feng Shui)

-4-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

concerns are based strictly on inappropriate scale and incompatibility issues). Solutions are only effective
if they address the real issues and problems of the community.

III. ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES DECISION CRITERIA

The increased demand for desirable housing coupled with decreased availability in the inner suburbs not
only increases housing prices, it also tends to make remodeling and tear-downs a more attractive option.
Because this most often occurs in older, well established neighborhoods the chances are greater that what
one person may view as the ‘charm’ of the existing homes/features may come in conflict with another’s
view of what desirable features could be built or added to an existing home. As a result, there are
noticeable increases in the instances of ‘mansionization’ situations within those communities.

The responsibility for addressing these issues has fallen primarily upon the shoulders of local
governments. In determining what action to take, jurisdictions must consider the range of alternatives and
actions that are available – and find the most appropriate solutions that meet the needs of their
communities. The policy alternatives/actions they decide to take, and whether they should even take any
action, will depend on what specific criteria apply to their communities. Once a decision has been made to
take action, additional criteria will be used to determine what course of action to take. Those criteria can
therefore be organized by first, whether to Take Action, and then second, What Actions to Take. 6

The rationale for making these very fundamental decisions will differ for each jurisdiction based on an
assessment of its own unique circumstances. A discussion of each category of criteria and how each
lends itself to making these two critical policy decisions is discussed below. Once a decision has been
made to Take Action, a variety of policy alternatives/options can then be considered. Based on the Team’s
research of the COG region and national case studies, several common policy alternatives were identified.

Whether to Take Action

The following criteria will guide a jurisdiction in determining whether to Take Action or not:

1. Citizen Concern / Resistance: This criterion represents a level of concern and/or resistance of
citizens regarding ‘mansionization’ and their willingness to support a legislative solution to address the
situation. This criterion also addresses whether there is a concerted and public effort to get officials to
take definitive action or to stay silent on the matter. There are at least three common and reoccurring
themes that characterize these citizen concerns due to ‘mansionization’: 1) that it will have a negative
impact on the character of the current neighborhood (i.e., the more quaint/appealing the current
housing is perceived, the more likely it is that changes will be perceived as having a negative impact);
2) that it will result in negative economic impacts (i.e.. higher taxes, forcing out older residents with
fixed incomes, etc.) – which also plays out in personal views about whether such changes flaunt wealth
or are viewed as tasteful, and the extent to which such changes are viewed as ‘improvements’ or not;
and 3) that it is often a struggle to achieve the proper balance between protecting property rights
versus protecting the rights of neighbors and the community as-a-whole.

2. Legal Feasibility: This criterion assesses whether there are legal limitations on what options a
jurisdiction may or may not be able to implement. For example, certain states may allow changes in
zoning but limit the extent of local controls that the jurisdictions can enact (e.g., Virginia). An
evaluation also needs to be made of any existing covenants or regulations that address such matters.

3. Political Feasibility: This criterion assesses the political climate and level of concern that elected and
appointed officials perceive their community has regarding ‘mansionization.’ This assessment may

6
A detailed discussion of these ‘No Action’/’Take Action’ Alternatives is included in Attachment 2.

-5-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

include the status of an elected official’s term of office, or a change in political parties, and whether
taking any proposed actions would be supported by its citizens.

In summary, a decision whether to Take Action necessitates that a jurisdiction evaluate: the prevalence of
or potential for the ‘mansionization’ phenomenon within their jurisdiction; the actual or perceived level of
concern for or against regulating the phenomenon within the community; and the jurisdiction’s own
philosophical approach towards balancing public concerns with private homeowner rights and any
associated social impacts. The decision of whether to take formal action requires evaluating all of these
criteria for a community; and is very dependent upon whether there is a perceived need to stop or solve a
problem (i.e., ‘mansionization’) or simply a desire to be proactive and better manage residential infill
development overall. After considering those criteria, many local governments have made a conscious
decision to not act; while others have held off taking action pending the result of further research into
various action options/alternatives. Advocates of property rights generally feel that it is not the role of a
local government to limit what they can do with their own property and believe strongly that government
should not intercede. Others believe that it is an appropriate role for government in order to protect the
interests of the community as-a-whole.

What Action to Take

Once a jurisdiction has decided to Take Action, the following criteria will assist a jurisdiction in determining
What Action to Take:

1. Effectiveness: This criterion assesses the ability of a specific alternative to actually bring about the
desired change (i.e., that the given alternative will actually make a difference). This criterion addresses
both real and/or perceived notions about if/how, and to what extent the control measure is likely to
address the citizen/neighborhood concerns (e.g., to what extent can alterations to the environment be
minimized to avoid light blockage, increased runoff, increased energy use, etc.).

2. Implementation & Enforcement: This criterion addresses the degree to which a jurisdiction can
effectively implement specific controls and realistically be able to enforce them in order to address the
activities they wish to ‘manage’ or prohibit. This includes the need to assess the potential impacts
(e.g., workload demands, required staff expertise, etc.) that any new regulations or guidelines may
have on the ability of a jurisdiction to effectively manage its residential infill development.

3. Cost: This criterion has two key aspects. One is to understand what the cost to effectively implement
any specific alternative might be. In particular, if a regulatory control is enacted – staff and technical
expertise will be required to enforce those controls. Second, costs may also affect the taxpayer – so
there needs to be an assessment of how such changes might impact property taxes (i.e., potential for
negative impacts on fixed-income residents, etc.) This also might include an assessment of whether
enacting certain regulations or limitations might constrain homeowners’ choices too narrowly and
inadvertently result in negative economic impacts. Some of these cost elements are more factual while
others have a more subjective element to them.

Take Action Alternatives

Once the fundamental decision has been made to Take Action, there are a variety of actions that a
jurisdiction can take. Several of these actions may occur simultaneously along parallel paths, many are
logically sequenced, and others may be implemented in a phased and deliberate approach. At each
decision point a jurisdiction would need to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to take further action
and whether there is sufficient information to justify implementing one action over another. Many of these
decisions, aside from strictly legal constraints, will be made by local elected officials based on the body of
information available to them at the time they make the decision and their assessment of key stakeholder
concerns. Additional information at a later date could result in making different decisions.

-6-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

Some fundamental Take Action options are described below. While not all inclusive, they do represent the
most common approaches taken by other jurisdictions currently dealing with the ‘mansionization’
phenomenon – both within the COG region and in the national case studies that were investigated. There
are obviously other possible variations, and it is also possible for some actions such as implementing
regulations to be rescinded because the results or public reaction do not support their continuation. Many
have also been implemented in an iterative fashion in order to gather information and determine whether
and how quickly to respond to the situation. This was found to be true of not only jurisdictions within the
COG region, but also with the various national case studies. The four primary Take Action alternatives
include: Community Education/Outreach, Moratorium, Study, and Regulate.

1. Community Education/Outreach: This alternative is a common starting point for many jurisdictions
as they begin to inform their citizens about what current zoning regulations and controls exist, and what
activities they currently do and do not address. This alternative is also a key component for obtaining
public input and participation in those communities that plan to implement regulations.

2. Moratorium: Several localities have chosen to place moratoriums on development – generally for a
set period of time. This approach often allows additional time for the jurisdictions to further assess
options most appropriate for their situation. The economic and political realities that support instituting
a moratorium generally result in subsequent action being taken by a jurisdiction. In some cases a
moratorium is also a temporary tool used to deliberately avoid a rush on development where new or
revised regulations are about to be imposed within a specific community.

3. Study: Most local jurisdictions have taken considerable time to analyze and study the phenomena.
This has proven to be a useful strategy for gathering additional information before a jurisdiction decides
whether or not to take any further action; this includes the combined use of a moratorium and study.

4. Regulate: Some local governments have chosen to limit the amount of space a home, driveway and
outbuilding can occupy on a lot, on a scale that varies according to lot size. Other regulatory controls
include restrictions on building heights, setbacks, and floor to area ratios. Still other controls have
utilized neighborhood approval processes and taxes on luxury homes. Rather than implementing a full
range of regulatory controls, other local governments have deliberately chosen to utilize minimum
standards, while addressing the broader issues of ‘mansionization’ and managing residential infill
development through the development of design guidelines (e.g., pattern books) that more fully
describe the vision of the community and the attributes it is attempting to protect and preserve.

Evaluating Decisions and Alternatives Against Criteria

As discussed above, each jurisdiction faced with the ‘mansionization’ phenomena or anticipating it will
need to make two fundamental decisions: 1) Whether to take action? and 2) What action to take? Table 2
portrays, in an admittedly simplistic manner, those decisions and criteria.

Table 2
Criteria - Criteria -
Decision Take Action Decision Future
Whether to What Action
#1 Alternatives #2 Alternatives
Take Action to Take

• Community 1. Community Education

Which
Concern / No Action / Outreach
• Effectiveness • Continue
Alternative
Resistance Option?
2. Moratorium
• Implementation Or • Refine
Or
• Legal Feasibility & Enforcement
3. Study Combination of Or
Take
• Political • Cost Alternatives to
Action? • Rescind
Feasibility 4. Regulate Take?

-7-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

IV. RESPONSES TO ‘MANSIONIZATION’

As discussed in Section III, based on the research there are essentially four key alternatives that can be
used to effectively summarize the range of policy alternatives that jurisdictions chose once they decided to
‘Take Action’ to address the phenomenon of ‘mansionization.’ The Team’s primary focus within the COG
region was on the efforts of Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland;
with additional input provided by COG’s Planning Directors Technical Advisory Committee; while the focus
of the national case studies was on those jurisdictions that appeared to have had either obvious success or
problems in addressing ‘mansionization’ within their communities. The alternatives that are being utilized
by either COG’s local governments or the national case studies are described below. As noted, many
jurisdictions in the metropolitan Washington region, primarily in the inner suburbs, have begun to
experience some form of ‘mansionization.’ As most jurisdictions in this region are just beginning to deal
with this phenomenon, they are implementing combinations of the ‘Take Action’ alternatives – primarily the
‘Study’ alternative. Due to the nature of the national case studies that were chosen, those jurisdictions
were all at the ‘Regulate’ stage.

COG Region
A summary of the current status of actions taken by local governments within the COG region include:

Arlington County: Community Education/Outreach – Concerted effort made through use of a

dedicated Website, and holding County Board hearings and several public forums. Study – Conducted
two studies (ZORC Report on Coverage – Feb. 2004, and Lot Coverage Study – Mar. 2005). Regulate –
Enacted new regulations that limited the amount of space a home, driveway and outbuildings can occupy
on a lot; applied special permit requirements on pipe stem development; and changed building height/lot
width requirements.

Fairfax County: Community Education/Outreach - Has had some group discussions. Study –
Evaluating what issues and options are being considered in neighboring jurisdictions; previously conducted
an infill study (Infill and Residential Redevelopment Study – 2001). Regulate – Have not proposed any
specific regulations to-date, although many zoning limitations already exist as a result of the 2001
Redevelopment Study.

Montgomery County: Community Education/Outreach – There are several ongoing task and work
groups seated to study zoning issues, especially building height and set-back requirements as County
staff continues to work with various community groups. Moratorium – This alternative has only been
utilized for a six-month period in the Town of Chevy Chase. Study – In 2005, the City of Rockville
released a white-paper discussion, addressing the extent and nature of mantionization in the City and
offering recommendations conerning a response. The City of Gaithersburg is reviewing the extent
of mansionization in the jurisdiction, and is studying alternatives. Regulate – The County Delegation
supported enactment of HB 1232, which permitted municipal corporations in Montgomery County to
impose additional and/or stricter building requirements for the protection of water, land, etc. This
legislation specifically impacts cities and towns without zoning authorities such as Somerset,
Barnesville, Brookville, Town of Chevy Chasse, Chievy Chase View, Chevy Chase Village, Garrett
Park, and several others.

The remaining COG jurisdictions where ‘mansionization’ activity was also occurring included:

City of Alexandria: Study – Recently completed their study (Residential Infill Development in Alexandria
– March 2006). Proposed elements include restrictions on: steep slopes, subdivisions, lot coverage, and
floor area ratio calculations. They are also recommending creation of a conservation design pattern book
specifically for residential infill projects. City of Fairfax: Community Education/Outreach – Have

-8-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

gathered community input on an informal basis to-date. Study – Have gathered information from other
local jurisdictions, and reviewed recent infill/’mansionization’ projects to gain a better understanding of
what options may be appropriate. City of Falls Church: Study – Have just begun to study issues in their
community. City of Manassas: Study - Have just begun to study issues in their community. Anticipate
that current regulations may help minimize impact/instances of ‘mansionization’.

National Case Studies

Nationally, specific of local governments responding to ‘mansionization’ included:

Atlanta, Georgia: Community Education/Outreach – Extensive outreach efforts (e.g., detailed City
Council Web page), and broad stakeholder inclusion in studies (e.g., residents, experts, and officials) over
a 3-year period. Moratorium – Issued on an interim (6-month) basis (ended Feb. 2006) pending results of
90-day study. Study – Conducted previous study (Dec. 2004); Task Force recently issued a draft report
(Atlanta Infill Development Panel Recommendations, June 2006). Regulate – Recommend amending
zoning ordinance to address the ‘bulk’ of a structure through use of a combination of physical matrices
(i.e., FARs, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, etc.) and to clarify vague terms. In addition,
recommend that communities have the ability to voluntarily adopt an additional layer of controls to address
their own unique requirements/community characteristics.

Menlo Park, California: Community Education/Outreach – Had an extensive (3-year) effort that
included use of a citizen task force and public hearings to develop initial ordinance. Study – Extensive (3-
year) review effort in 2002, but task force members had different views regarding proposed regulations
(i.e., discretionary versus regulatory reviews/approvals) – resulting in overturning many elements of the
original ordinance. Subsequently utilized a formal subcommittee to develop 2004 recommendations.
Regulate – Original extensive regulations adopted in 2002, rescinded many elements in 2003 based on
significant public concerns, then issued new regulations in 2005 - but without use of originally proposed
design guidelines.

San Fernando, California: Community Education/Outreach – Have utilized several public workshops
while developing guidelines and ordinance. Study – Conducted a comprehensive assessment/inventory of
historic preservation resources that needed protection (2005). Regulate – Have established specific
regulations for one community (Sunland-Tujunga). Are currently developing Design Principle Guidelines to
supplement existing regulations (e.g., FAR) to preserve desirable neighborhood and landscaping
characteristics. Also regulate through use of a specific historic preservation ordinance.

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Community Education/Outreach – Utilizes a neighborhood-

specific approach that allows communities to self-initiate/voluntary development of guidelines/regulations
for its communities – which includes an extensive public meetings/input processes. Moratorium – Once a
neighborhood is considering specific ordinance changes (e.g., sufficient support has been shown for the
proposed changes), a temporary moratorium is issued to prohibit last minute renovations before new
guidelines are developed/issued. Study – Conducted extensive reviews and inventories during the 1980’s,
identified desirable neighborhood characteristics (both for homes and landscape), and developed
guidelines for two specific neighborhoods. Regulate – Currently have neighborhood-specific guidelines for
several neighborhoods, including a historic district, others are being developed/contemplated. This
includes use of 3-D guidelines to help communicate to the public and developers what is/isn’t allowable. A
noticeable benefit has been that many neighborhood-specific design options now exist that meet the
guidelines yet allow flexibility for the homeowner.

-9-
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

V. RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, based on the Team’s research and interviews, it was clear that most jurisdictions were likely
to take some sort of action to address the phenomenon of ‘mansionization,’ but the extent to which they
chose to control or manage the situation varied. In addition, there appeared to be some clear examples of
how and how not to be successful in addressing the ‘mansionization’ phenomenon. Successful programs
were the result of well thought out processes that included a lot of stakeholder input and resulted in a mix
of minimum regulatory controls along with clear guidelines. Based on the Team’s research, once a
jurisdiction has made a decision to address ‘mansionization,’ we would recommend that they incorporate
the following four important elements to ensure success. In addition, we are making one regional
recommendation that we believe would assist COG’s members without precluding or limiting their ability to
develop their own unique solutions: 1) Ensure an Inclusive and Iterative Process; 2) Conduct an
inventory and manage the issues on a Neighborhood Scale; 3) Ensure that solutions are
Comprehensive in Scope; 4) Utilize Guidelines/Pattern Books to supplement regulations; and 5) Host a
Regional Workshop/Forum for the COG region.

1. Inclusive and Iterative Process

Successful programs are inherently inclusive and include all stakeholder groups. This ensures that the
values of the community (i.e., homeowners and neighbors) are expressed and fully understood before
solutions are proposed. It also ensures that interest groups (i.e., builders, associations) can also
provide input to ensure that proposed solutions can reasonably be implemented and enforced. An
iterative process allows a jurisdiction to focus on priority areas and apply what it learns from one
community to the next, and to refine its programs.

2. Neighborhood Scale
One of the most consistent themes is that ‘mansionization’ is perceived and defined at a neighborhood
level. And, that in order to effectively manage the phenomenon, one must first recognize and articulate
the features and characteristics of existing homes and neighborhoods that one wishes to preserve or
protect. The size and boundaries of a neighborhood are therefore self-determining.

3. Comprehensive Scope
As discussed, ‘mansionization’ is only one aspect of residential infill development. It is essential
therefore that any solutions to this one issue be developed in a manner that is consistent with and
supported by broader management tools used to address residential infill development.

4. Guidelines/Pattern Books
One of the primary mechanisms recommended for capturing the features and characteristics of a
neighborhood is by conducting an inventory and creation of a pattern book that architecturally portrays
critical design elements. This sort of pattern book along with planning guidelines has been found to be
the most effective means of supplementing basic zoning requirements and providing clear visual
guidance without resulting in cumbersome, overly restrictive regulatory programs.

5. Regional Workshop/Forum
We recommend that a regional workshop/forum be held for COG’s members. The event would include
a forum for planning staff from COG’s localities to describe their case studies, where national experts
could share their insights into successful programs and initiatives, and allow for an exchange of
information. In addition, the event should include a workshop portion where examples of actual
guidelines/pattern books are discussed and analyzed. This would be intended to provide planning staff
with examples of workable solutions and provide a baseline for developing similar models within their
own communities. This workshop/forum would most appropriately be sponsored by COG’s Planning
Directors’ Technical Advisory Committee. Some suggested presenters would include many of the local
and national experts and practitioners that were interviewed during the course of this analysis.

- 10 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

REFERENCE & SOURCE LIST

References
American Planning Association and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “Teardowns, Monster Homes, and
Appropriate Infill. Audio conference. 5 Dec. 2001.

Barr, Cameron W. “Chevy Chase Plans Pause in Building to Stave off March of the Mansions.”
Washington Post 3 Aug 2005: B5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201730_pf.html

Benton, Nicholas. “F.C. Council ‘Racing Against Time’ to Beat Feared Residential ‘Land Rush’:
Consequences of Anti-‘McMansion’ Measures Mulled.” Falls Church News-Press June 2, 2006
www.fcnp.com/ - 20k - Jun 1, 2006

Christoffersen, John. “A Man’s Home is his Castle – Sometimes Literally; Mansionization is at the center
of a growing debate in affluent suburbs, where massive reconstructed houses dwarf their neighbors.” Los
Angeles Times 19 Jun 2005: A18.

City of Alexandria, VA. Work Session. Department of Planning and Zoning. Residential Infill
Development in Alexandria. 9 March 2006.

City of Arlington, VA. Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development: Planning Division.
Lot Coverage Study. March 2005.

City of Atlanta, Georgia, Infill Housing Task Force. Measuring Scale of Infill Residential Properties.
December 2004.

City of Atlanta, Georgia. Infill Housing Task Force. The Recommendations of the Atlanta Infill
Development Panel (Draft version). June 1, 2006.

City of Rockville, MD. Mansionization. White Paper Discussion. 25 July 2005.

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/zoning/mansionization-wp.pdf

City of San Fernando, CA. Historic Preservation Element. 5 April 2005.

City of San Fernando, CA. Planning Commission Staff Report. Workshop on the San Fernando Single-
Family Residential Design Guidelines. 3 November 2005.

City of Vancouver, BC, Canada. RS-5 Design Guidelines. Amended 18 May 2004.

Evans, Cowley, Jennifer. “McMansions: Supersized Houses, Supersized Regulations.” Tierra Grande
January 2005 v.12, no. 1
http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-1/1713.html

Fairfax County, VA. Department of Planning and Zoning. The Infill and Residential Development Study.
July 2000.

Glazer, Susan M. “ Regulating Monster Homes.” 2000 APA Proceedings 18 April 2000.

Gowen, Annie. “A Debate Builds in Arlington.” Washington Post 27Oct 2005: Alexandria-Arlington
Extra14.

- 11 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

Gowen, Annie. “Home Size Builds to Crescendo: Arlington Finally to Decide on Hotly Debated Limits for
McMansions.” Washington Post 27 Oct 2005: VA 14.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102601069_pf.html

Gowen, Annie. “A Large-Scale Disagreement.” Washington Post 31Mar 2005: A01.

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16600

Harden, Blaine. “Big, Bigger, Biggest: The Supersize Suburb.” New York Times 20 Jun 2002: F1.
http://www.ci.vienna.va.us/Town_Info/News_Letter/back_issues/august05.pdf

Kelleher, Edythe Frankel. “’McMansions’ Cause for Concern.” Town of Vienna Newsletter August 2005: 3.

Knack, Ruth Eckdish. “Cutting Monster Houses Down to Size.” APA Planning October 1999.

Manning, Michele. “Bigfoots: Lurking in a Neighborhood Near You?” Planning and Zoning News
September 2000: 12-16.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston. “Mansionization.” MAPC Planner’s Exchange March 1998
No. 22: 1-16.

McCrummen, Stephanie. “Building Moratorium Targets Mansions; Chevy Chase Votes for 6-Month Halt”
Washington Post 11 Aug 2005
http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=30032

McCrummen, Stephanie. “Taste for Space is Spawning Mansions Fit for a Commoner.” Washington Post
20Nov 2005: A01.

National Association of Home Builders. Public Affairs and Economics Committees. Housing, Facts,
Figures and Trends report. March 2006.

Norwood, Mary. Atlanta City Council Citywide Post 2

http://www.marynorwood.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=68

Paik, Felicia. “Huge houses squeeze into tight spaces.” Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition 22
November 1996: B1.

Proceedings of the 2000 APA International Symposium On Lepton and Photon Interactions at High-
Energies (LP 99), Stanford, 1999, edited by J. A. Jaros and M. E. Peskin, eConf C990809 (2000).

Reavis, Paul Mansionization : must it change the character of our communities? Boston, Mass.:
Massachusetts Bar Association, 2002.

Rybczynski, Witold. “Supersize My House!: How McMansions Go Wrong.” Slate. January 4 2006.
http://www.slate.com/id/2133029/

Schumitz, Kali. “Citizens Want Zoning to Limit House Size.” Times Community.com 22 Sept. 2005
http://www.zqire.com/site/tab5.cfm?newsid=15249874&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=511691&rfi=6

Sokolove, Michael. “There Goes the Neighborhood.” New York Times Magazine 5 March 2006: 202.

Solomon, Christopher. “Five Ways to Fight the McMansion Expansion”.

http://outlook.mwcog.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.as
px?cp-documentid=418671

- 12 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

Spivak, Miranda S. and Stephanie McCrummen. “Local Housing Developoment: Comments on Growth.”
WashingtonPost.com. 14 Oct 2005.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2005_Oct_14/ai_n15722155/print

Spivack, Miranda S. “Montgomery Mansion Bill Jeopardized” Washington Post 11 Oct 2005.

Szold, Terry S. “Mansionization and Its Discontents: Planners and the Challenge of Regulating Monster
Homes.” Journal of the American Planning Association 71 Spring 2005: 189-202.

Tierney, John. “The Mansion Wars.” New York Times 15 Nov. 2005: A27.

Williams, Chris. “New Tactic to Thwart Big Houses: Communities Talk about Options to Gain Control,
Including Incorporation.” Gazette.Net Maryland Community Newspapers Online. 17 March 2006
http://www.gazette.net/stories/031506/bethnew211020_31961.shtml

Williams, Chris. “Residents: Stop the tear-downs – West Bethesda Neighbors Push County Council to
Impose Moratorium. Gazette.Net Maryland Community Newspapers Online. 15 March 2006
http://www.gazette.net/stories/031506/bethnew211020_31961.shtml

Wood, Daniel B. “When big is too big, even in L.A.; The city approves one neighborhood’s move to block
mammoth homes on small plots.” Christian Science Monitor 3 Aug. 2005: 3.

Sources
American Planning Association – www.planning.org

Arlington Community Planning, Housing, & Development – Lot Coverage Website

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/forums/lotcoverage/CPHDForumsLotcoverageLotCoverage
Main.aspx

Atlanta City Council Citywide Post 2

http://www.marynorwood.org/index.php

City of Fairfax, Virginia, Work Session. Residential Infill Development and Associated Issues. 28 Feb
2006.
http://www.fairfaxva.gov/Cityclerk/Agenda/20060228_CDP_Infill%20Housing%20Memo.pdf

City of Menlo Park, California

http://www.menlopark.org/; and http://www.menlopark.org/council/ccarchive.htm

City of San Fernando, California

http://www.ci.san-fernando.ca.us/

The Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia. Tallahassee, FL: Municipal Code Corp., 2000.

Code of the Town of Herndon, Virginia: the charter and the general ordinances. Tallahassee, FL.:
Municipal Code Corp., 1977.

The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia: The General Ordinances of the County. NIMLO, 1976.

Fairfax County, VA. Department of Planning and Zoning. “The Infill and Residential Development Study."
July 2000.
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoning/resdevelop/criteria.htm

- 13 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

Metropolitan Council of Governments, Planning Directors Technical Advisory Committee – Member List
http://www.mwcog.org/committee/committee/default.asp?COMMITTEE_ID=35

Maryland-Capital National Building Industry Association

http://www.mncbia.org/

National Association of Home Builders

http://www.nahb.org/

State of Virginia. The Code of Virginia, 1950. Compacts. Charlottesville, Va: LexisNexis, c2001 -

Urban Land Institute – www.uli.org

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines Website -
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/pol&guide.htm

- 14 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

ATTACHMENTS

1. Examples of ‘Mansionization’
2. ‘No Action’/ ‘Take Action’ Alternatives Defined
3. Metropolitan Washington Region & National Case Studies Alternatives
Summary Table
4. Alternatives / Criteria / Stakeholders Matrices
5. Interview List
6. Questionnaire

- 15 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

ATTACHMENT 1
Examples of Mansionization

- 16 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

- 17 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

ATTACHMENT 2

ALTERNATIVES DEFINED
Addressing the issue of mansionization has fallen primarily upon the shoulders of local governments – and
their decision making in regards to the issue depends heavily upon timing and the decision to consciously
act or not act – contingent upon a variety of other factors (see criteria below). The below alternatives are
not exclusive and some local jurisdictions have exercised one approach and then chosen to retract or try
another or even experimented with several combinations. Many jurisdictions have also chosen to
implement these alternatives in an iterative fashion as they gather information and determine how quickly
they need to respond to these concerns. These alternatives include:

A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Many local governments, i.e. the Town of Herndon, VA, have chosen to take no action. In some cases
there has been a conscious decision to not act; while in others no actions have been taken pending the
result of further research into various action options. Advocates of property rights generally feel that it
is not the role of a local government to limit what they do with their property and hold strongly that
government should not intercede. Others believe that it is an appropriate role.

B. TAKE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Community Education/Outreach: There is no body of work related to this alternative that speaks to
its impact related to mansionization. However, much may be learned from the effective use of
community town hall meetings, focus groups and targeted outreach and education campaigns in
addressing other controversial community-wide issues. This alternative would provide coordinated
awareness and education activities in impacted communities, to inform residents concerning
community planning standards, procedures and processes for requesting approvals, exceptions and/or
appeals, and the appropriate governmental agencies and contacts that may be able to assist them.
Involving the developers, community residents and neighborhood associations, homeowners and
government officials in this process would put forward a collaborative and cohesive effort.

Moratorium: Chevy Chase, MD, and most recently Atlanta, GA, have chosen to place moratoriums on
development for a limited period. This approach has allowed additional time for the jurisdictions to
further assess options most appropriate for their jurisdiction. Moratoriums do not always result in
action by a local jurisdiction. However, it should be noted that a 'general' restriction on residential infill
development in Virginia may not be feasible unless state law enables a local jurisdiction to prohibit
such development. Therefore this is not as feasible or likely an option in Virginia localities.

Study: Most local jurisdictions have taken considerable time to analyze and study the phenomena.
This has proven to be a useful strategy for conveying that further information and input is required
before a jurisdiction proposes to make any concrete decisions, or to formally decide to not act. A
combination of moratorium and continued study has been the approach in Montgomery County, MD.

Regulate: Arlington, Virginia, has chosen to limit the amount of space a home, driveway and
outbuilding can occupy on a lot, on a scale that varies according to lot size. Other zoning regulatory
controls include restrictions on building heights, setbacks, and floor to area ratios. Still other regulatory
controls and proposals have explored neighborhood approval processes and taxes on luxury homes.
This alternative also includes the creation of complementary design/residential infill development
guidelines as a means of providing greater flexibility and clarify to the development process – without
the need for establishing stringent and inflexible regulations. This approach appeared to provide the
best mix of tools to the jurisdictions to clearly describe what the community’s expectations were while
allowing for appropriate and innovative development options under the regulations.

- 18 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

ATTACHMENT 3
Metropolitan Washington Region & National Case Studies Alternatives Summary Table1
(as of June 2006)

Community Education
JURISDICTIONS Moratorium Study Regulate2
/ Outreach
Gaithersburg, City of

MD Montgomery County
(Chevy Chase)

Rockville. City of

Alexandria, City of

Arlington County
Fairfax, City of
VA
Fairfax County
Falls Church, City of

Manassas, City of

CA Menlo Park, City of (many orig. reg.’s

were rescinded)

San Fernando, City of

(pending)

GA Atlanta, City of
(expired) (pending)
BC,
Vancouver, City of (temporary tool – used when (neighborhood
Canada
neighborhood regulations are pending) specific)
1
Alternatives refer only to those actions taken in direct response to ‘mansionization’ concerns.
2
May also include use of community design guidebooks.

- 19 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives
Alternatives / Criteria / Stakeholders Matrices
ALTERNATIVES VS. CRITERIA
CRITERIA
NO ACTION
Citizen
Continued mansionization;
concerns/
threats to older communities
resistance
Legal Feasibility
Depending on the level of
community concern, it may not
be advisable n to take action;
but if individuals are priced out
Political of communities or
Feasibility mansionization becomes
widespread, there may be
concurrent increases in service
costs and litigation that could
force involvement
ATTACHMENT 4
ALTERNATIVES
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
/ OUTREACH
Increased discussion and
understanding of rights; gain
information about community
impact
No legal barriers to raising
awareness/educating
community; however it may
result in increased litigation as
individuals more fully understand
rights
Generate community discussion
and goodwill – on both sides;
viewed as opening discussions
rather than rushing to
regulate/limit rights of owners
- 20 -
TAKE ACTION
STUDY
Allows time to study
alternatives and a delay for a
possible more positive
impact; time to determine the
concern; determine if there is
an historical criteria or
preservation issue
To illustrate other places
where this phenomena is
occurring; to illustrate what
regulations worked
elsewhere; show what
amending zoning
requirements would do or not
do; address whether there
would be an intrusion on
owner’s property rights
Determine if it was politically
feasible to get involved or not
to; show that there is a
sensitivity to the issue
MORATORIUM REGULATE
May heighten concerns
among residents and
Citizen concern and
increase resistance, as some
resistance could
may feel threatened just by
encourage or discourage
the act; others may be
legislation based upon
comforted that there is a
citizen’s particular take on
cooling off period so that the
the issue – property rights
issue can be studied – and
vs. neighborhood
that some resolution that is
character
fair to both sides can be
reached
It is an option that has been
implemented locally (in
Chevy Chase, MD) and also The type of covenants
in Atlanta GA. Also used and laws that legally bind
routinely as a management a jurisdiction can have an
tool in Vancouver, BC, effect on what can be
Canada, on temporary basis regulated and how
while neighborhood specific
regulations are considered
May cause backlash for
The political climate could
politicians from property
encourage or discourage
owners, developers and/or
regulation – how readily
contractors; but could also
do elected officials get
win supporters among
involved in proposing
individuals negatively
such regulation
impacted by the phenomena
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives
ALTERNATIVES
CRITERIA
NO ACTION COMMUNITY EDUCATION
/ OUTREACH
Limited costs to delivering
community training –
development of materials,
Costs
promotional items, staff time – it
could be an adjunct to a
community planning function.
Increased community concern, Delivering community education
Implementation/
particularly in pockets (e.g., broadly in impacted
Enforcement
gentrification concerns) communities.
Variable – depending on the
Effectiveness
kinds of awareness campaigns
Coordinated regional educational
Impact
campaign would permit
(regional vs. Uncontrolled mansionization development of more
local) comprehensive plans for
communities’ development.
- 21 -
TAKE ACTION
STUDY
To determine what are the
costs and who will pay for
these costs
To determine if regulations
can be implemented and has
enforcement been effective or
possible
To present documentation on
the positive and negative
aspects of mansionization
To ascertain the effect of the
individual’s jurisdiction
decision on the region and
the jurisdiction
MORATORIUM REGULATE
Costs should be moderate to
implement moratorium; could The cost and impact upon
result in a loss of revenue for residents/taxpayers can
developers and/or have a secondary effect
contractors, and financial on the affordability and
impacts for property owners character of the
due to delays in construction, neighborhood
etc.
Depending on the number of
properties in development in
The ability to effectively
comparison with the number
implement/enforce could
of enforcement officials in a
have an effect on the
locality, this may be difficult
type, extent, and manner
to enforce. Shouldn’t be very
of regulation
difficult to implement – but it
may be difficult to enforce
The ability of the
regulation to actually
May be effective in slowing
control/curb the negative
rhetoric on both sides of
externalities of the
issue – would provide time to
phenomena (limit most
study and reach resolution;
egregious examples vs.
alternatively it could increase
prevent home-owners
polarization and still result in
from making reasonable
costly litigation.
home
additions/expansion)
Financial/growth effects could
be significant if moratoria
becomes norm with no Regulation could influence
coordinated regional regional trends and
response; or there may be influence growth patterns /
little or no widespread impact increase sprawl / push
beyond the actual jurisdiction further growth towards
under moratorium (and its exurbs
neighboring jurisdictions)- as
each community is different
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives
ALTERNATIVES VS. STAKEHOLDERS
STAKEHOLDERS
NO ACTION COMMUNITY EDUCATION /
OUTREACH
Increased understanding of
issues and rights;
Minimal costs in terms of time
Taxpayers
to participate in community
forums, etc.
Increased awareness of
community planning process;
understanding of community
(Neighborhood)
plans in development;
Residents
identification of appropriate
contacts for complaints and/or
assistance
Opportunity to share plans,
increase goodwill in community
by making plans transparent;
Developers potential moderate costs in
order to prepare materials,
public relations campaigns;
ability to set community agenda
Increased understanding of
issues on both sides of debate
– potential pitfalls/ benefits of
expansion; opportunity to
improve on properties with
Property Owners fewer limitations and with
support of neighborhood; or
increased opposition once
plans are known or as rights
are better understood.
ALTERNATIVES
STUDY
To determine what the
actual costs would be to
the individual taxpayer
The ability to define “good
design” and the actual
effect of any proposed
decisions or regulations
Reveal what would
increase their costs, time
to meet regulation
changes and assist their
decision to build in that
jurisdiction or not
To demonstrate that their
rights are protected
- 22 -
TAKE ACTION
MORATORIUM
Cost of lawsuits; loss of tax
assessment
dollars due to slowdown,
enforcement costs
loss of jobs
Time to consider/evaluate
neighborhood character, historic
issues; time to assess
degree of concern; may anger
those residents in
favor of a moratorium
Halt of new construction; build
elsewhere; potential to
negatively impact relationships
with developers; potential loss
of profits; may affect local jobs
Delay in renovating house;
infringement on property rights;
delay in ability to sell house;
Property values affected
REGULATE
Regulation could serve to limit increases to
taxpayers who are impacted by
‘mansionized’ homes that raise
neighborhood property taxes / force more
modest homeowners out
Regulation would appease residents who
seek preservation of neighborhood
character and anger residents who value
their personal property rights
Regulation would anger developers who
argue they are merely building homes that
American homeowners want (drastic
increase in home sizes over the past twenty
years)
Regulation could anger property owners
who value their personal property rights /
their ability to enhance their property /
increase rental capacity and rent charged
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives
STAKEHOLDERS
NO ACTION COMMUNITY EDUCATION /
OUTREACH
Minimal cost politically;
opportunity to demonstrate
leadership in communicating
regarding issues; and providing
advocacy for all sides of issue;
Elected Officials
generate community discussion
and goodwill – on both sides;
especially since it will be
viewed as opening discussions
rather than limiting rights
Minimal costs in terms of
increasing staff time devoted to
community forums and
Local
education activities; long term
government staff
issue of how to maintain up-to-
date materials, including print
and other media
Good opportunity to get
messages out on both sides of
issue; may increase level of
Interest Groups
activity for groups narrowly
defining quality of life in
communities
ALTERNATIVES
STUDY
A basis for their decisions
– facts, figures, histories
Could alleviate workload
concerns; allow time to
provide adequate
investigation
To allow for all views and
facts; a chance for all to
participate
- 23 -
TAKE ACTION
MORATORIUM REGULATE
Concerns if action taken close
to an election;
might be a backlash if
considered an extreme
Choosing if to regulate and how will give
measure; may not be viewed as
elected officials an opportunity to impact
appropriate or necessary if
how older communities are preserved and
majority supports
how future economic growth is managed
mansionization; may not be a
legal option for some
jurisdictions
Regulation will provide new challenges for
planning staff to effectively engage the
Workload to enforce moratorium
citizenry and choose the most effective
option; need to deal with discord
tools for curbing negative externalities yet
providing flexibility for future growth
Regulation will likely appease
neighborhood preservation / conservation
Time to mobilize to get opinion
groups who seek to maintain the character
across pro or
of older neighborhoods and at the same
against
time may anger groups that support
property rights
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

STAKEHOLDERS VS. CRITERIA

STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) PROPERTY ELECTED INTEREST
CRITERIA TAXPAYERS
RESIDENTS
DEVELOPERS
OWNERS OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT
GROUPS
EMPLOYEES
• Individuals may feel
concern about • May begin to
• May force • Increased activism
changing faces of rethink plans to
moratorium or to garner support
communities; could build in
other regulatory for positions;
trigger tax revolts if • Many will not want communities with • May be reticent to
action as protections in
individuals can’t their communities high resistance; buy and/or
measures to older communities
develop properties to change; may cause losses improve properties
appease • Might divide the
and/or feel threatened concerns about in revenue due to in certain • Increased contacts
Citizen communities group if some
about ability to remain infrastructure and delays; could locations; may with residents
• Need to appease opposed to or
concern/ in their homes in the services reduce reduce ability of • Affected by
concern/resistance believe they have
resistance face of increased • Bad feelings with development in homeowners to negative
; demonstrate for been excluded
property values neighbors and/or communities improve properties comments
or against; take a from the
• Being singled out if neighborhood • Criticism and bad • Feeling of property
stance discussions
building deemed associations; lack press rights violated; “my
• Will have an • Will influence
‘mansionized’ or if of consensus • Will have an home is my castle”
impact on if/how various arguments
can’t build one; impact on how
elected officials for/against by
everyone has an developers choose
legislate interest groups
equal vote; possibly to make their case
higher taxes

- 24 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) PROPERTY ELECTED INTEREST
CRITERIA TAXPAYERS
RESIDENTS
DEVELOPERS
OWNERS OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT
GROUPS
EMPLOYEES
• Could look to
courts to offer a
solution to issue;
especially in an
election year so
as not to offend
• Community groups either side • Required to
may converge to • May seek legal • Must decide if respond to legal • Increased litigation
mount legal remedies to time is right for challenges, to meet the
• No concerns, unless response to continue building • Will seek legal legislation; researching and interests of their
phenomena increases mansionization to – especially in remedy to maintain citizen property providing constituencies
taxes or impinges on protect their areas where their rights to rights issue; if information as • Must abide by the
Legal needed
rights – litigation may communities plans have been improve properties election year, law even if
Feasibility become only response • Too much previously • Like the laws as they whether or not to • Must enforce the decision unpopular
possible government approved are; versus wanting promote law • Will influence
• Issue on the ballot? involvement • Must adhere to zoning changes legislative • Will have an various arguments
versus why isn’t building/zoning changes; what impact on if/how for/against by
local government legislation laws can be local government interest groups
involved? changed & what will enforce
constituency it
affects
• Will have an
impact on if/how
elected officials
legislate

- 25 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) PROPERTY ELECTED INTEREST
CRITERIA TAXPAYERS
RESIDENTS
DEVELOPERS
OWNERS OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT
GROUPS
EMPLOYEES
• Will capitalize on
• May look for
disconnect
middle ground so
• Will respond to between
as not to offend
whatever policy communities and
either side
• May prompt decisions are elected officials to
• Will become more • Will highlight • A positive or
residents to made; look for heighten debate,
active as taxes individual negative effect;
become more ways to marry especially in
increase or as property rights as • May lobby leaders to criticism if didn’t
active and target community and smaller, less
property assessments issue; look for protect individual act quickly
political leaders political interests affluent
Political in impacted ways to put rights and interests enough; more
unsympathetic to • Not happy with the communities
Feasibility communities increase pressure on • Political interests taxes imposed;
their particular decision and • Did the local
• An issue that should systems to should intervene or positive if more
agendas additional elected official
be taken care of by protect profits should not intervene tax money
• Did my local elect workload support the lobby
local govt., state, or • Allies in future available for
officials support • Will have an stance of the
town? building projects services
my stance? impact on if/how group?
• Will have an
local government • Will influence
impact on if/how
will enforce various arguments
elected officials
for/against by
legislate
interest groups

- 26 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) PROPERTY ELECTED INTEREST
CRITERIA TAXPAYERS
RESIDENTS
DEVELOPERS
OWNERS OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT
GROUPS
EMPLOYEES
• May lose political
support – either
way – depending
• Increased costs
• Changes in on nature and
in terms of fines
character of extent of
and/or lost • Increased
communities, phenomenon
• Increased costs of revenue, as workload in
perhaps reductions and who is
government to consumers are • Reductions in responding to
in quality of life as impacted; must • Will likely gather at
implement regulations not interested in property values if community
larger homes pay close both extremes on
may increase taxes purchasing lots cannot be concerns;
dwarf smaller ones attention to issue, further
• Larger tax base and smaller homes; improved; decreases imperative to
• Increase or perceptions that polarizing sides
revenue; more taxes; loss of profits in in individual rights to remain up-to-date
decrease in phenomenon is • Might deplete
population change certain expand properties; regarding issues;
property values; occurring in less funds working for
(skills, education, communities may cause challenges of
difficult to sell their affluent areas or against;
Costs number) – people • Possible higher individuals to regulations
homes; perhaps potentially members pull out;
have to move out, costs; More relocate from the • May be concerned
not competitive in forcing longer no support; not
some can’t move in; building area with increased
housing market; term residents to seen as feasible
environmental costs; restrictions; • Increase in property workloads without
character changes move • Will influence
cost to study; increase might decide not values proper
of neighborhood; • Political cost; various arguments
in property values and to build in • Will have an impact compensation
less affordable whether it is in for/against by
assessments community on how property • Will have an
housing; line with officials’ interest groups
• Will have an impact on • Will have an owners stand impact on if/how
desirability philosophy;
how taxpayers feel impact on how local government
• Will have an additional costs
developers will enforce
impact on how to constituents
choose to make
residents feel • Will have an
their case
impact on if/how
elected officials
legislate

- 27 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) PROPERTY ELECTED INTEREST
CRITERIA TAXPAYERS
RESIDENTS
DEVELOPERS
OWNERS OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT
GROUPS
EMPLOYEES
• Increased fines
for over
building lots;
• Neighborhood may cause
• Fines and/or
watch for developers to
penalties for
mansionization; consider other,
• Increased costs of overbuilding lots; • Must handle
increased less well-
government; too vigilant complaints by
complaints regulated • Workload issue
increased taxes neighbors constituents
• Possibly more communities • Will have an
Implementation • Cost absorbed by complaining to • Will have an
liens; more • Difficult dealing impact on if/how
/ Enforcement taxpayer zoning officials impact on
“illegal” building; with customers local government
• Will have an impact • Additional costs if/how elected
neighborhood who want what will enforce
on how taxpayers • Will have an officials
watches they want
feel impact on how legislate
• Will have an • Will have an
property owners
impact on how impact on how
stand
residents feel developers
choose to
make their
case
• May cause some
to move out;
neighborhood • Win or lose
• More education
content with • Might not be next election
and workload • To continue to
decision either effective; might • Will have an
• Good thing or bad • Continuation of • Will have an lobby or not,
Effectiveness way; continuation figure out other impact on
thing for community? phenomena impact on if/how depending on
or decrease in ways to build what if/how elected
local government outcome
phenomenon they want officials
will enforce
• Will have an legislate
impact on how
residents feel

- 28 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) PROPERTY ELECTED INTEREST
CRITERIA TAXPAYERS
RESIDENTS
DEVELOPERS
OWNERS OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT
GROUPS
EMPLOYEES
• More desirable
• Comparison • Lessons learned
• Neighboring or less • Want to work
• More desirable with from successful
jurisdictions more desirable place there or don’t;
or less desirable neighboring or unsuccessful
Impact desirable; can’t to do business difficult to fill
place; higher • More or less profit jurisdictions groups
compete; loss of tax • Will have an positions
(regional vs. selling price for house; good • Will have an • Will influence
base; neighboring impact on how • Will have an
local) • Will have an investment impact on various
jurisdictions less developers impact on if/how
impact on how if/how elected arguments
desirable; more choose to local government
residents feel officials for/against by
competitive make their will enforce
legislate interest groups
case

- 29 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

ATTACHMENT 5
Interview List

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON REGION

ALEXANDRIA, CITY OF
Kimberley Fogle
Division Chief
City of Alexandria, Neighborhood Planning & Community Development
703.838.4666, ext. 306
kimberley.fogle@alexandriava.gov

Valerie Peterson
Urban Planner
City of Alexandria, Neighborhood Planning & Community Development
703.838.4666

ARLINGTON COUNTY
Sakura Namioka
Zoning Ordinance Review Coordinator
Arlington County, Community Planning Housing & Development
703.228.3531
snamioka@arlingtonva.us

Justin Clarke, Planning Division

Planning Research & Analysis Team (PRAT)
Arlington County, Community Planning Housing & Development

FAIRFAX, CITY OF
J. Daniel Malouff
Urban Planner
City of Fairfax
703.385.7930
Dmalouff@fairfaxva.gov

FAIRFAX COUNTY
John E. "Jack" Reale, Jr.
Senior Assistant Zoning Administrator
Fairfax County Zoning Administration
703.324.1314
John.Reale@fairfaxcounty.gov

FALLS CHURCH, CITY OF

Elizabeth R. Friel, AICP
General Manager, Development Services/Planning Director
City of Falls Church
703.248.5182
703.248.5225 FAX
efriel@fallschurchva.gov

- 30 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

GAITHERSBURG, CITY OF
Trudy Schwarz
Community Planning Director, Planning and Code Administration Department
City of Gaithersburg
(301) 258-6330
tschwarz@gaithersburgmd.gov

HERNDON, TOWN OF
Henry G. Bibber
Director of Community Development
Town of Herndon, Virginia
703.787.7380
703.787.7325 FAX
Henry.bibber@herndon-va.gov

MANASSAS, CITY OF
Lory Payne
Zoning Administrator
City of Manassas, Virginia
703.257.8200
Lpayne@ci.manassas.va.us

MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Lisa Rother
Manager, Office of Planning Implementation
Offices of the County Executive
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, Maryland 20850

Susan Scala-Demby
Zoning Manager, Department of Permitting Services
Montgomery County Government
255 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(240) 777-6255

PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

Albert Dobbins
Chief, Community Planning Division
Prince George’s County Planning Department
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772
(301) 952-3134

ROCKVILLE, CITY OF
Jim Wasilak
Community Planning and Development
City of Rockville

- 31 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

VIENNA, TOWN OF
Gregory M. Hembree, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning and Zoning Administrator
Town of Vienna, Virginia
703.255-6341
Dpz@ci.vienna.va.us

NATIONAL CASE STUDIES

ATLANTA, GEORGIA
LaVetta C. Williams
Senior Council Assistant, Office of Mary Norwood
Atlanta City Council
Atlanta, Georgia
404.330-6302
lcwilliams@atlanta..gov

MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA

Arlinda Heineck
Department Director, Community Development
City of Menlo Park, California
650.330.6702
aaheineck@menlopark.org

SAN FERNANDO, CALIFORNIA

Antonio Castillo
Assistant Planner
City of San Fernando
San Fernando, CA 91340
818.898-1241
acastillo@sfcity.org

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

Ted Sebastian
Senior Planner, Community Services Group, Planning
604.873-7458
ted.sebastian@vancouver.ca

- 32 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS

METROPOLITAN INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA TECH
Robert E. Lang
Director, Metropolitan Institute of Virginia Tech
Associate Professor, School of Planning and International Affairs
703.706-8101
rlang@vt.edu

MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Raquel D. Montenegro
Associate Director, Legislative Affairs
301.445-5408
rmontenegro@mncbia.org

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
Terry S. Szold, M.R.P.
Adjunct Associate Professor
978.470.3910

- 33 -
Mansionization: Community Impacts & Policy Alternatives

ATTACHMENT 6
Questionnaire

Dear (Name),

I am a participant in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's (MWCOG) Regional Executive

Development Program. Several colleagues and I are studying the incidence and response to mansionization as a
phenomenon in the region. Specifically, we will review the nature and extent of the issue in the region (particularly in
Montgomery, Arlington, and Fairfax Counties) and nationally; identify model approaches to address the issue; and offer
recommendations for local responses.

In support of this effort, we would ask that you please take a few moments to respond to the following questionnaire:

1. Describe your role with regard to community/neighborhood planning and/or development issues.

2. What are your three biggest concerns/ (issues you’re confronted with) related to mansionization in your
community/jurisdiction?

3. What do you see as the pros/cons of mansionization (as an issue, related to your constituency; the
larger community; regionally)?

4. Has your office (or other entities of government/jurisdiction) gathered any information (conducted
studies), resident’s comments (focus groups or surveys) or other materials related to the issue?

5. What guidelines, laws or regulations govern housing additions or community development (have been
enacted) in your community/jurisdiction that would/could impact mansionization?

6. What do you see as the major issue/area where you’d like assistance or to see a regionalized
approach/response?

7. What three components are most important in a community’s response to mansionization?

8. Do you have visual representations of mansionization that you can share with us? (reserve question for
future/follow up contacts)

9. Do you have “other/additional” information that you’d like to share?

Thank you for your attention to this message and for your time in responding to our questionnaire. If you have any
questions regarding this message or would like to discuss our group’s work, please feel free to contact me.

Mansion Team Decision Memo_Final_June 2006

- 34 -
 8B 01/11/07
Minnetonka, MN

Planning Commission Staff Report

Meeting of January 11, 2007

Brief Description: Policy on “McMansions”

Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed
“McMansion” policy.

Introduction

City staff is proposing a policy that would allow the city to restrict the size of new homes
by floor area ratio or to a specific plan. This new policy would only apply to homes
needing variances in existing neighborhoods and would not apply to planned unit
developments or to new subdivisions where all the homes front on their own street. The
term “McMansions” refers to homes being built in established neighborhoods that are
much larger than existing homes and often out of character with the style of existing
homes. Such homes are built on undeveloped or newly-platted lots, and also on existing
lots after tearing down a smaller and less expensive home.

Background

The “McMansion” problem is growing throughout the metro area, including the central
cities. It is a result of fast-rising property values for older homes, where the value of the
home has not kept up with the value of the lot. This trend has historically been most
visible in Minnetonka on smaller lake lots, where older “cabin-style” cottages on
expensive lake lots have been replaced with “McMansions.” However, the trend is now
occurring more frequently in non-lake lot neighborhoods.

The planning commission addressed this issue in February of 2005, as part of their
review of a proposed lot-behind-lot ordinance. The commission requested that staff
consider some kind of floor area ratio limit to ensure that houses-behind-houses would
be compatible with the neighborhood, especially given the location of these homes in
the rear yards of the surrounding neighborhood.

Since then, the McMansion problem has expanded from lots-behind-lots to include lot
splits and tear downs and rebuilds in existing neighborhoods. The council requested a
study session on this issue after reviewing subdivision proposals on Louis Avenue and
Picha Road:

¾ The subdivision on Louis Avenue created two new lots with substandard frontage
that would contain two, $800,000 homes in a neighborhood of mostly $250,000
homes. If the lot division were denied, the applicant intended to build a larger $1+
million “McMansion” on the existing lot. Some councilmembers were concerned that

Used with permission of the City of Minnetonka, MN

Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 2
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

the proposed new homes would be inappropriate because they would be out of
character with most of the existing homes. Other councilmembers thought the new
homes would be an improvement to the neighborhood character and may encourage
needed redevelopment. Council eventually approved the request. The proposed
houses would have two of the larger floor area ratios (FAR) in the neighborhood;
however, council approved the lot split based on the applicant’s drawings of the
proposed homes. Approval was subject to the proposed homes meeting the building
footprints approved at the council meeting and the fact that the property to the north
was a wetland and would not be affected by the larger homes. (See the drawings on
pages A17–A21.)

¾ The Picha Road subdivision created two substandard-sized lots in an area of mixed
lot sizes. The applicant intends to apply for a similar division of the adjacent lot to the
north in the future. Council approved this request with limits on the floor area of the
proposed homes. The proposed floor area ratios would meet the proposed policy in
that they would be less than the largest floor area on the street. The largest floor
area ratio on the street is 34%. The two proposed lots and homes would have floor
area ratios of 22% and 18%. (See the drawings on pages A22–A24.)

On June 12, the council held a study session on this topic, and concluded that the
“McMansion” issue is part of a larger issue—the character of Minnetonka’s
neighborhoods. Rather than consider a new ordinance addressing “McMansions” at this
time, the council thought it would be more appropriate to address the issue during the
upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, when there will be community involvement in
many issues related to neighborhood character, such as when and where
redevelopment is appropriate in existing neighborhoods, “McMansion” trends, tree
preservation, maximum lot coverage, minimum lot area, etc.

Since the Comprehensive Planning process may take several years, council directed
staff to prepare an interim policy that deals with the “McMansion” issue for variance
requests involving building setbacks and lot sizes. The advantage of this approach is
that council can try out certain standards as policy guidelines before considering a more
permanent ordinance change. This is a particularly useful approach because there are
so few, if any, cities that have adopted an ordinance on this issue.

Specific council direction at the study session included:

• Council supports a floor area ratio policy for any home that requires a variance, such
as setbacks, substandard lot sizes, and lots behind lots with inadequate frontage.

• The policy should be applied for tear downs, setback variances and lot splits, rather
than integrated PUD developments.

• Restrictions on building mass should be considered if PUD’s are used to allow

smaller lot sizes and reduced front setbacks.
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 3
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

• Any approval based on a specific design should be related to the general orientation,
setbacks and placement of the house, rather than the house design.

• Council would like legal guidance on defining and interpreting “neighborhood

character.”

On August 7, 2006, the city council held another study session on the “McMansion”
policy. The council referred the draft policy to the planning commission with the
following comments made by individual councilmembers:

• Should the 400-foot area include surrounding streets, rather than just the applicant’s
street?

• Is 400 feet large enough?

• Should the average floor area ratio be used, rather than the largest floor area ratio
within 400 feet.

• Should additions be included, especially if they are added to the back of the homes?

• Should larger side setbacks be required in addition to or in lieu of floor area ratios?

• Apply the above questions to examples.

See the minutes on pages A37–A39.

On December 28, 2006, the planning commission reviewed a proposed “McMansion”

policy. The commission generally supported the proposed policy. (See the minutes on
pages A40–A41.) One commissioner noted that a 400-foot-radius for determining a
neighborhood boundary appeared to take in some lots that may not visually be part of
the neighborhood. After reviewing several cases, staff concurs with this observation and
we have revised the 400-foot-radius to 100 feet. The maps on pages A13, A16, A18 and
A23 have been revised accordingly. Staff also added some language that allows the
city to disallow any existing lots that the city determines are not visually part of the
applicant’s neighborhood.

Proposed interim policy

The following interim policy is based on council direction from the previous two study
sessions. The intent of the policy is to ensure that a new home requiring a variance will
fit into an existing neighborhood by regulating its floor area ratio. The proposed policy
allows exceptions where the proposed house is in an isolated location or where council
approves a specific plan that is compatible with the neighborhood
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 4
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

The proposed policy has been worded to be broad and flexible since it is a policy about
a subject that neither Minnetonka nor other metro cities have had much experience with
yet. As the city works with this policy over the next few years, staff expects that it will be
fine tuned for eventual adoption as a specific ordinance.

The Minnetonka City Council adopts the following interim policy concerning
larger homes needing variances in existing neighborhoods:

This policy applies to homes needing variances in existing neighborhoods and

does not apply to planned unit developments or to new subdivisions, where all of
the lots front on their own street, thereby creating their own neighborhood
character.

The City may require that home additions requiring a variance or new homes on
subdivisions needing a variance be consistent with the character of the existing
homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood character, for the purpose of this
policy, means the following:

The new home or home addition must have a floor area ratio that is no
more than the floor area ratio of the largest home within 100 feet of the
proposed house and within 1,000 feet of the proposed house on the same
street. The city may disallow any existing lots that the city determines are
not visually part of the applicant’s neighborhood. The city may waive or
modify the floor area requirement where:

a. The proposed home would be relatively isolated from the rest of the
neighborhood by slopes, trees, wetlands, undevelopable land, or other
physical features; or

b. The applicant submits a specific house design and site plan and the
city determines that the proposed house or addition would not
adversely impact the neighborhood character because of the specific
setbacks, building orientation, building height, or massing. In this case,
the city will condition approval of the variance on the specific site and
building plan. The architectural design of the home will not be
considered in making this determination.

This last point on allowing an exception based on house design should encourage
builders to design homes with the neighborhood in mind.
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 5
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

Primary Issues

• Should the City adopt a policy that regulates the floor area ratios of homes
requesting lot or setback variances?

Yes. A floor-area-ratio standard for homes or lots needing a variance is

consistent with past planning commission and council direction. As part of the
discussion on the lot-behind-lot ordinance, the planning commission requested a
floor area ratio standard for lots behind lots to address the issue of larger homes
being built on lots-behind-lots and the resulting impact on the privacy of adjacent
homes and the impact on neighborhood character. Subsequent council study
sessions have supported this concept and advocated its use for any house
requesting a variance.

• Should the policy be based on the lot in the neighborhood with the highest
floor area ratio?

Yes. This will ensure that a proposed house requesting a variance does not
exceed the lot with the highest floor area ratio in the neighborhood. The
proposed house could be the largest in the neighborhood, but it would have to
have enough lot area to meet the floor area ratio requirement. An option to using
the highest floor area ratio in the neighborhood, is to use the average floor area.
Staff is recommending using the largest, versus the average, floor area ratio for
two reasons:

1. Using the average floor area ratio may appear unfair, since it would beg the
question of why a new home, even with a variance, must have a smaller floor
area ratio than half of the existing homes in the neighborhood.

2. The average floor area ratio may limit the opportunity for needed
redevelopment in a neighborhood. Using the largest floor area in the
neighborhood would allow house sizes and neighborhood house values to
gradually increase, without adversely impacting neighborhood character.

The drawings on pages A13–A24 show four cases with approved variances that
compare the proposed floor area ratio of the home to the neighborhood
maximum and average floor area ratios.

• Is it reasonable to define the neighborhood as the lots within a 100-foot

radius and within 1,000 feet on the same street?

Yes. Staff had originally proposed using 400 feet on the same street. Several
councilmembers questioned whether this standard was large enough to include
affected homes in the neighborhood. After looking at several examples, staff
thought the neighborhood area defined in the policy should be broadened. With
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 6
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

controversial hearings, it is generally better to be more, rather than less,

inclusive. The proposed standard expands the homes included on the same
street, while adding surrounding homes within 100 feet. This takes in a generous
area, while still limiting the area to lots that could be reasonably affected by a
proposed variance. The drawings on pages A13–A24 show the proposed
neighborhood area for the same four cases referenced above.

Recommendation

Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed “McMansion” policy.

Submitted through:
Ron Rankin, Community Development Director
Julie Wischnack, AICP, City Planner

Originated by:
Geoff Olson, Consultant

G:\WORD\PC Staff Reports & PDF Agenda Packets 2006\PC Staff Reports\06033 McMansion Policy-3.06a.doc
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 7
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

Examples of proposed policy application

The following are examples of how the proposed policy and policy options would affect
actual cases.

“McMansion” tool box

At previous study sessions, the city council considered the options below for dealing
with the “McMansion” issue. The pros and cons of each option in the tool box are
discussed as background information for the proposed policy.

Floor Area Ratios

Floor area ratio (FAR) is the most direct tool for dealing with the “McMansion”
issue, since it regulates house mass based on lot size. FAR’s are defined in the
zoning code as “the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot
area. The floodplain and/or wetland area within a lot shall be excluded unless it
can be demonstrated that there will be minimal hydrologic, aesthetic and
ecological impacts to the floodplain and/or wetland as determined by the city.”

Establishing a FAR for a house would limit the maximum size of a house based
on the lot area—the larger the lot area, the larger the house. As an example, the
maximum size of a house on a 22,000-square-foot lot with a FAR of 0.25 would
be 5,500 square feet (.25 x 22,000).

Current use of FAR. Minnetonka has a maximum FAR requirement for all
zoning districts, except R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. The current requirements are
as follows:

R-4, medium density residential: 0.5

R-5, high density residential: 1.0
B-1, office: 1.0
B-2, limited business: 0.8
B-3, general business: 1.5
I-1: industrial: 1.0

PUD:
Low or medium density residential: 0.5
High density residential: 1.0
Office: 1.0
Neighborhood or community commercial: 0.8
Regional commercial: 1.5
Industrial: 1.0
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 8
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

I-394:
Mid-density residential: 0.50
High-density residential: .75
Office: .75
Service commercial: 0.60
Retail commercial: .30

Practices in other cities. Staff surveyed several suburban cities in the Twin
Cities area to determine FAR practices. None of the cities had a FAR
requirement for single-family homes, although, FAR’s are common for multi-
family, commercial and industrial uses.

Bloomington is studying this issue and considering larger side yard setbacks as
house sizes increase, adjusting minimum required lot widths to the prevailing
neighborhood widths, and a FAR requirement. “McMansions” are a big issue in
Edina. They have organized a “massing task force” to study this issue, but have
not yet adopted any specific changes.

Staff also researched several national cities and found several that use FAR
requirements for single-family homes. Cities that have a FAR requirement for
single-family homes usually exclude detached buildings, such as sheds and
detached garages. Staff concurs with this approach. However, cities vary on
including attached garages. Staff believes that such garages should be included,
since they add to the building mass. This has been especially true in recent years
as garage sizes and the number of stalls has steadily increased.

Graduated FAR. Some cities use a graduated FAR requirement—the maximum

allowed FAR increases inversely with lot size. In other words, the house size may
increase as the lot size decreases. Given the wide variety of lot sizes, this
approach would make sense in Minnetonka. This is especially noticeable with
lake lots, where the FAR is relatively high compared to other lots in the city. The
lots are quite small, but their values are high, resulting in very large homes on
very small lots. The proposed policy addresses this problem by basing FAR’s on
the largest home in the neighborhood.

Advantages of FAR include:

• Floor area ratios are the most direct tool for restricting building mass,
based on lot area.

• FAR’s are an objective standard that avoids inconsistent, subjective

decisions on neighborhood character or building design with each
application.
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 9
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

Disadvantages of FAR include:

• With the variety of lot sizes and neighborhoods in the City, it may be
difficult to find one FAR that works city-wide.

• Council would have more difficulty denying a specific proposal that met
the allowed FAR.

A policy based on limiting the FAR to that of the largest home in the
neighborhood would avoid these disadvantages.

Lot-related regulatory tools

Various other tools exist to regulate “McMansions.” Lot restrictions could be used
either alone or in combination with FAR limits. For example:

¾ Side yard setbacks could be increased with house size.

Advantage: would create more space between homes.

Disadvantage: may result in taller homes with the same floor area.

¾ Lot coverage could be limited by establishing a maximum.

Advantage: would ensure a minimum amount of open space on the lot.

Disadvantages: may result in taller homes with the same floor area. In
addition, the open space may be in the back of the lot, which might not
mitigate the visual impact of a “McMansion.”

¾ Lot widths could be increased with house size.

Advantage: would provide more lot width for larger homes.

Disadvantage: expanded lot widths would allow for larger homes, which
would not mitigate the “McMansion” effect.
Meeting of January 11, 2007 Page 10
Subject: “McMansion” Minnetonka, MN

Design-related tools

Since building design can have a significant impact on the “McMansion” effect, tools
that regulate design can also be used. The proposed policy uses this tool by
allowing an exemption from the FAR requirement if a specific house plan is
approved with the variance.

¾ Condition approval on a specific house plan. Under this option, applicants

would have to submit a specific house plan and design with their subdivision
application. Approval of the subdivision variance would be conditioned on
building the house as shown in the application. City Code already requires that
setback variances be based on a specific plan; however, the city has not required
this for lot variances.

Advantage: the council and neighbors would know the specific house plan
before the subdivision is approved, so that the council could determine ahead
of time whether they think that the house would fit in the neighborhood.

Disadvantages: judging a proper design “fit” within the neighborhood would

be subjective and may be difficult in a neighborhood with a variety of housing
styles and sizes. In addition, many subdivision applicants do not have specific
house plans. Often, property owners are subdividing to sell the lot to a future
builder.

¾ Establish design standards, including maximum house sizes. This is often

done by developers establishing home owner association restrictions. Standards
would have to be recorded against the property with a restrictive covenant.
Common standards include restrictions on house size, building height,
architectural style, and even the color of paint.

Advantage: the council could apply specific design restrictions to the new
house to ensure it fits with the neighborhood character.

Disadvantages: covenants work best on new developments where

consistency and uniformity are desired, and the city has not traditionally
regulated the design of single-family homes. Considering the variety of
neighborhoods and variety of homes within neighborhoods, it may be difficult
to decide what specific design restrictions constitute the character of an
existing neighborhood. Setting different standards for each case may be
perceived as arbitrary.
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Mansionization

White Paper Discussion

City of Rockville, Maryland

July 25, 2005

Courtesy of Jim Wasilak, AICP, City of Rockville.

 Table of Contents

I. Introduction 1

II. General Issues 2

A. Potential Concerns Related to Mansionization 3

B. Potential Benefits of Mansionization 3

III. Alternatives 4

A. Mass Regulations 5
B. Architectural Requirements 8

IV. Implementation Techniques 9

A. Additional Review 9
B. Overlay Districts 9
C. New Definitions and Permitting Requirements 10

V. Current Standards 11

VI. Recommendations 11

VII. Conclusion 13

VIII. Attachments 14
 City of Rockville
Mansionization
Zoning Ordinance Revision
Issue Paper

I. INTRODUCTION

“Mansionization” is the process where existing single-family, detached homes are demolished or
enlarged to create houses that are several times larger than the originals. Mansionization also
occurs on infill lots where new houses do not
conform to the character of the neighborhood. It is
caused by a desire for modern amenities, such as
large kitchens, cathedral ceilings, walk-in closets,
and multiple bathrooms, that may not exist in older
homes. This trend is a growing concern across the
U.S. and has already had a great impact in built-out
neighborhoods in Bethesda and Chevy Chase where
vacant property is unavailable. Rockville is
reaching built-out status and requests for
demolitions to rebuild have become a regular
occurrence.

There are a number of competing arguments on either Incompatible Reconstruction

side of this issue. Property owners state that they
have the right to use or develop property as long as they are in compliance with the legal
development standards. Adjacent property owners however, may lament the loss of
neighborhood character and the reduction in sunlight and air movement. In addition, there can be
a reduction of privacy when a 40-foot structure towers over a one-story house and yard.

On the proponent side, building new homes where there is existing infrastructure gives residents
an alternative to building further out and away from businesses. This helps reduce other urban
problems, specifically sprawl and increased traffic.

Mansionization is not an issue with new development in Rockville. Most new developments
have strict covenants and require architectural review approval for changes to existing houses.
Large houses at minimum setbacks in places like the King Farm or Fallsgrove remain in the
same context as they existed when buyers purchased their home. If homeowners do not care for
the home’s development style, they will buy elsewhere.
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 2 of 14

Mansionization, however, is a growing occurrence in some neighborhoods and will likely

intensify as the current trend for larger housing progresses. Demolition and redevelopment with
much larger houses is already a common occurrence in West End Park from Forest Avenue to I-
270 on the north side of West Montgomery Avenue1.

Mansionization is primarily an issue where lots are not large enough to accommodate these large
houses in an esthetically acceptable manner. It is also a potential issue in areas where the land
values justify the expense of renovation or even demolition and reconstruction. This means that
neighborhoods in the R-60, R-75 and R-90 zones are the ones most likely to be affected by this
redevelopment process. There are no hard and fast criteria that can readily predict where
mansionization may occur. However, some of the relevant factors include a high ratio of land
value to improvement value; perceived desirability of the neighborhood; convenience to mass
transit; convenience of the neighborhood to jobs or the central urban core. Within the City,
neighborhoods other than the West End that may be susceptible to mansionization include
Twinbrook, Twinbrook Forest, Croyden Park, and Lincoln Park.

Demolitions for redevelopment of new housing have been most active in the West End Park area
of Rockville. This area has attracted small infill developers as the cost of a 9,000 square foot R-
60 zoned lot and a house in this neighborhood ranges from $300,000 to $450,000, although it
continues to climb with the housing market. In 2003, a house built in 1935 on Mannakee was
sold for $350,000 with redevelopment the ultimate intention. This was the record price for a
teardown in 2003. The ceiling cost for a teardown structure that allows a reasonable profit has
increased to $400,000 in 2005. The average price is closer to $360,000. This is fueled by the
number of new or recent resale houses in West End Park that are marketed in excess of one
million dollars.

Another category of redevelopment is the home buyer who purchases a small house in West End
Park or East Rockville to demolish the existing house and build a new house for their own use.

II. GENERAL ISSUES

The mansionization issue relates to in-fill development. As stated above, the controversy is not
about large houses in general. The controversy is about large houses intruding upon
neighborhoods of smaller houses. Residents of any neighborhood move in expecting a degree of
stability. Many buy their house not only because of the house itself, but also because of their
expectation of living in a stable community. The sudden intrusion of a house out of character
with the neighborhood is destabilizing in their minds, particularly if it is next-door.

The following is background information to balance the various elements and arguments that are
typically used when confronting larger infill structures in lower scale, existing neighborhoods.

1 Statistics are difficult to assemble. The City’s permitting software did not capture demolition as a separate
category until 2001. Prior to this, demolition was permitted as part of a building permit. Of 55 applications for
demolitions from January of 2001 to January of 2005, 55 applications for demolition had been received. Prior to
2001, demolition was issued as part of a building permit.
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 3 of 14

A. Potential Concerns Related to Mansionization

1. Property values: Neighbors are often concerned that new homes will hinder their own
housing value and change the character of the neighborhood. Higher property values in a
neighborhood may change the demographics of an area and may make a once affordable,
middle class community into a high priced area that few can afford. This alteration
makes current residents feel like they do not belong in what was once their neighborhood.
In addition, other neighbors claim that their property value will go down because their
house is now valued less than the new/expanded houses.

Some neighbors object to new or expanded houses because they believe that their own
taxes will rise as a result of the increased value of the nearby properties. Their concern
may be warranted. Some jurisdictions welcome such redevelopment. The increase in
property values adds to the tax base, helping to fund public infrastructure and schools.

2. Infrastructure: Infill may also burden the existing community’s infrastructure.

Utilities, such as water, sewer, stormwater controls, and electricity may have been
designed to handle smaller houses and may not be able to accommodate large infill
houses that would exhaust these resources.

3. Environment: The size of houses potentially can degrade the environment by increasing
storm water runoff, removing existing trees, increasing lot coverage, and requiring more
paving (of driveways, patios, etc.).

4. Compatibility: Large houses can be out of proportion and balance with the existing
houses in the neighborhood. These new houses may be termed an “eyesore” because
they do not match the architectural style of the neighborhood. The new houses often
“loom” over neighboring smaller houses, especially at the minimum setback, restricting
air and light and reducing privacy. The prevailing conditions were part of the original lot
value and infringing on these rights threatens the overall property value and the property
owner’s rights. In addition to the inconvenience that the large house places on its
immediate neighbors, it also weakens the character and texture of the neighborhood as a
whole.

5. Cost: In today’s market, the cost of additions or remodeling can be twice the cost of new
construction. As a result, many homeowners choose to demolish instead. Demolition is
less likely to retain the original character of a house than reconstruction.

B. Potential Benefits of Mansionization

1. Property Values: Neighborhoods that don’t improve are liable to stagnate and
eventually degenerate. Viable communities are necessary to the cultural and economic
well being of a city. It is to the City’s ultimate benefit, as well as the neighborhood, to
encourage improvement or redevelopment and maintenance of homes to maintain
property values.
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 4 of 14

2. Infrastructure: Redevelopment in established neighborhoods may have some effect on

sprawl. Instead of seeking out new developments located farther from the city, property
owners will replace older homes with their own desired housing styles. Schools and
other infrastructure already exists that can accommodate or be made to accommodate the
home.

3. More compact development means more compact infrastructure. Infill helps reduce cost
of new infrastructure because extensions to services do not need to be laid to support
rural development. For example, long pipes and drains are not needed to service
properties on larger and more spread out yards.

4. Although the redevelopment near the metro station and along Rockville Pike is providing
new sources of housing, some property owners prefer single-family homes with yards.
Likewise, many want to move into already settled communities that have close proximity
to services such as transportation and commercial centers.

5. Environmental: Another argument to support mansionization is that it does not affect

the potential amount of run-off on a property. Under current standards, a homeowner
could cut down all his trees and pave virtually the entire yard. Current coverage
limitations in the zoning ordinance are based on the building coverage, not total
imperviousness. Driveways, patios, decks, etc. do not count toward the total percentage
of lot coverage allowed, nor does Rockville limit the amount of a lot that can be covered
with a patio or other material. Where there is open space, the Rockville City Code (§ 5-
287, Property Maintenance Code) requires ground cover such as grass or mulch.

6. Compatibility: New development can include aesthetic touches, which may be lacking
in existing structures. Zoning currently does not regulate aesthetics or require that the
aesthetics of new development correspond to the character of the neighborhood. Instead,
character elements and design are currently considered in changes to a site in designated
historic district, as it would be in a designated neighborhood conservation overlay district
that has adopted guidelines.

7. Normal Progression: Houses are lost due to natural causes as well. Hurricanes, fires,
falling trees, and termite infestation make unanticipated changes to the structure of a
house. Homeowners may wish to protect against natural deterioration by reconstruction
or demolition, while remaining in their neighborhood. Permitting mansionization,
therefore, would provide homeowners with options to maintain their property within their
current neighborhood. Furthermore, it allows home owners to maximize the investment
that they have made on their home.

III. ALTERNATIVES

Methods have been used nationwide to control new development in existing neighborhoods and
accomplish the goal of compatibility without stifling the opportunity for improvement and
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 5 of 14

expansion. No single answer has yet been found to adequately address all the concerns of
mansionization. Monster homes are criticized not only for their sheer size, but also for the way
in which size is further emphasized by the design of the house.

Other jurisdictions’ solutions can be classified in two groups: 1) mass regulations and 2)
architectural requirements. The following are some solutions that have been developed by other
communities to address mansionization. They are listed in order from least aggressive to most
aggressive. Some of these options appear to be more applicable to Rockville than others.

A. Mass Regulations

Mass regulations control the scale of the home to its context. When a monster home is
constructed in a neighborhood of small lots, the impact of mass is maximized. These
regulations help to limit the impact of large structures.

1. Building Envelope Regulations. A traditional means of controlling home size is by

specifying lot coverage limits (setbacks and percentage of usable space). Decreasing the
allowed lot coverage and increasing building setbacks achieve a smaller envelope.

The basic matter that needs to be addressed is the relationship between the large house
and its immediate neighbors, particularly along the side lot line. A sliding scale is needed
to adequately accommodate the new house on different sized lots. A 5,000 square foot
house on a half-acre lot with at least a 13-foot setback is not as intrusive as the same
house on a 6,000 square foot lot with an 8-foot setback. It should also be understood that
while a large lot can usually support a large house without infringing on its neighbors, it
should not be developed with the intent to redevelop the lot for two houses in that same
space where subdivision is a possibility.

Smaller bulk is achieved, overall, by decreasing the height or number of stories

allowable. Some cities have reduced standard height restrictions to produce a shallower
roof pitch, but still making a second-story addition possible. Regulations on height can
be placed on a number of things. Besides total building height, height restrictions can be
placed on attic floor levels, basements, and detached garages.

The percent of all building footprints or building coverage, allowed on a lot in Rockville
ranges from 25% to 35% of the lot square footage. For Rockville’s smallest permitted
new lots, 6,000 square feet, this allows 2,100 square feet for each story. Rockville allows
a height of 35 feet, measured to the midpoint of a gable roof. The midpoint of a very
steep roof can be 8-10 feet, which allows another 8-10 feet above it or close to 45 total
feet in height. By these standards, a new home on a 6,000 square foot lot with an attic and
basement can legally be built in excess of 8,000 square feet and be very tall with an FAR
of 1.3. Currently, new single-family home subdivisions have been built via the Planned
Residential Unit method, and other than the two country clubs there are no large
undeveloped parcels remaining. An overall change to the zoning standards in height,
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 6 of 14

setback and lot coverage would primarily affect new houses and large additions in older
established subdivisions.

2. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR regulations are one of the most common techniques for
controlling oversized homes. Floor area ratio is a ratio of the gross square footage of the
building or buildings on the lot divided by the square footage of the lot. FAR’s allow
planning departments to control the overall square footage of a home, including second-
plus stories, as well as accessory structures such as garages and covered porches. Many
communities implement a sliding scale for FAR’s to meet the individual needs of the
individual zoning districts, instead of one set FAR for the entire city.

Rockville has used FAR values for commercial buildings in urban commercial areas
where front, side and rear setbacks are not the primary consideration. A simple lot
percentage for the footprint of all buildings combined with the allowed height and
setbacks has been used in Rockville to define the building envelope, not FAR.

FAR limits alone will not solve the problem. While FAR controls the bulk, it does not
limit the amount a large house may impede on a neighbor. Regulations controlling height
and setbacks must also be included in order to be effective.

Adopting an FAR standard is not the best method for Rockville. Areas of Rockville most
vulnerable to mansionization are generally urban R-60 to R-90 lots ranging from 5,000 to
10,000 square feet with lot widths of 50 feet to 70 feet. With narrow lot widths, a tall
building could easily be built within FAR standards and still cause problems to adjacent
neighbors.

3. Cubic Content Ration (CCR). Cubic content ratios are similar to the floor area ratio. A
CCR value, as used in Aspen, Colorado, considers the height of the building as well as
the gross square footage of the building and the lots.

Like FAR, CCR is not a practical option for Rockville. Because there is no one-size-fits-
all standard that can be applied to effectively address the concerns of mansionization, a
better option would be to apply design guidelines on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood
basis.

4. Second Story Regulations. Since mansionization often includes the addition of a second
story, many mass regulations have begun to regulate the size and setbacks of second
stories. This type of regulation leads to a stepped appearance, which limits the overall
bulkiness of a larger house.

Second story ratios are placed in relation to the size of the first floor. Like FAR
regulations, these ratios are often provided on a sliding scale for the various lot sizes (as
seen in two examples below). The following chart is an example of some second story
ratios.
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 7 of 14

Percentage Allowable Ratio Comparison

35% or 600 sq. ft. Of the first floor
(whichever is greater)
50% Of the first floor for lots under 5,000 sq. ft.
75% Of the first floor for lots over 5,000 sq. ft.
60% Of the first floor

In addition to, or as an alterative to ratios, some communities have imposed a second-

story setback requirement to make the house appear less bulky. These could be placed on
front or side setbacks. For example, where there is a five-foot side setback for the first
story, a 10-foot side setback would be placed on the
second story. Both setbacks are measured from the
property line.

The drawback of a second-story setback or ratio is

that a one-story home that is reconstructed may not be
built to bear the load of a second story that is not
flush with existing walls. A second-story addition
can, therefore, be more architecturally challenging
and more expensive than a simple second story on a
Second Story Setback
new house. Nevertheless, second story ratios and
setbacks have been shown to effectively minimize bulk by breaking up the façade of a
home.

5. Daylight Plane Regulation. A complicated regulation is a daylight plane requirement.

Drawing a vertical line from the side property line to a specified height on a house
derives a daylight plane. An angle is then drawn off this line, which continues until it
meets the angle drawn from the opposite side of the house (see illustration below). The
more restrictive the height/angle used, the more effective the daylight plane is at reducing
mass. The daylight plane creates an imaginary envelope around the sides and top of a
house that limits its height and width. Any part of the house, which protrudes out of this
envelope, is considered to be an obstruction that can reduce the solar access of the
adjacent house.

With regulating daylight planes, it is important to include both exemptions and

demonstrative illustrations. Exemptions may include dormer windows, gables, fireplaces,
and antennas. Illustrations may include something like the following:
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 8 of 14

Daylight planes confusing alternative, that staff does not recommend implementing. In
practice, the daylight plane serves much the same purpose as a second story ratio or
setback because it forces the second-story to be stair-stepped in. Daylight plane
regulations, however, are more complicated to implement. The plane must be calculated
and permitted exemptions reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The plane is particularly
challenging to calculate on slopes, where it must be done in increments. The daylight
plan must be closely keyed to the side setbacks of a home, as the point of which the angle
intersects the home is greatly influenced by the distance of the home from the side
property line. The further the home is from the property line, the taller the addition may
be. Thus, the daylight plane is most restrictive in homes with small side setbacks.

B. Architectural Requirements

While architectural requirements protect neighborhood character, they can also help prevent
look-alike areas. The key to such requirements is to strike
the right chord. The language cannot be too restrictive,
allowing for the imagination of architects, but not
unconstitutionally vague either.

1. Rooflines. Major rooflines on a property can

accentuate the mass of a building or lead to a
monotonous street if constructed the same way on a
number of houses along a block. As a result, Pitched Roof Options
architectural requirements can impose a change in roof
plane, a mix of roof styles or materials, and a number of decorative options.

2. Entries. Some cities require clearly defined, prominent primary entrances that feature
some form of design element. Design elements may include decorative doors; porticos,
arches, or pillars; or peaked roof forms.

3. Façade. Mass can be accentuated when a home lacks definition in its façade, making it
look square and bulky. Unbroken multi-story elements, such as towers, entryways, and
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 9 of 14

walls can also accentuate mass. Some communities require that façades be broken up,
that a mix of building materials be used, or that decorative windows or doors be installed
to reduce the impression of mass.

4. Windows. Some cities ban windows on the side walls of home to protect the privacy of
neighbors. Banning windows is unnecessarily restrictive, however, as there are many
window styles and glass types currently available. Opaque glass, including frosted and
tinted glass, patterned glass, and glass blocks can afford both light and privacy.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES

In addition to applying mass regulations and architectural guidelines, some cities have initiated
additional review requirements or overlay zoning requirements to protect against mansionization
problems.

A. Additional Review. To ensure adequate application of bulk requirements, some jurisdictions

have initiated additional review and regulation requirements for additions of second stories or
any expansions greater than a set percentage of the existing building area. Some communities
even require a notification and comment period for adjacent property owners when two-story
construction is proposed.

For example, in Menlo Park, California, a two-tier system of review was established. If
construction meets the requirements for lot area, floor area limits, lot coverage, setback, daylight
planes, permeable surface, and other basic elements, an applicant can merely file for a building
permit. If, however, the owners of adjacent properties approve, more permissive standards could
be applied (up to a set limit) including setback encroachments, and more daylight plane
flexibility upon review by staff. Failure to gain neighbors’ approval requires approval of
necessary permits by the Planning Commission.

B. Overlay Districts:

1. One solution is to implement historic districts, where eligible and appropriate. Historic
districts aim to protect a community’s historic significance in terms of the contribution to
the national, state or local pattern of history. Design guidelines which restrict
mansionization are implemented and enforced to ensure protection of these resources.
Alterations to the house are reviewed by a historic district commission, which determines
if they are appropriate to the community based on established criteria.

Of the properties identified for potential mansionization expansion in Rockville, only a

small number are currently designated in an historic district. While current exterior
alterations guides for Rockville’s Historic Resources regulate exterior materials, roofing,
windows and doors, and color selection, these may or may not be the types of regulations
to apply throughout the city. Under the guidelines, new additions must respect the
building’s character and protect the neighborhood’s feel. New additions are encouraged
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 10 of 14

in back and not up. While these are potential guidelines that Mayor and Council may
wish to pursue, if historic district overlay is chosen, these guidelines will be further
reviewed for their impact on mansionization.

2. Conservation overlay districts are another technique that imposes zoning and
development standards that reflect the existing conditions. This works well in an
architecturally cohesive community with the same basic character, height of buildings,
and style. It does require research and documentation of existing conditions to back up
the new development standards.

Annapolis has imposed conservation districts with its Eastport District, which sets a
height standard for each block based on the existing residential height. Cities in Kentucky
have used neighborhood conservation districts in both urban and suburban communities.
In both cases, the adopted guidelines deal with lot size, configuration and lot layout as
well as setbacks, height, lot coverage and architectural design. (Some examples are:
prohibiting front-loading projecting garages in areas where detached rear garages
predominate; and prohibiting cul de sac subdivision where square lots fronting the street
are normal.)

These districts may be implemented either by guidelines or adopted as regulations, thus

having the force of law. Newport Virginia has an intense educational program that
persuades new builders to construct compatible new homes and additions via a design
handbook. This tends to work best, however, if the area is largely owner-occupied and
not the target of individual infill developers.

Applicability:

Many subdivisions were created as approved Planned Residential Unit Developments or

Comprehensive Planned Development that have established guidelines and review
procedures for additions and new constructions. Other subdivisions have Homeowners
Association Review for exterior modifications and new construction. These areas do not
need an additional overly district and review process. Examples are: Some portions of
Rockshire, Fallsmead, New Mark Commons, Carter Hill, Fallsbend, Flint Ledge Estates,
Rose Hill Falls, Rose Hill, King Farm and Fallsgrove.

Mansionization controls may be appropriate for older areas still covered by the traditional
Euclidian zoning. This would include West End Park, East Rockville areas including
Lincoln Park, College Gardens and Twinbrook. Community support is essential.
Conservation districts do not succeed unless the community actively supports the
program. Some incentives, such as workshops on design and the process may help. For
many neighborhoods, stability and clear future direction are incentive enough.

C. New Definitions and Permitting Requirements– An additional alternative to minimize the

impact of mansionization is to redefine “demolition” and “substantial alteration” to
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 11 of 14

encourage less destruction to the original dwelling and promote appropriate additions as an
alternative to complete demolition.

Under current Rockville standards, reconstruction requires only a building permit. If there
are encroachments or the building is too high, Planning Staff will delay issuance of a permit
until the problem is resolved. Additionally, the current definition of reconstruction is vague,
leaving no set standard to apply throughout the city.

With regard to nonconforming uses, there is a more defined guideline for reconstruction.
The Zoning Ordinance has a provision that if more than 50% of a nonconforming structure is
destroyed or damaged, then any nonconformity must be corrected. There is no specific
section in the Zoning Ordinance that address reconstruction. Section 25-164 addresses the
fact that the only structural alteration that may be made to a structural nonconformity is their
removal. Section 25-165 provides for its removal if more than 50% is damaged or destroyed.

V. CURRENT STANDARDS

The tables of development standards that are currently applied to construction or reconstruction
from § 25-311 of the Zoning Ordinance are attached at the end of this document for reference.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. The first policy under the Housing section of the Master Plan is to encourage the
maintenance and upgrade of existing housing stock. It is, therefore, not the goal of the city to
restrict maintenance, but certain steps are needed to protect against the negative implications of
mansionization. There is no one-size-fits all answer the mansionization issue. After evaluating
the pros and cons of mansionization, the staff makes the following recommendations for the
Mayor and Council’s consideration.

1. Limit any mansionization regulation to the 3 smallest-lot zones—R-60, R-75, R-90.

Beyond these, the lot sizes and related setbacks are large enough that the
perceived impact is substantially reduced.

2. Modify and add definitions for demolition and substantial alteration. Current definitions
are too lenient and thus must be adapted for today’s values. Substantial alteration should
include the tear down of more than 50% of the original walls. Demolition should include
teardown of the roof, foundation, and two or more of the original exterior walls.
Additionally, leveling the house to the foundation (keeping the foundation intact) should
also be considered demolition.

3. Establish policies and procedures for the establishment of neighborhood conservation

districts. Such a process is currently being considered for the Lincoln Park area as a part
of the neighborhood planning efforts currently under way. Such districts should include
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 12 of 14

design guidelines to provide flexibility in design and siting. This will give property
owners more leeway with their designs and alterations, which in turn creates a more
interesting streetscape and avoids monotonous “cookie-cutter” homes. The City might
offer examples and suggestions for compatible style elements and alterations. This will
also speed up the process if the guidelines can suggest alternatives that do not require
extensive review.

Suggested guidelines include the following:

a) Adequate flexibility to accommodate topographical features;

b) Adequate setbacks to maintain all four facades of the dwelling;
c) Setbacks to compensate for shadow casting;
d) Area limitations for accessory uses, such as garages, sheds, and pools; and
e) Roof and entry alternatives.

Example of Design Guidelines

The neighborhood conservation districts should be initiated by the neighborhoods

themselves, rather than be dictated by the City. The process should likely be similar to
the current process for designating historic district zones in the City.

4. As a potential adjunct to the conservation district concept, consider requiring additional

side yard setback for height above a certain level. Our initial recommendation would be
two foot of additional side yard setback for each foot of height above 25 feet. Twenty-
five feet is high enough to accommodate a typical two-story house. The recommended
two-to-one ratio would mean that a 35 foot high building would have to be set back an
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 13 of 14

additional 20 feet beyond the minimum side yard setback on each side. On a minimum-
width 60-foot R-60 lot, the maximum height house could be only 20 feet wide, certainly
an undesirable design.

5. As part of the comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance, revise bulk standards in
zoning code for smaller residential districts, especially height requirements and the
measurement of height.

B. Although not directly a part of this issue, the Mayor and Council may wish to consider make
existing historic houses non-conforming that may not meet today’s zoning standards. These
houses are also considered structural nonconformities, and cannot be replaced in kind if
substantially damaged. Since these structures help define the character of the historic district,
they should be allowed to be replaced in kind.

VII. CONCLUSION

There are two sides to consider with regard to mansionization, potential costs and benefits.
Regardless of whether mansionization is deemed a threat or a natural cycle for communities, it is
a matter deserving attention. If ignored, larger in-fill homes could suffocate a community
quickly and erase the elements that make that area unique. Communities must work with their
residents, government, and outside developers to determine the best approach in ensuring that
they do not lose the character of their neighborhood.

In-fill housing may help discourage sprawl; however, it will not eliminate the problems of sprawl
altogether. It is possible to control the scale of the in-fill housing, while at the same time
discouraging sprawl. It is possible to dissuade people from building structures that take up more
space, and encourage more luxurious models that repeat the scale of the buildings around them.
The customized guidelines made for each neighborhood can assist with this negotiation.
Likewise, the staff does not want the community to lose the opportunity for improvement.
Improvements can be made to the homes and lots without competing with the existing character
of the neighborhood. It is the responsibility of the city to make those alternatives apparent and to
educate the public on appropriate design standards.

Aesthetics can be regulated when the appearance contributes to the district’s character. The staff
suggests designating conservation districts in order to preserve the unique architectural and
historic characteristics of certain neighborhoods. The goal of these districts is to recognize when
a community shares certain elements, whether they are architectural or historical, and offer them
protection to save these elements.

The ultimate goal is to respect the current property owners’ community while still allowing for
appropriate growth and change. Rockville does not seek to eliminate property rights or stifle the
community’s wishes to grow and improve. The problem is a matter of scale and awareness of
design elements. A delicate balance must be made to support the desired house size without
infringing on the rights of its neighbor. The owners should also seek to build a home that blends
Mansionization Issue Paper
July 20, 2005
Page 14 of 14

well with the rest of the architecture on the street. Guidelines will help developers and private
property owners with their decisions to rebuild or remodel. Awareness and education is the best
tool.

ATTACHMENTS:

Pictorial Appendix
Table of Residential Development Standards
Map: Recent Demolition Permits
Map: R-60 Properties by Value and Size

Background Information

Nasser, Haya El. “Mega-mansions’ upside: They help reduce suburban sprawl.” USA Today.
March 13, 2002.

Barnes, Linna et al. “A Pictorial Study of Problems with ‘Story’ and ‘Height of Building’ in the
Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance.” April 20, 2004.

“Additions and New Construction.” Raleigh Historic District Commission.

Ramshaw, Emily. “The McMansion Next Door.” The Dallas Morning News. May 1, 2005.

Samuelson, Robert J. “Homes as Hummers.” The Washington Post, July 13, 2005

Miller, Julia H. “Neighborhood Conservation Districts.” The Alliance Review. November/

December 2003.
S:\Zoning Ordinance Revision\Issue Papers\residential.doc
Regulations and Ordinances
 Attachment A

SUBCHAPTER F: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND

COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS

Austin, Texas

APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL

ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

BASED ON THE JUNE 22, 2006

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AND
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS

This document was revised in June 2008. Please see following document for revisions.
Used with permission of City of Austin Watershed Protection and Development Review Department.
 SUBCHAPTER F: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS

CONTENTS

ARTICLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS........................................................................................... 1

1.1. Intent..............................................................................................................................1
1.2. Applicability ..................................................................................................................1
1.3. Exceptions......................................................................................................................3
1.4. Conflicting Provisions ....................................................................................................3
ARTICLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.................................................................................. 5
2.1. Maximum Development Permitted ................................................................................5
2.2. Building Height ..............................................................................................................5
2.3. Front Yard Setback .........................................................................................................5
2.4. Rear Yard Setback..........................................................................................................6
2.5. Side Yard Setbacks.........................................................................................................6
2.6. Setback Planes ...............................................................................................................7
2.7. Side Wall Articulation ..................................................................................................18
2.8. Modifications by the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission....................20
2.8.1. Modifications that May be Approved............................................................................ 20
2.8.2. Modification Procedures ................................................................................................... 20
2.9. Modifications Within Neighborhood Plan (NP) Combining Districts ............................21
ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT ...................................................................... 22
3.1. Buildable Area .............................................................................................................22
3.2. Building Line ................................................................................................................22
3.3. Gross Floor Area..........................................................................................................22
3.4. Height ..........................................................................................................................23
3.5. Natural Grade ..............................................................................................................24

City of Austin i
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
ARTICLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1. INTENT
This Subchapter is intended to minimize the impact of new construction, remodeling, and
additions to existing buildings on surrounding properties in residential neighborhoods by
defining an acceptable buildable area for each lot within which new development may
occur. The standards are designed to protect the character of Austin’s older
neighborhoods by ensuring that new construction and additions are compatible in scale
and bulk with existing neighborhoods.

1.2. APPLICABILITY
Except as provided in Section 1.3, this Subchapter applies to property that is:

1.2.1. Within the area bounded by:

A. Highway 183 from Loop 360 to Ben White Boulevard;

B. Ben White Boulevard from Highway 183 to Loop 360;

C. Loop 360 from Ben White Boulevard to Loop 1;

D. Loop 1 from Loop 360 to the Colorado River;

E. The Colorado River from Loop 1 to Loop 360; and

F. Loop 360 from the Colorado River to Highway 183; and

City of Austin 1
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.2. Applicability

City of Austin 2
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.3. Exceptions

1.2.2. Used for a:

A. Bed and breakfast (group 1) residential use;

B. Bed and breakfast (group 2) residential use;

C. Cottage special use;

D. Duplex residential use;

E. Secondary apartment special use;

F. Single-family attached residential use;

G. Single-family residential use;

H. Small lot single-family residential use;

I. Two-family residential use; or

J. Urban home special use.

1.3. EXCEPTIONS
1.3.1. This Subchapter does not apply to a lot zoned as a single-family residence small lot (SF-
4A) district unless the lot is adjacent to property zoned as a single-family residence
standard lot (SF-2) district or family residence (SF-3) district.
1.3.2. This Subchapter does not apply to the approximately 698.7 acres of land known as the
Mueller Planned Unit Development, which was zoned as a planned unit development (PUD)
district by Ordinance Number 040826-61.
1.3.3. The side wall articulation requirement does not apply to new construction that is less than
2,000 square feet in gross floor area and that is less than 32 feet in height.

1.4. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

1.4.1. To the extent of conflict, this Subchapter supersedes:
A. Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations);

B. Section 25-2-555 (Family Residence (SF-3) District Regulations);

C. Section 25-2-773 (Duplex Residential Use);

D. Section 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use);

E. Section 25-2-778 (Front Yard Setback for Certain Residential Uses);

City of Austin 3
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.4. Conflicting Provisions

F. Section 25-2-779 (Small Lot Single-Family Residential Uses); and

G. Section 25-4-232 (Small Lot Subdivisions).

1.4.2. To the extent of conflict, the following provisions supersede this Subchapter:
A. Section 25-2-1424 (Urban Home Regulations);

B. Section 25-2-1444 (Cottage Regulations);

C. Section 25-2-1463 (Secondary Apartment Regulations); or

D. The provisions of an ordinance designating property as a:

1. Neighborhood plan (NP) combining district;

2. Neighborhood conservation (NC) combining district; or
3. Historic area (HD) combining district.

City of Austin 4
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
ARTICLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

2.1. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED

The maximum amount of development permitted on a property subject to this Subchapter
is limited to the greater of 0.4 to 1.0 floor-to-area ratio or 2,300 square feet of gross
floor area, as defined in Section 3.3. Floor-to-area ratio shall be measured using gross
floor area as defined in Section 3.3.

2.2. BUILDING HEIGHT

Except where these regulations are superseded, the maximum building height for
development subject to this Subchapter is 32 feet. Section 25-2-531 (Height Limit
Exceptions) does not apply to development subject to this Subchapter, except for a
chimney, vent, antenna, or energy conservation or production equipment or feature not
designed for occupancy. Building height shall be measured under the requirements
defined in Section 3.4.

2.3. FRONT YARD SETBACK

A. Minimum Setback Required
The minimum front yard setback required for development subject to this Subchapter is
the lesser of:

1. The minimum front yard setback prescribed by the other provisions of this
Code; or
2. The average front yard setback, if an average may be determined as
provided in subsection B. below.

B. Average Front Yard Setback

1. An average front yard setback is determined based on the setbacks of each
principal residential structure that is built within 50 feet of its front lot line.
2. Except as provided in paragraph 3., the four structures that are closest to
the subject property on the same side of the block shall be used in the
calculation of average front yard setback. If there are less than four
structures on the same side of the block, the lesser number of structures is
used in the calculation.
3. If there are no structures on the same side of the block, the four structures
that are closest to the subject property and across the street are used in the
calculation. If there are less than four structures across the street, the lesser
number is used in the calculation. See Figure 1.

City of Austin 5
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.4. Rear Yard Setback

Figure 1: Average Front Yard Setback

In this example, the minimum required front setback in the underlying zoning district is 25 feet. However, because of the
variety in existing setbacks of buildings on the same block face, new development on lot C may be located with a setback
of only 20 feet, which is the average of the setbacks of lots B, D, and E. The building on lot A is not included in the
average because it is located more than 50 feet from the property line.

2.4. REAR YARD SETBACK

The principal structure shall
comply with the rear yard
setback prescribed by other
provisions of this Code. All other
structures shall comply with the
rear yard setback provisions of
this Code, but the minimum rear
yard setback may be reduced to
five feet if the rear lot line is
adjacent to an alley. See Figure
2.

2.5. SIDE YARD SETBACKS

All structures shall comply with
Figure 2: Rear Yard Setback
the side yard setbacks
prescribed by other provisions of this Code.

City of Austin 6
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

2.6. SETBACK PLANES

This subsection prescribes side and rear setback planes in order to minimize the impact of
new development and rear development on adjacent properties. A structure may not
extend beyond a setback plane except as authorized by subsection D. below. The height
of a setback plane shall be measured under the requirements defined in Section 3.4.

A. Side Setback Plane

Except as provided in subsection B. below, an inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side
setback plane begins at a horizontal line 15 feet directly above the side property
line. The 15-foot height of the horizontal line is established for 40-foot deep portions
of the lot beginning at the building line and extending to the rear of the lot, except
that the last portion at the rear of the lot may be less than 40 feet deep. See Figures
3 through 5.

1. For the first portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured at
the highest of the elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines, the
building line, and a line 40 feet from and parallel to the building line.
2. For successive portions other than the last portion, the 15-foot height of the
horizontal line is measured at the highest of the elevations of the four
intersections of the side lot lines and the appropriate two lines that are 40
feet apart and parallel to the building line.
3. For the last portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured at
the highest of the elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines, the
appropriate line parallel to the building line, and the rear lot line.

Figure 3: Side Setback Plane Measured From Side Property Line

City of Austin 7
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 4: (Elevation View) Dividing Lot into 40-foot Portions to Create Side Setback Planes (Rear Setback Plane
Not Shown)

Figure 5: Determining High Points on a Sloping Lot

For each portion of the side setback plane, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured starting from the highest
point of the four intersections defining the portion. In this example, topography lines indicate that the lot is sloping
downward from the rear to the front of the lot, and from the right to the left. The high points for Portions 1, 2, and 3
are indicated, along with the Building Line.

City of Austin 8
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

B. Rear Setback Plane

An inwardly sloping 45-degree angle rear setback plane begins at a horizontal line
directly above the rear property line at the same elevation as the horizontal line for
the last portion of the side setback plane established in paragraph A.3. See Figures 6
through 9.

Figure 6: (Elevation View) Rear Setback Plane (Level Ground)

Figure 7: (Elevation View) Rear Setback Plane (Sloping Ground)

City of Austin 9
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 8: Side and Rear Setback Planes on Level Ground

The side and rear setback planes form a “tent” over the lot, rising from the property lines for 15 feet and then
angling in at 45-degree angles from the side and rear. The required front, rear, and side yard setbacks are
indicated by the darker shading on the ground.

Figure 9: Side and Rear Setback Planes on Sloping Ground

City of Austin 10
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

C. Buildable Area
The buildable area, as defined in Section 3.3., consists of the smallest area within the
front, side, and rear yard setbacks; maximum height limit; and the combined side and
rear setback planes. See Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10: Buildable Area (Combination of Yard Setbacks, Maximum Height Limit, and Setback
Planes)
The heavy blue line indicates the “tent” formed by the side and rear setback planes. The buildable area is
the smallest area included within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks; maximum height limit; and the
combined side and rear setback planes (shown here as the green area).

City of Austin 11
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 11: Buildable Area on Corner Lot

This figure shows the same concept illustrated in Figure 10 but for a corner lot that has a greater street
side yard setback requirement. In this example, the minimum required street side yard setback in the
underlying zoning district is 15 feet. Because the side setback plane is measured from the side property
line, the height of the setback plane is 30 feet at the 15-foot street side yard setback line.

D. Side Setback Plane Exception for Existing One-Story Buildings

This subsection applies to a one-story building that was originally constructed or
received a building permit for the original construction before October 1, 2006, and
that is remodeled to add a second story.

1. For the portion of the construction that is within the footprint of the building
that was originally constructed or received a building permit before
October 1, 2006, the inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side setback plane
begins at a horizontal line directly above the outermost side wall at a
height that is equal to the height of the first floor wall plate that was
originally constructed or received a building permit before October 1,
2006, plus ten feet. See Figure 12.
2. For the portion of the construction that is outside the footprint of the building
that was originally constructed or received a building permit before
October 1, 2006, the side setback plane prescribed by subsection A. above
applies.

City of Austin 12
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 12: Side Setback Plane Exception for Existing Single-Story Buildings
The side setback planes for an existing single-story building are determined based on the height of the sidewall. In this
example, the horizontal line that forms the base of the setback plane is placed ten feet above the sidewall height (12
feet). The revised plane rises above the standard setback plane within the area of the building footprint. The standard
setback planes created in sections 2.6.A. and B. apply outside of the existing footprint.

E. Exceptions
A structure may not extend beyond a setback plane, except for:

1. A structure authorized by the Residential Design and Compatibility

Commission in accordance with Section 2.8. below;
2. A roof overhang or eave, up to two feet beyond the setback plane;
3. A chimney, vent, antenna, or energy conservation or production equipment
or feature not designed for occupancy; and
4. Either:

a. 30-Foot Side-Gabled Roof Exception

A side-gabled roof structure on each side of the building, with a total
horizontal length of not more than 30 feet, measured from the building line
along the intersection with the side setback plane (See Figure 13.); or

City of Austin 13
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 13: Side-Gabled Roof Exception

A side-gabled roof may project through the side setback plane for a horizontal distance of up to
a maximum of 30 feet, measured from the building line. In this example, the gable intrudes into
the setback plane beginning 9 feet behind the building line. Therefore, the maximum length of the
gable intrusion would be 21 feet.

b. Gables Plus Dormers Exception

(i) Gables or a shed roof, with a total horizontal length of not more than 18
feet on each side of the building, measured along the intersection with the
setback plane (See Figures 14 and 17.); and
(ii) Dormers, with a total horizontal length of not more than 15 feet on each
side of the building, measured along the intersection with the setback
plane. (See Figures 15 and 16.)

City of Austin 14
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 14: 18-foot Exception for Shed Roof

City of Austin 15
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 15 & 16: Dormer Exception (Gable or Shed)

One or more dormers with a combined width of 15 feet or less on each side of the roof may extend beyond the
setback plane. The width of the dormer is measured at the point that it intersects the setback plane.

City of Austin 16
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes

Figure 17: Combination of Roof and Dormer Exceptions

City of Austin 17
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.7. Side Wall Articulation

2.7. SIDE WALL ARTICULATION

A side wall of a building that is more than 15 feet high and is an average distance of 15
feet or less from an interior lot line may not extend in an unbroken plane for more than 32
feet along a side lot line. To break the plane, a perpendicular wall articulation of not less
than four feet, for a distance along the side property line of not less than 10 feet, is
required. See Figures 18 through 20.

Figure 18: Side Wall Articulation (Existing Side Wall Exceeds 32 Feet)
Articulation is required for side walls on additions or new construction that are 15 feet or taller and located within 15
feet of the side lot line. No wall may extend for more than 32 feet without a projection or recession of at least 4 feet in
depth and 10 feet in length.

City of Austin 18
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.7. Side Wall Articulation

Figure 19: Side Wall Articulation (Existing Side Wall Less Than or Equal to 32 Feet)
An addition to an existing building may extend a side wall up to a maximum of 32’ in total length without articulation.

Figure 20: Side Wall Articulation (New Construction)

All new construction must meet the sidewall articulation standards.

City of Austin 19
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.8. Modifications by the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission

2.8. MODIFICATIONS BY THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY

COMMISSION
This section provides for modification by the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission of certain requirements of this Subchapter for a proposed development.

2.8.1. Modifications that May be Approved

The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may approve:

A. An increase of up to 25 percent in the:

1. Maximum floor-to-area ratio or maximum square footage of gross floor

area;
2. Maximum linear feet of gables or dormers protruding from the setback
plane;
3. Maximum side wall length before articulation is required; or
4. Maximum height of the side or rear setback plane; or

B. A decrease of up to 25 percent in the minimum depth or length of a required wall

articulation.

2.8.2. Modification Procedures

A. Application and Notice
1. A person may request a modification listed in subsection 2.8.1. above by
filing an application with the Director on a form provided by the Director.
2. Not later than the 14th day after an application is filed, the Director shall:

a. Mail notice of the application to:

(i) Each notice owner of property immediately adjacent to the subject

property;
(ii) The appropriate neighborhood association, if any; and,
(iii) The neighborhood plan team, if any; and

b. Post notice of the application in accordance with Section 25-1-135 (Posting of

Signs).

B. Approval Criteria
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may, after a public hearing,
approve a modification if it determines that the proposed development is compatible
in scale and bulk with the structures in the vicinity of the development. In making this
determination, the commission shall consider:

1. The recommendation of the neighborhood plan team, if any;

2. The development’s:

City of Austin 20
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.9. Modifications Within Neighborhood Plan (NP) Combining Districts

a. Compliance with neighborhood design guidelines, if any;

b. Consistency with the streetscape of the properties in the vicinity;
c. Consistency with the massing, scale, and proximity of structures located on
either side of or behind the development;
d. Impact on privacy of adjacent rear yards; and
e. Topography and lot shape; and

3. For a development of an entire block, whether the development will have a

negative impact on adjacent property.

C. Additional Criteria for Historic Properties

The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may not approve a modification
for:

1. A local, state, or national historic landmark, if the modification would

adversely impact the landmark’s historic status;
2. A “contributing structure,” as defined in Section 25-2-351 (Contributing
Structure Defined), or a contributing structure in a National Register historic
district, if the modification would adversely impact its status as a
contributing structure; or
3. A property listed as Priority 1 or Priority 2 on the City’s most current survey
of historic assets, if the modification would adversely impact the property’s
architectural integrity or change its priority rating.

D. Appeals
An interested party may appeal the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission’s decision to the City Council.

E. Board of Adjustment May Grant Variances

This subsection does not prohibit the Board of Adjustment from granting a variance
from a requirement of this Subchapter under 25-2-473 (Variance Requirements).

2.9. MODIFICATIONS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (NP) COMBINING

DISTRICTS
Under Section 25-2-1406 of the Code, an ordinance zoning or rezoning property as a
neighborhood plan (NP) combining district may modify certain development standards of
this subchapter.

City of Austin 21
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT

3.1. BUILDABLE AREA

In this Subchapter, BUILDABLE AREA means the area in which development subject to this
Subchapter may occur, and which is defined by the side and rear setback planes required
by this Subchapter, together with the area defined by the front, side, and rear yard
setbacks and the maximum height limit.

3.2. BUILDING LINE

In this Subchapter, BUILDING LINE
means a line that is parallel to the front
lot line and that intersects the principal
residential structure at the point where
the structure is closest to the front lot
line, including any allowed projections
into the front yard setback. See Figure
21.

3.3. GROSS FLOOR AREA

In this Subchapter, GROSS FLOOR
AREA has the meaning assigned by
Section 25-1-21(Definitions), with the
following modifications:
Figure 21: Building Line
3.3.1. The following shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area:
A. The portion of a second or third story of a building that is covered by a roof,
including a porch, portico, breezeway, passageway, or corridor;

B. A mezzanine or loft; and

C. The covered portion of a parking area, except for:

1. Up to 450 square feet of:

a. A detached rear parking area that is separated from the principal structure by
not less than 10 feet; or
b. A parking area that is open on two or more sides, if it does not have habitable
space above it; and

2. Up to 200 square feet of an attached parking area if it used to meet the

minimum parking requirement.

3.3.2. The following shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area:

City of Austin 22
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 3: Definitions and Measurement
Section 3.4. Height

A. A ground floor porch, including a screened porch;

B. A habitable portion of a building that is below grade if:

1. It does not extend beyond the first-story footprint; and

2. The finished floor of the first story is not more than three feet above the
average elevation at the intersections of the minimum front yard setback
line and the side property lines; and

C. A habitable portion of an attic, if:

1. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to 12
or greater;
2. It is fully contained within the roof structure;
3. It has only one floor;
4. It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below;
5. It is the highest habitable portion of the building; and
6. Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or less.

3.3.3. An area with a ceiling height greater than 15 feet is counted twice.

3.4. HEIGHT
For purposes of this Subchapter, the HEIGHT of a building or setback plane shall be
measured as follows:

3.4.1. Height shall be measured vertically from the average of the highest and lowest grades
adjacent to the building to:
A. For a flat roof, the highest point of the coping;

B. For a mansard roof, the deck line;

C. For a pitched or hip roof, the average height of the highest gable; or

D. For other roof styles, the highest point of the building.

3.4.2. The grade used in the measurement of height for a building or setback plane shall be the
lower of natural grade or finished grade, except height shall be measured from finished
grade if:
A. The site’s grade is modified to elevate it out of the 100-year floodplain; or

B. The site is located on the approximately 698.7 acres of land known as the Mueller
Planned Unit Development, which was zoned as a planned unit development (PUD)
district by Ordinance Number 040826-61.

3.4.3. For a stepped or terraced building, the height of each segment is determined individually.

City of Austin 23
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Article 3: Definitions and Measurement
Section 3.5. Natural Grade

3.4.4. The height of a structure other than a building is measured vertically from the ground level
immediately under the structure to the top of the structure. The height of a fence on top of
a retaining wall is measured from the bottom of the retaining wall.
3.4.5. A maximum height is limited by both number of feet and number of stores if both
measurements are prescribed, regardless of whether the measurements are conjoined with
“or” or “and.”

3.5. NATURAL GRADE

3.5.1. In this Subchapter, NATURAL GRADE is:
A. The grade of a site before it is modified by moving earth, adding or removing fill,
or installing a berm, retaining wall, or architectural or landscape feature; or

B. For a site with a grade that was legally modified before October 1, 2006, the
grade that existed on October 1, 2006.

3.5.2. Natural grade is determined by reference to an on-ground survey, City-approved

topographic map, or other information approved by the director. The director may
require an applicant to provide a third-party report that shows the natural grade of a
site.

City of Austin 24
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft | September 28, 2006
Revised in June 2008. See following document for revisions.
 Austin, TX

ORDINANCE NO._______________

1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 25-2-773 RELATING TO

2 DUPLEX HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 25-
3 2-1051 RELATING TO DESIGN STANDARDS AND MIXED USE; AMENDING
4 CITY CODE SECTION 25-2-1406 RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
5 COMBINING DISTRICTS; AND AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 25-2,
6 SUBCHATER F RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND
7 COMPATABILITY.
8
9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:
10
11 PART 1. Subsections (B) and (D) of City Code Section 25-2-773 (Duplex Residential
12 Use) are amended to read:
13
14 § 25-2-773 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL USE.
15
16 (B) For a duplex residential use:
17
18 (1) minimum lot area is 7,000 square feet;
19
20 (2) minimum lot width is 50 feet;
21
22 (3) maximum building cover is 40 percent;
23
24 (4) maximum impervious cover is 45 percent; and
25
26 (5) maximum building height is the lesser of:
27
28 (a) 30 feet; or
29
30 (b) two stories, except that an attic or basement does not count as a story for
31 purposes of this subsection if it satisfies the requirements for an exemption from gross
32 floor area under Subsections 3.3.2 and 3.4.6 of Subchapter F (Residential Design and
33 Compatibility Standards).
34
35 (D) The two dwelling units are subject to the following requirements:
36 (1) The two units must have a common [wall or] floor and ceiling or a common
37 wall, which may be a common garage wall, that:
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 1 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd

Used with permission.

 Austin, TX
1 (a) extends for at least 50 percent of the maximum depth of the building, as
2 measured from the front to the rear of the lot; and

3 (b) maintains a straight line for a minimum of four foot intervals or segments.

4 (2) The two units must have a common roof. [; and]

5 (3) At least one of the two units must have a front porch that faces the front
6 street and an entry to the dwelling unit, except that units located on a corner lot must each
7 have a front porch that faces a separate street and an entry to the dwelling unit.
8
9 (4) The two units may not be separated by a breezeway, carport, or other open
10 building element.
11
12 PART 2. Subsection (A) of City Code Section 25-2-1051 (Applicability) is amended to
13 read:
14
15 § 25-2-1051 APPLICABILITY.
16
17 (A) Except as provided in Section 25-2-1052 (Exceptions) or another specific
18 provision of this title, this article applies to the following uses:
19
20 (1) A (a) use in a townhouse and condominium residence (SF-6) or less
21 restrictive zoning district and to a civic use described in Subsection (B) that is located on
22 property:
23
24 (a)[(1)] across the street from or adjoining property:
25
26 (i)[(a)] in an urban family residence (SF-5) or more restrictive zoning
27 district;
28
29 (ii)[(b)] on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning
30 district is located, other than a dwelling permitted by Section 25-2-894 (Accessory Uses
31 For A Principal Commercial Use); or
32
33 (iii)[(c)] in a traditional neighborhood (TN) zoning district; or
34
35 (b)[(2)] located 540 feet or less from property in:
36
37 (i)[(a)] an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district;
38
39 (ii)[(b)] a TN district; or
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 2 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1
2 (iii)[(a)] a development reserve (DR) zoning district.
3
4 (2) A use listed in Subsections 1.2.2(K)-(Q) of Subchapter F (Residential
5 Design and Compatibility Standards), if the owner has agreed to comply with the
6 requirements of this article in a manner prescribed by the director under Subsection 1.3.3
7 of Subchapter F.
8
9 PART 3. City Code Section 25-2-1406 (Ordinance Requirements) is amended to read:
10
11 § 25-2-1406 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
12
13 An ordinance zoning or rezoning property as a NP combining district:
14
15 (1) must prescribe the special uses described in Section 25-2-1403 (Special Uses)
16 that are permitted in the district;
17
18 (2) must describe the location of each residential infill special use, neighborhood
19 urban center special use, or neighborhood mixed use building special use, if any;
20
21 (3) may restrict the time of day during which a business in a neighborhood mixed
22 use building special use may be open to the public;
23
24 (4) may restrict a corner store special use, cottage special use, secondary apartment
25 special use, or urban home special use, if any, to a designated portion of the district;
26
27 (5) for a single-family residential use or a secondary apartment special use on an
28 existing legal lot:
29
30 (a) may reduce the required minimum lot area to 2,500 square feet;
31
32 (b) may reduce the required minimum lot width to 25 feet; and
33
34 (c) for a lot with an area of 4,000 square feet or less, may increase the maximum
35 impervious coverage to 65 percent;
36
37 (6) may apply the requirements of Section 25-2-1602 (Front Porch Setback),
38 Section 25-2-1603 (Impervious Cover and Parking Placement Requirements), or Section
39 25-2-1604 (Garage Placement) to the district or a designated portion of the district;
40

Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department

McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 3 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 (7) may restrict front yard parking by including all or a portion of the district in the
2 restricted parking area map described in Section 12-5-29 (Front or Side Yard Parking);
3 and
4
5 (8) may apply the requirements of Section 25-2-812(N) (Mobile Food
6 Establishments) to the district or a designated portion of the district.
7
8 (9) may modify the following requirements of Subchapter F (Residential Design
9 And Compatibility Standards) for the district or a designated portion of the district:
10
11 (a) the maximum floor-to-area ratio and maximum square footage of gross floor
12 area prescribed by Subchapter F (Residential Design And Compatibility Standards);
13
14 (b) the maximum linear feet of gables or dormers protruding from the setback
15 plane;
16
17 (c) the height of the side and rear setback planes; and
18
19 (d) the minimum front yard setback requirement.
20
21 PART 4. Subsection 1.2.2 of Section 1.2 (Applicability) of City Code Chapter 25-2,
22 Subchapter F is amended to amend Subsections I and J and to add new Subsections K-Q
23 to read:
24
25 1.2. APPLICABILITY
26
27 1.2.2. Used for a:
28
29 A. Bed and breakfast (group 1) residential use;
30
31 B. Bed and breakfast (group 2) residential use;
32
33 C. Cottage special use;
34
35 D. Duplex residential use;
36
37 E. Secondary apartment special use;
38
39 F. Single-family attached residential use;
40
41 G. Single-family residential use;
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 4 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1
2 H. Small lot single-family residential use;
3
4 I. Two-family residential use; [or]
5
6 J. Urban home special use;[.]
7
8 K. Club or lodge;
9
10 L. Daycare services (general and limited);
11
12 M. Family homes;
13
14 N. Group homes (general and limited);
15
16 O. Condo residential;
17
18 P. Retirement housing (small and large site); or
19
20 Q. Townhouse residential.
21
22 PART 5. Subsections 1.3.1 and 1.3.3 of Section 1.3 (Exceptions) of City Code Chapter
23 25-2, Subchapter F are amended to read:
24
25 1.3. Exceptions
26
27 1.3.1. This Subchapter does not apply to a lot zoned as a single-family residence
28 small lot (SF-4A) district unless the lot is adjacent to property zoned as a
29 single-family residence standard lot (SF-1), single-family residence standard
30 lot (SF-2) district, or family residence (SF-3) district.
31
32 1.3.3. This Subchapter does not apply to uses listed in subsections 1.2.2(K)-(Q) of
33 Section 1.2 if an applicant has agreed, in a manner prescribed by the
34 director, to comply with the requirements of Chapter 25-2, Article 10
35 (Compatibility Standards). [The side wall articulation requirement does not
36 apply to new construction that is less than 2,000 square feet in gross floor
37 area and that is less than 32 feet in height.]
38
39 PART 6. Subsection 1.4.1(A) of Section 1.4.1 (Conflicting Provisions) of City Code
40 Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is amended to read:
41
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 5 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 1.4. Conflicting Provisions
2
3 1.4.1. To the extent of conflict, this Subchapter supersedes:
4
5 A. Section 25-1-21 (Definitions);
6
7 B.[A] Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations);
8
9 C.[B] Section 25-2-555 (Family Residence (SF-3) District Regulations);
10
11 D.[C] Section 25-2-773 (Duplex Residential Use);
12
13 E.[D] Section 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use);
14
15 F.[E] Section 25-2-778 (Front Yard Setback for Certain Residential Uses);
16
17 G.[F] Section 25-2-779 (Small Lot Single-Family Residential Uses); and
18
19 H.[G] Section 25-4-232 (Small Lot Subdivisions).
20
21 PART 7. Section 2.1 (Maximum Development Permitted) of City Code Chapter 25-2,
22 Subchapter F is amended to read:
23
24 2.1. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED
25
26 The maximum amount of development permitted on a property subject to this Subchapter
27 is limited to the greater of 0.4 to 1.0 floor-to-area ratio or 2,300 square feet of gross floor
28 area, as defined in Section 3.3. Floor-to-area ratio shall be measured using gross floor
29 area as defined in Section 3.3, except that the lot area of a flag lot is calculated consistent
30 with the requirements of Section 25-1-22 (Measurements).
31
32 PART 8. Subsection B of Section 2.3 (Average Front Yard Setback) of City Code
33 Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is amended to read:
34
35 2.3. Average Front Yard Setback
36
37 B. Average Front Yard Setback. The following rules apply for purposes of
38 the setback calculation required by paragraph A.2:
39
40 1. A front yard setback is the distance between the front lot line and the
41 closest front exterior wall or building façade of the principal residential structure
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 6 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 located on the lot. [An average front yard setback is determined based on the
2 setbacks of each principal residential structure that is built within 50 feet of its
3 front lot line.]
4
5 2. Except as provided in paragraph 3[.], average front yard setback is
6 determined using the front yard setback of the four principal residential structures
7 that are: (a) built within fifty feet of the front lot line; and (b) closest to, and [the
8 subject property] on the same side of the block, as the property subject to the
9 setback required by this section [shall be used in the calculation of average front
10 yard setback. If there are less than four structures on the same side of the block,
11 the lesser number of structures is used in the calculation].
12
13 3. If less than four structures satisfy the criteria in paragraph B.2, average
14 front yard setback is calculated using the number of existing residential structures
15 on the same side of the street block as the property subject to the setback required
16 by this section. If there are no structures on the same side of the block, average
17 front yard setback is calculated using the front yard setbacks of the four structures
18 on the opposite side of the block that are closest to the [subject] property subject to
19 the setback required by this section [and across the street are used in the
20 calculation]. If there are less than four structures on the opposite side of the block
21 [across the street], the lesser number of structures is used in the calculation. See
22 Figure 1.
23
24 PART 9. Section 2.4 (Rear Yard Setback) of City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is
25 amended to read:
26
27 2.4. REAR YARD SETBACK.
28
29 The principal structure shall comply with the rear yard setback prescribed by
30 other provisions of this Code. All other structures shall comply with the rear
31 yard setback provisions of this Code, but the minimum rear yard setback of a
32 second dwelling unit may be reduced to five feet if the rear lot line is
33 adjacent to an alley. See Figure 2.
34
35 PART 10. Subsections A, B, and D of Section 2.6 (Setback Planes) of City Code
36 Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F are amended to read:
37
38 2.6 SETBACK PLANES
39
40 A. Side Setback Plane

Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department

McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 7 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 Except as provided in subsection [B.] D, an inwardly sloping 45-
2 degree angle side setback plane begins at a horizontal line 15 feet
3 directly above the side property line. The 15-foot height of the
4 horizontal line is established for 40-foot deep portions of the lot
5 beginning at the building line and extending to the rear of the lot,
6 except that the last portion at the rear of the lot may be less than 40
7 feet deep. See Figures 3 through 5.
8
9 1. For the first portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is
10 measured at the highest of the elevations of the four
11 intersections of the side lot lines, the building line, and a line 40
12 feet from and parallel to the building line.
13
14 2. For successive portions other than the last portion, the 15-foot
15 height of the horizontal line is measured at the highest of the
16 elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines and the
17 appropriate two lines that are 40 feet apart and parallel to the
18 building line.
19
20 3. For the last portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is
21 measured at the highest of the elevations of the four
22 intersections of the side lot lines, the appropriate line parallel to
23 the building line, and the rear lot line.
24
25 B. Rear Setback Plane
26 Except as provided in subsection D, an [An] inwardly sloping 45-
27 degree angle rear setback plane begins at a horizontal line directly
28 above the rear property line at the same elevation as the horizontal
29 line for the last portion of the side setback plane established in
30 paragraph A.3. See Figures 6 through 9.
31
32 D. Side and Rear Setback Plane Exceptions for Existing One-Story
33 Buildings.
34
35 1. Except as provided in paragraph 3 below, an applicant
36 proposing to add a second story [This subsection applies] to a
37 one-story building may choose either of the following side
38 setback planes for the portion of the project that is within the
39 building footprint [was] originally constructed, or permitted for
40 [received a building permit for the] original construction, before

Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department

McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 8 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 October 1, 2006[,]: [and that is remodeled to add a second
2 story.]
3
4 a. The side setback plane required under subsection A.
5
6 b. [1. For the portion of the construction that is within the
7 footprint of the building that was originally constructed
8 or received a building permit before October 1, 2006,
9 the] The inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side setback
10 plane that begins at a horizontal line directly above the
11 outermost side wall at a height [that is] equal to the
12 height of the first floor wall plate that was originally
13 constructed or received a building permit before October
14 1, 2006, plus 10 and one-half [ten] feet. See Figure 12.
15 The wall plate is the lowest point of the existing first
16 floor ceiling framing that intersects the exterior wall.
17
18 2. Except as provided in paragraph 3 below, an applicant
19 proposing to add a second story to a one-story building may
20 choose either of the following rear setback planes for the
21 portion of the project that is within the building footprint
22 originally constructed, or permitted for original construction,
23 before October 1, 2006:
24
25 a. The rear setback plane required under subsection B.
26
27 b. An inwardly sloping 45-degree angle rear setback plane
28 that begins at a horizontal line directly above the rear
29 property line at a height equal to the height of the first
30 floor wall plate that was originally constructed or
31 received a building permit before October 1, 2006, plus
32 10 and one-half feet.
33
34 3. The side setback plane required under subsection A, and the
35 rear setback plane required under subsection B, apply to:
36
37 a. any [For the] portion of the proposed construction that is
38 outside of the building footprint originally constructed, or
39 [received a building permit] permitted for original
40 construction, before October 1, 2006[, the side setback
41 plane prescribed by subsection A. above applies.]; and
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 9 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1
2 b. the entire project, if any portion of the proposed
3 construction requires the removal or demolition of
4 exterior walls.
5
6 PART 11. Section 2.7 (Side Wall Articulation) of City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F
7 is amended to add new Subsections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 to read:
8
9 2.7. SIDE WALL ARTICULATION.
10
11 2.7.1. Except as provided in subsection 2.7.2, if a [A] side wall of a building [that]
12 is more than 15 feet high and is an average distance of 9 [15] feet or less
13 from an interior lot line, the sidewall may not extend in an unbroken plane
14 for more than 36 [32] feet along a side lot line without a sidewall articulation
15 that meets the requirements of this section.
16
17 A. To beak the plane, a sidewall articulation must:
18
19 1. be perpendicular to the side property line, at least [wall
20 articulation of not less than] four feet deep, and extend [for a
21 distance] along the side property line for at least [of not less
22 than] 10 feet, as shown in [is required. See] Figures 18 through
23 20; [.]
24
25 2. extend the entire height of the first floor of an addition to, or
26 remodel of, an existing one-story building;
27
28 3. extend the entire height of the second story of an addition to, or
29 remodel of, a two or more story building;
30
31 4. extend to the height of the top floor of a newly constructed
32 building; and
33
34 5. extend evenly upward for its entire height.
35
36 B. A sidewall articulation cannot:
37
38 1. create patios or decks or be screened from view; or
39
40 2. serve as an eave or gutter.
41
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 10 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 C. Sidewall articulation required under this section may be satisfied by
2 horizontal articulation, such that each story above the first story is
3 setback further from the property line by at least nine feet and extends
4 along the side property line for at least 10 feet.
5
6 D. For purposes of subsection 2.7.1, wall height:
7
8 1. excludes side gables; and
9
10 2. is measured from the lower of natural or finished grade adjacent
11 to the structure up to the first floor wall plate, which is the
12 lowest point of the existing first floor ceiling framing that
13 intersects the exterior wall.
14
15 2.7.2 The requirements of this section do not apply to:
16
17 A Any side of a structure that is adjacent to a commercial use, unless the
18 commercial use is occupying a residential structure.
19
20 B. An addition to or remodel of an exiting principal structure, or the
21 construction of a new principal structure, provided that the resulting
22 structure is less than 2,000 square feet in net building coverage and
23 less than or equal to 32 feet in height.
24
25 C. An addition to or remodel of an existing second structure, or the
26 construction of a new second structure, provided that the principal
27 structure is exempt under subsection 2.7.2.B and the resulting second
28 structure:
29
30 1. does not exceed 550 square feet;
31
32 2. does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the base
33 zoning district; and
34
35 3. is either detached from the principal structure or connected by a
36 covered breezeway that is open on all sides, with a walkway of
37 no more than six (6) feet in width that is covered by a roof of no
38 more than eight (8) feet in width.
39
40 D. The addition of a second story to an existing one-story structure if the
41 addition is directly above a portion of the existing one-story structure
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 11 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 that was originally constructed, or received a permit for construction,
2 before October 1, 2006.
3
4 E. An extension of the second floor of an existing two-story structure,
5 provided that the building footprint of the structure is not increased.
6
7 PART 12. Subsection 2.8.1 of Section 2.8 (Modifications by the Residential Design and
8 Compatibility Commission) of City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is amended to read:
9
10 2.8.1. Modifications that May be Approved. The Residential Design and
11 Compatibility Commission may:
12
13 A. Approve an increase of up to 25 percent in the:
14
15 1. Maximum floor-to-area ratio or maximum square footage of
16 gross floor area;
17
18 2. Maximum linear feet of gables or dormers protruding from the
19 setback plane; or
20
21 B. Waive or modify the side wall articulation requirement of Section 2.7.
22 (Side Wall Articulation).
23
24 C. In addition to modifications or waivers under subsections A and B of
25 this section, the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission
26 may waive the requirements of Section 2.6 (Setback Planes) for a
27 subdivisions that meets the S.M.A.R.T. Housing requirement in
28 Section 25-1-703 (Program Requirements) if:
29
30 1. The subdivision includes a minimum of 12 lots on at least one
31 acre; and
32
33 2. At least 40% of the units are reasonably priced, as provided in
34 Section 25-1-703(C)-(D).
35
36 PART 13. Subsection 2.8.2(C) of Section 2.8 (Modifications by the Residential Design
37 and Compatibility Commission) of City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is amended to
38 read:
39

Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department

McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 12 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 C. Additional Procedures [Criteria] for Historic Properties.
2 [The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may
3 not approve a modification for:]
4
5 1. If the proposed development of a local historic landmark
6 or a “contributing structure,” as defined in Section 25-3-
7 351 (Contributing Structure), would require both a
8 modification from the requirements of this Subchapter
9 and a certificate of appropriateness under Section 25-11-
10 241, the applicant must request a modification under this
11 section prior to seeking a certificate of appropriateness.
12 If the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission
13 determines that the request is consistent with the
14 approval criteria in subsection B of this section, it shall
15 conditionally approve the modification contingent up
16 subsequent issuance of a certificate of appropriateness by
17 the Historic Landmark Commission under Section 25-11-
18 243. The applicant must include a copy of the approved
19 modification with the application for a certificate of
20 appropriateness. [A local, state, or national historic
21 landmark, if the modification would adversely impact the
22 landmark's historic status;]
23
24 2. If both a modification from the requirements of this
25 Subchapter and a non-binding recommendation from the
26 Historic Landmark Commission are sought, the
27 Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may
28 not approve a modification for a structure located in the
29 National Register Historic District before the Historic
30 Landmark Commission issues its recommendation. [A
31 "contributing structure," as defined in Section 25-2-351
32 (Contributing Structure Defined), or a contributing
33 structure in a National Register historic district, if the
34 modification would adversely impact its status as a
35 contributing structure; or
36
37 3. A property listed as Priority 1 or Priority 2 on the City's
38 most current survey of historic assets, if the modification
39 would adversely impact the property's architectural
40 integrity or change its priority rating.]
41
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 13 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 PART 14. Section 3.3 (Gross Floor Area) of City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is
2 amended to amend Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, and to add new Subsections 3.3.3 and
3 3.3.4, to read:
4
5 3.3. GROSS FLOOR AREA
6
7 3.3.1. In this Subchapter, GROSS FLOOR AREA means all enclosed space,
8 regardless of its dimensions, that is not exempted under subsections 3.3.2,
9 3.3.3, or 3.3.4. [has the meaning assigned by Section 25-1-21(Definitions),
10 with the following modifications:
11
12 3.3.1. The following shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area:
13
14 A. The portion of a second or third story of a building that is covered by a roof,
15 including a porch, portico, breezeway, passageway, or corridor;
16
17 B. A mezzanine or loft; and]
18
19 3.3.2. Subject to the limitations in paragraph C below, the following parking areas
20 and structures are excluded from gross floor area for purposes of this
21 Subchapter [C. The covered portion of a parking area, except for]:
22
23 A.[1.] Up to 450 square feet of:
24
25 1.[a.] A detached rear parking area that is separated from the principal
26 structure by not less than 10 feet; [or]
27
28 2. A rear parking area that is 10 feet or more from the principal structure,
29 provided that the parking area is either:
30
31 a. detached from the principal structure; or
32
33 b. attached by a covered breezeway that is completely open on all
34 sides, with a walkway not exceeding 6 feet in width and a roof
35 not exceeding 8 feet in width; or
36
37 3. [b.] A parking area that is open on two or more sides, if:
38
39 i. it does not have habitable space above it; and
40

Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department

McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 14 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 ii. the open sides are clear and unobstructed for at least 80%
2 of the area measured below the top of the wall plate to
3 the finished floor of the carport.
4
5 B.[2.] Up to 200 square feet of:
6
7 1. An [an] attached parking area if it used to meet the minimum parking
8 requirement; or [.]
9
10 2. A garage that is less than 10 feet from the rear of the principal
11 structure, provided that the garage is either:
12
13 a. detached from the principal structure; or
14
15 b. attached by a covered breezeway that is completely open on all
16 sides, with a walkway not exceeding 6 feet in width and a roof
17 not exceeding 8 feet in width.
18
19 C. An applicant may receive only one 450-square foot exemption per site under
20 paragraph A. An applicant who receives a 450-square foot exemption may
21 receive an additional 200-foot exemption for the same site under paragraph
22 B, but only for an attached parking area used to meet minimum parking
23 requirements.
24
25 3.3.3.[3.3.2.]Porches, basements, and attics that meet the [The] following
26 requirements shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area:
27
28 A. A ground floor porch, including a screened porch, provided that:
29
30 1. the porch is not accessible by automobile and is not connected to a
31 driveway; and
32
33 2. the exemption may not exceed 200 square feet if a porch has habitable
34 space or a balcony above it.
35
36 B. A habitable portion of a building that is below grade if:
37
38 1. The habitable portion [It] does not extend beyond the first-story
39 footprint[;] and is:
40
41 a. Below natural or finished grade, whichever is lower; and
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 15 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1
2 b. Surrounded by natural grade for at least 50% of its perimeter
3 wall area, if the habitable portion is required to be below natural
4 grade under paragraph 1.a.
5
6 2. The finished floor of the first story is not more than three feet above
7 the average elevation at the intersections of the minimum front yard
8 setback line and the side property lines[; and].
9
10 C. A habitable portion of an attic, if:
11
12 1. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to
13 12 or greater;
14
15 2. It is fully contained within the roof structure;
16
17 3. It has only one floor;
18
19 4. It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below;
20
21 5. It is the highest habitable portion of the building, or a section of the
22 building, and adds no additional mass to the structure; and
23
24 6. Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or
25 less.
26
27 3.3.4 An enclosed area shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area if
28 it is five feet or less in height. For purposes of this subsection:
29
30 A. Area is measured on the outside surface of the exterior walls; and
31
32 B. Height is measured from the finished floor elevation, up to either:
33
34 1. the underside of the roof rafters; or
35
36 2. the bottom of the top chord of the roof truss, but not to collar ties,
37 ceiling joists, or any type of furred-down ceiling.
38
39 PART 15. Section 3.4 (Height) of City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F is amended to
40 amend Subsection 3.4.1, and to add new a Subsection 3.4.6, to read:
41
Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department
McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 16 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Austin, TX
1 3.4. HEIGHT
2
3 For purposes of this Subchapter, the HEIGHT of a building or setback plane shall be
4 measured as follows:
5
6 3.4.1. Height shall be measured vertically from the average of the highest and
7 lowest grades adjacent to the building to:
8
9 A. For a flat roof, the highest point of the coping;
10
11 B. For a mansard roof, the deck line;
12
13 C. For a pitched or hip roof, the gabled roof or dormer with the highest average
14 height [the average height of the highest gable]; or
15
16 D. For other roof styles, the highest point of the building.
17
18 3.4.6. The habitable portion of a basement that is below natural grade and the
19 habitable portion of an attic do not count toward the number of stories for
20 purposes of Section 25-2-773(B)(5) (Duplex Residential Use) if the area
21 satisfies the requirements for an exemption from gross floor area under
22 subsections 3.3.2.B-C of this Subchapter.
23
24 PART 16. This ordinance takes effect on , 2008.
25
26 PASSED AND APPROVED
27
28 §
29 §
30 ____________________________, 2008 § _______________________________
31 Will Wynn
32 Mayor
33
34
35 APPROVED: _____________________ ATTEST: ________________________
36 David Allan Smith Shirley A. Gentry
37 City Attorney City Clerk

Date: 6-12-08 COA Law Department

McMansion Ordinance – Task Force Recommendations 17 of 17 Responsible Att’y: Brent Lloyd
 Dallas, TX

Dallas (Texas), City of. City Code, Volume II.

Chapter 51A. PART II OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE: ORDINANCE

NO. 19455, AS AMENDED

Article IV. Zoning Regulations.

Division 51A-4.500 Overlay and Conservation District Regulations.

SEC. 51A-4.507. Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay.

(a) Findings and purpose.

(1) The city council finds that the construction of new single family structures
that are incompatible with existing single family structures within certain established
neighborhoods is detrimental to the character, stability, and livability of that
neighborhood and the city as a whole.

(2) The neighborhood stabilization overlay is intended to preserve single

family neighborhoods by imposing neighborhood-specific yard, lot, and space
regulations that reflect the existing character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood
stabilization overlay does not prevent construction of new single family structures or
the renovation, remodeling, repair or expansion of existing single family structures,
but, rather, ensures that new single family structures are compatible with existing
single family structures.

(3) The yard, lot, and space regulations of the neighborhood stabilization
overlay are limited to facilitate creation and enforcement of the regulations.

(4) Neighborhood stabilization overlay districts are distinguished from historic

overlay districts, which preserve historic residential or commercial places; and from
conservation districts, which conserve a residential or commercial area's distinctive
atmosphere or character by protecting or enhancing its significant architectural or
cultural attributes.

(b) Definitions. In this section:

(1) BLOCKFACE means the linear distance of lots along one side of a street
between the two nearest intersecting streets. If a street dead-ends, the terminus of
the dead-end will be treated as an intersecting street.

(2) CORNER SIDE YARD is a side yard abutting a street.

(3) DISTRICT means a neighborhood stabilization overlay district.

(4) HEIGHT PLANE means a plane projecting upward and toward the subject
lot from a point six feet above grade at the center line of the street adjacent to the
front property line, and extending to the intersection of a vertical plane from the
front building line with the maximum height established by the neighborhood
stabilization overlay and continuing at the same angle to the maximum height of the
underlying zoning. The height plane is illustrated below.

Used with permission. 1

 Dallas, TX

(5) INTERIOR SIDE YARD is a side yard not abutting a street.

(6) MEDIAN means the middle number in a set of numbers where one-half of
the numbers are less than the median number and one-half of the numbers are
greater than the median number. For example, 4 is the median number of 1, 3, 4, 8,
and 9. If the set of numbers has an even number of numbers, then the median is the
average of the two middle numbers. For example, if the set of numbers is 1, 3, 4, 6,
8, and 9, then the median is the average of 4 and 6, or 5.

(7) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE means the owners of at least 10 properties

within a proposed district.

(8) SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE means a main structure designed for a single
family use,

without regard to whether the structure is actually used for a single family use. For
example, a house containing a child care facility is a single family structure, but an
institutional building, such as a church or school, converted to a single family use is
not.

(c) Petition, initiation, and process.

(1) Except as provided in this subsection, the procedures for zoning

amendments contained in Section 51A- 4.701, "Zoning Amendments," apply.

(2) A neighborhood stabilization overlay may only be placed on an area that is

zoned as a single family residential district and developed primarily with single family
structures. A neighborhood stabilization overlay may not be placed on a conservation
district or a neighborhood with a historic overlay. A neighborhood stabilization
overlay may be placed on an established neighborhood even though it contains
vacant lots. A neighborhood stabilization overlay may not be placed on a new
subdivision being developed on a tract of land.

2
 Dallas, TX

(3) A district must contain at least 50 single family structures in a compact,

contiguous area, or be an original subdivision if the subdivision contains fewer than
50 single family structures. Boundary lines should be drawn to include blockfaces on
both sides of a street, and to the logical edges of the area or subdivision, as
indicated by a creek, street, subdivision line, utility easement, zoning boundary line,
or other boundary. Boundary lines that split blockfaces in two should be avoided. The
minimum area of a subdistrict within a district is one blockface.

(4) The neighborhood committee may request a petition form by submitting a

request to the department on a form furnished by the department. The request must
include the boundaries of the proposed district. The boundaries of the proposed
district must comply with the requirements of this section.

(5) As soon as possible after the department provides the neighborhood

committee with a petition form, the department shall conduct a neighborhood
meeting. The department shall give notice of the neighborhood meeting to all
property owners within the proposed district as evidenced by the last approved city
tax roll at least 10 days prior to the neighborhood meeting.

(6) The petition must be on a form furnished by the department. The petition
form must include a map of the boundaries of the proposed district, a list of the
proposed regulations, the name and address of all property owners within the
proposed district, and a statement that by signing the petition the signers are
indicating their support of the district.

(7) The petition must be submitted with the following:

(A) The dated signatures of property owners within the proposed district in
support of the proposed district.

3
 Dallas, TX

(i) For a proposed district with 50 or fewer single family structures, the
signatures on the petition must be dated within three months following the date of
the neighborhood meeting.

(ii) For a proposed district with more than 50 single family structures,
the signatures on the petition must be dated within six months following the date of
the neighborhood meeting.

(B) The application fee, if applicable.

(i) If a petition is signed by more than 50 percent but less than 75

percent of the lots within the proposed district, the application fee must be paid.

(ii) If a petition is signed by 75 percent or more of the lots within the

proposed district, the application fee is waived.

(iii) If the proposed district is authorized pursuant to Section 51A-

4.701(a)(1), the application fee is waived.

(C) A map showing the boundaries of the proposed district.

(D) A list of any neighborhood associations that represent the interests of

property owners within the proposed district.

(E) A list of the names and addresses of the neighborhood committee

members.

(F) Any other information the director determines is necessary.

(8) A public hearing to create a district is initiated by submission of a

complete petition or by authorization pursuant to Section 51A-4.701(a)(1).

(9) For purposes of Section 51A-4.701, "Zoning Amendments," once a

complete petition has been submitted to the director, the neighborhood stabilization
overlay shall be treated as a city plan commission authorized public hearing. If the
district is initiated by petition, the notice of authorization contained in Section 51A-
4.701(a)(1) is not required.

(10) Along with any other required notice, at least 10 days prior to
consideration by the city plan commission, the director shall mail a draft of the
proposed neighborhood stabilization overlay ordinance and a reply form to all owners
of real property within the area of notification. The reply form must allow the
recipient to indicate support or opposition to the proposed neighborhood stabilization
overlay and give written comments. The director shall report to the city plan
commission and the city council the percentage of replies in favor and in opposition,
and summarize any comments.

(e) Neighborhood stabilization overlay.

(1) In general.

4
 Dallas, TX

(A) A neighborhood stabilization overlay is not required to specify

standards for each category of yard, lot, and space regulation in this subsection, but
if it does, the regulations must be selected from the options described in this
subsection.

(B) The yard, lot, and space regulations of the neighborhood stabilization
overlay must reflect the existing conditions within the neighborhood.

(C) Except as provided in the neighborhood stabilization overlay, the yard,

lot, and space regulations of the underlying zoning remain in effect.

(D) The provisions of Section 51A-4.704(c), regarding renovation,

remodeling, repair, rebuilding, or enlargement of nonconforming structures, remain
in effect.

(E) The yard, lot, and space regulations of the neighborhood stabilization
overlay apply only to single family structures.

(F) The yard, lot, and space regulations of the neighborhood stabilization
overlay must be read together with the yard, lot, and space regulations in Division
51A-4.400. In the event of a conflict between the neighborhood stabilization overlay
and Division 51A-4.400, the neighborhood stabilization overlay controls.

(2) Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback must be within the
range between the setback of the underlying zoning and the median front yard
setback of single family structures within the district. This range may allow for a
front yard setback that is greater or lesser than the front yard setback of the
underlying zoning. For example, if the minimum front yard setback of the underlying
zoning is 25 feet and the median front yard setback of single family structures within
the district is 40 feet, the minimum front yard setback selected must be between 25
feet and 40 feet.

(3) Corner side yard setback. The minimum corner side yard setback must be
within the range between the setback of the underlying zoning and the median
corner side yard setback of single family structures within the district. This range
may allow for a corner side yard setback that is greater or lesser than the corner
side yard setback of the underlying zoning. For example, if the minimum corner side
yard setback of the underlying zoning is five feet and the median corner side yard
setback of single family structures within the district is 20 feet, the minimum corner
side yard setback selected must be between five feet and 20 feet.

(4) Interior side yard setback. The minimum interior side yard setback must
be within the range between the setback of the underlying zoning and the median
interior side yard setback of single family structures within the district. This range
may allow for an interior side yard setback that is greater or lesser than the interior
side yard setback of the underlying zoning. For example, if the minimum interior side
yard setback of the underlying zoning is five feet and the median interior side yard
setback of single family structures within the district is 20 feet, the minimum interior
side yard setback selected must be between five feet and 20 feet. The minimum side
yard setback for each side yard may be separately established. For example, the
minimum side yard on the west side may be five feet, and the minimum side yard on
the east side may be 10 feet.

5
 Dallas, TX

(5) Height.

(A) If the petition is signed by the owners of more than 50 percent but
less than 60 percent of the lots within the district, height regulations may not be
included in the overlay.

(B) If the petition is signed by the owners of 60 percent or more of the

properties within the district, the maximum height selected must be selected from
the following:

(i) If the median height of single family structures within the district is
20 feet or more, then the district height must be within the range between the
median height of single family structures within the district and the maximum height
of the underlying zoning.

(ii) If the median height of single family structures within the district is
less than 20 feet, then the district height must be either the median height of single
family structures within the district or within the range between 20 feet and the
maximum height of the underlying zoning.

(C) If the district regulates height, single family structures may not be
built to heights that exceed the height plane, except structures listed in Section 51A-
4.408(a)(2). Height is measured from grade to the midpoint between the lowest
eaves and the highest ridge of the structure. See Paragraph 51A-2.102(47),
"Height."

(6) Garage access, connection, location. The garage access, connection, or

location must be selected from one or more of the following options:

(A) garage access of:

(i) front entry;

(ii) side entry; or

(iii) rear entry;

(B) garage connection of:

(i) attached to the single family structure; or

(ii) detached from the single family structure; and

(C) garage location:

(i) in front of the single family structure;

(ii) to the side of the single family structure; or

(iii) to the rear of the single family structure. (Ord. 26161)

6
 Dekalb County, GA

Dekalb (Georgia), County of. 2008. Zoning Code.

Article III. Overlay District Regulations

Division 8. Residential Infill Overlay District(s)

Sec. 27-722.1. Statement of purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of the board of commissioners is to provide for the
establishment of Residential Infill Overlay Districts by petition for the following
reasons:

(a) To allow for the implementation of policies and objectives of the county's
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance; and

(b) To avail neighborhoods of an opportunity to ensure that new and

remodeled single-family dwellings and related accessory uses and structures are
compatible with the height, size, and level of forestation of the existing dwellings and
lots; and

(c) To encourage property owners to improve and renovate existing housing

stock rather than demolish the same; and

(d) To establish and maintain a balance between preserving the character of

mature neighborhoods while accommodating compatible new residential
development; and

(e) To allow neighborhoods an opportunity to establish architectural

standards that will preserve the character of their existing neighborhoods.

Sec. 27-722.2. Scope of regulations.

This division establishes standards and procedures that apply to demolition, new
construction and residential development in whole or in part within any area of the
county that is designated a residential infill overlay district.

Sec. 27-722.3. Residential infill overlay districts.

The boundaries of any Residential Infill Overlay District shall be established by a

zoning map amendment adopted pursuant to this chapter which amendment shall be
incorporated herein and made a part of this chapter 27. The board of commissioners
shall not approve any Residential Infill Overlay District that does not include a
contiguous arrangement of at least twenty (20) lots of record and a rational, defined
boundary.

Sec. 27-722.4. Applicability of regulations.

This division applies to each application for a permit for development or new
construction following the demolition of a single-family home or homes in established
neighborhoods that fall within any Residential Infill Overlay District.

Sec. 27-722.5. Principal uses and principal structures.

Used with permission. 1

 Dekalb County, GA

The principal uses of land and structures that are allowed in any Residential Infill
Overlay District are as is provided in the applicable underlying zoning district, subject
to the limitations and standards contained within this division.

Sec. 27-722.6. Accessory uses and accessory structures.

The accessory uses of land and structures that are allowed in the Residential Infill
Overlay District, as is provided in the applicable underlying zoning district, are
subject to the limitations and standards contained within this division.

Sec. 27-722.7. Petition process, boundaries, staff analysis,

recommendation.

(a) The county shall require the filing of a petition and completed application for
any Residential Infill Overlay District on forms promulgated by the planning
department director.

(b) Any person(s) interested in pursuing the approval of a Residential Infill Overlay
District upon request to the planning department will be provided with a petition and
application form. The petition will allow for persons to sign in favor of the approval of
a Residential Infill Overlay District. All signatories to the petition must be real
property owners residing within the proposed Residential Infill Overlay District. The
planning director shall not allow the petition process for the adoption of a Residential
Infill Overlay District ordinance to begin to be reviewed and investigated by county
staff until twenty (20) percent of the property owners in the proposed Residential
Infill Overlay District have voted in favor of the imposition of the Residential Infill
Overlay District designation by signing the petition described in this division. Once
the twenty (20) percent threshold has been achieved, the planning director shall
initiate notice to all property owners within the proposed district of a public meeting
to be held at the community council meeting.

(c) Application forms must be accompanied by a boundary map and a complete list
of each property located in the Infill Overlay District by street address or tax parcel
identification number(s). All applications must be accompanied by a written
description of why the particular properties qualify for a Residential Infill Overlay
District designation. This written description shall include an analysis of all of the
following criteria that shall guide the board of commissioners in deciding if specific
property should be classified as a Residential Infill Overlay District:

(1) Whether the built environment of a neighborhood and its location, size
or age, is one (1) in which it is desirable to ensure that new and remodeled single-
family dwellings and related accessory uses and structures are compatible with the
height, size, and level of forestation of the existing dwellings and lots; and

(2) Whether there is a need to establish and maintain a balance between

preserving the character of a mature neighborhood while accommodating compatible
new residential developments?

(d) All applications and petitions for a residential infill overlay district shall become
final upon presentation at a public hearing before the planning commission pursuant
to section 27-826 of the Code, at which time the petition will include a minimum of
fifty-five (55) percent of the property owners in support of the overlay district.

2
 Dekalb County, GA

(e) The staff of the planning department shall conduct a site inspection on all
complete applications for a Residential Infill Overlay District designation and shall
investigate and prepare an analysis of such application in substantial compliance with
section 27-834 and shall include a written analysis of whether the properties at issue
satisfy the criteria identified in section 27-722.7(c). The staff of the planning
department shall present its findings and recommendations in written form to the
planning commission and the board of commissioners. Copies of the written findings
shall be reasonably available to the public.

(f) In addition to all other applicable standards and criteria, the board of
commissioners shall consider whether the property at issue satisfies the criteria set
forth in section 27-722.7(c). If the board of commissioners approves the creation of
a specific Residential Infill Overlay District, the newly created district shall be
governed by the regulations in this division and any other applicable regulations in
the code.

Sec. 27-722.8. Notice of hearing.

Notice of the public hearing for any petition for a Residential Infill Overlay District
before the planning commission and board of commissioners shall comply with the
code requirements for notice for a zoning decision by a party other than the County
as set forth in article V of this chapter.

Sec. 27-722.9. Height and threshold elevations.

(a) Height. No new construction shall exceed twenty-eight (28) feet measured
from the vertical distance from the front door threshold of the existing residential
structure to the highest point of the roof of the proposed residential structure. If the
new construction would require alteration or eradication of the original threshold,
then the original elevation shall be measured and certified by a licensed surveyor or
engineer. If no such dwelling existed on the same lot, height shall be measured from
the average elevation of the existing natural grade at the front building line.

(b) Threshold. The proposed front door threshold elevation for infill buildings on
infill lots shall not be more than two (2) feet higher than the front door threshold
elevation of the residential structure that existed on the lot prior to demolition.

Sec. 27-722.10. Height limitations and an administrative variance.

Infill building height within any residential infill overlay district shall not exceed
twenty-eight (28) feet.

(a) The height of a structure on an infill lot in this overlay district may
exceed twenty-eight (28) feet if the applicant for a building permit establishes to the
satisfaction of the planning director that the highest peak of the residential
structures on both lots immediately adjacent to the infill lot exceed twenty-eight (28)
feet. However, in no case shall the variances exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height.
All administrative variances that are granted or denied by the planning director shall
be in writing and shall contain detailed reasons for the granting or denial of the
variance. Notice of an application for an administrative variance shall be posted on
the subject property for a period of not less than ten (10) days from the date of
application and prior to decision.

3
 Dekalb County, GA

(b) If the placement of a telecommunications tower or antenna within any

residential infill overlay district in excess of twenty-eight (28) feet in height is
mandated by federal law, said tower or antenna, in addition to meeting all other
standards and criteria applicable thereto, shall meet the following design
requirements:

(1) No portion of any such tower or antenna shall extend a distance

of more than ten (10) feet above the top of the tree canopy existing on the
lot upon which the tower or antenna is placed. If no tree canopy exists on
said lot, then no portion of such tower or antenna shall extend a distance of
more than ten (10) feet above the top of the tree canopy closest to such
tower or antenna.

(2) All portions of a tower or antenna that extend above the top of
the existing mature tree canopy pursuant to subsection (b)(1), shall consist of
an alternative tower structure that is designed and colored in a way that
blends said tower or antenna with the closest tree canopy to a degree that
renders said tower or antenna indistinguishable from said tree canopy at a
distance of two hundred (200) feet measured horizontally from said tower or
antenna.

Sec. 27-722.11. Demolition permits.

In addition to the requirements of chapter 7 of the Code, the site plan submitted in
connection with an application for a demolition permit within any residential infill
overlay district shall show the infill building height and shall show that the proposed
front door threshold elevation for infill buildings on infill lots is not more than two (2)
feet higher than the front door threshold elevation of the residential structure that
existed on the lot prior to demolition. No demolition permit for property within any
residential infill overlay district shall be issued unless the applicant for a demolition
permit has submitted a site plan that shows the height of the proposed structure
measured in the manner specified in this division of the Code.

Sec. 27-722.12. Exemption for existing structures that are destroyed by an

act of nature.

All provisions of this division including height restrictions, and any applicable height
restrictions in section 7-31.1, 7-31.2 and 7-31.3 shall not apply in the event that a
residential structure on an infill lot is destroyed or damaged by fire or other act of
nature. In the event of such destruction, the residential structure may be rebuilt and
used exactly as it existed and was used prior to damage, so long as said
reconstruction is completed within two (2) years of the date of damage.

Sec. 27-723. Reserved.

4
 Los Angeles, CA

ORDINANCE NO.
179814 _
An ordinance imposing interim regulations on the issuance of building and
demolition permits in a portion of the Hollywood Community Plan Area for the
properties generally bounded by Griffith Park on the North; Griffith Park, Fern
Dell Drive, Tyron Drive, and Live Oak Drive on the East; Franklin Avenue and
Foothill Drive on the South; Canyon Drive on the West including properties west
of Canyon Drive north of Argosy Way (Oaks).

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2006 the City Council instructed the

Department of City Planning to initiate proceedings to develop planning tools to
reinforce existing residential character in many hillside neighborhoods
experiencing new infill development, including the Oaks; and

WHEREAS, the Oaks contains an eclectic mixture of older homes, that

were predominantly built in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, in a variety of architectural
styles, many sited on lots with significant topography; and

WHEREAS, the older homes in the Oaks range in size from 900 square
feet to 4500 square feet; and

WHEREAS, the Oaks is a designated hillside area that includes ridge

lines, canyons, desirable natural and protected vegetation, including prominent
and native trees, natural water courses, and areas particularly abundant in
wildlife; and

WHEREAS, the Oaks is characterized by substandard, steeply sloped lots

and substandard infrastructure, such as narrow roads and limited access for
residents and emergency vehicles. These substandard lots may require
significant grading to develop single family homes; and

WHEREAS, approximately 52 permits for the expansion of existing homes

and properties, as well as infill development on vacant lots have been issued
between 2001 and 2005, resulting in homes that have ranged in size from
approximately 3,000 square feet to 8,200 square feet in size. This development
often results in insensitive, out-of-scale development which is frequently
incompatible in scale with the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood
and, in addition, requires extensive hillside grading; and

WHEREAS, the floor area of structures impacts the amount of required

grading, lot coverage, and impermeable coverage. The reduction of permitted
floor area will have the effect of reducing excessive grading, lot coverage, and
impermeable coverage; and

1
 Los Angeles, CA

WHEREAS, the impact of excessive grading in the hillside areas in the

Oaks increases the likelihood of soil erosion, landslides, deforestation and
depletion of plant and animal life; and

WHEREAS, the articulated objectives and policies of the Hollywood

Community Plan, which was updated in December, 1988, are to (1) preserve and
enhance the varied and distinctive residential character of the community, and
(2) to encourage that hillside residential areas retain the natural terrain and
ecological balance, and (3) provide a standard of land use intensities
compatibility with street capacity, public service facilities, utilities, and
topography; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Interim Control Ordinance is required in the

interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people.

NOW THEREFORE,

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, whenever

used in this ordinance, shall be construed as defined in this section. Words and
phrases not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Section 12.03 of the
Los Angeles Municipal Code.

Addition: An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or

structure.

Floor Area: The area in square feet confined within the exterior walls of a
building, but not including the area of the following: exterior walls, stairways,
shafts, rooms housing building-operating equipment or machinery, parking areas
with associated driveways and ramps, basement storage areas, and the square
footage of a garage provided the garage does not exceed 500 square feet. Any
square footage in the garage in excess of 500 square feet shall be counted as
part of the total floor area.

Floor Area Ratio: A coefficient, which is multiplied by the gross lot area
to determine the maximum floor area of all buildings on a lot.

Project: The demolition, construction, erection, reconstruction, or addition

to any building that increases floor area and which requires the issuance of a
building permit, grading permit, excavation permit, or foundation permit (permit)
on any lot located in whole or in part within the area identified in Section 3 of this

2
 Los Angeles, CA

ordinance. The term "Project" shall not include interior remodeling that does not
add to the square footage of any building on a lot.

Sec. 2. PROHIBITION.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to the

contrary, for a period of 365 days from the effective date of this Ordinance, or
until permanent regulations are adopted which address grading, size and bulk of
residential construction, no permit shall be issued for any Project that exceeds
the following thresholds. Except that, the total permitted Floor Area on the lot
may be at least 1,600 square feet.

A. The Floor Area Ratio shall be:

1. On lots 4,000 square feet or less, the maximum Floor Area Ratio shall
be: 0.37:1.

2. For lots greater than 4,000 square feet and up to 8,000 square feet in
size, the total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.27 of the amount of lot
area exceeding 4,000 square feet.

3. For lots greater than 8,000 square feet and up to 12,000 square feet,
the total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.17 of the amount of lot area
exceeding 8,000 square feet.

4. For lots greater than 12,000 square feet and up to 16,000 square feet,
the total Floor Area shall be increased by 0.1 of the amount of lot area
exceeding 12,000 square feet.

5. For lots greater than 16,000 square feet, the total Floor Area shall be
increased by 0.025 of the amount of lot area exceeding 16,000 square
feet.

B. An addition up to 250 total square feet, measured cumulatively from the

effective date of this ordinance, may be permitted to any structure for which a
Certificate of Occupancy was issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance,
provided the addition meets all relevant requirements of the LAMC. These 250
square feet may be in excess of those limitations in Subsection A of this section.

Sec. 3. INTERIM CONTROL AREA. The provisions of this ordinance

shall apply to any lot located whole or in part within the boundaries as shown on
the following map.

3
 THE OAKS ICO
--------------€D~------------- Los Angeles, CA

1. e'LVSSE'LYUtl(IElofLut6S,TR7313
2. NE'LY LInes of Lots 6~71, TR 7373
3. SE'LY Unooofl.ota 71-72, TR 7373
4. NE'LY uoee of Low 47-52, 'TR 7373
S. SW'LYlInl3$ofLots 15-17, TR &WO
6. NE'LYUnesofLols&-12,TR6450
7. E'LY UnaofTR6450
8, E'LYUooofTR1504
9. N'LY & NE'LYUnoooftoty, TR 1504
10. WLY Linea enct y, TR 1504
11. $'LYLlneaofLoI Y, TR 1504
12. WlY Line ofTR 11129
13.N'lY, W'LY a stv
unes cn.etx, TR 1504
14. WLY Line ofTR25620
15. WlY Line arTR 9600
16. S'LY UnoofPT loll, TR 0000 and tte E'LY Prolongation
17. S'lY LlneofFR. ofLo! 19, EOGECUFF TR.
18. E'lY LineofTR 3164
19. E'lY LineofTR54{Jl
20. S'lY Line ofTR 5257
21. W'lY s stvuoee of 1, TR40010
22. SE'LV uncs
ofTR 4040 & PM 1873
23. E'LY LlnoofTR4040
24. NW'lYUneofTR4040
25. WLY Line of RANCHO LOS FELIZ
26, N'lY UneolTR 7373
27. S'lY UneofSE 1f4 SEC S5T1N R14W
28. NW'lY Una of Lot 7, Block 14, TR 6450

C.M. 150A 191, 150A 193, 1515A 191 CPC.2007*2065·ICO

151 SA 193, 153A 191, 153 B 193
154 SA 191, 156A 191,156 B 193 4
O~~~~~5§OO~ ...... ~1,~OOO
AN 08/01107 r: Feet
OATASOURCES, DEPAA1MENT OF CITY PlMNIOO_ DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING s SAI'1nY • auR/iAU 01' ENrn~ERlNG
 Los Angeles, CA

Sec. 4. EXCEPTIONS.

A. The prohibition specified in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to any
construction for which a building permit or demolition permit is required:

1. To comply with an order issued by the Department of Building and

Safety or the Housing Department to repair or demolish an unsafe or
substandard condition; or

2. To rebuild as a result of destruction by fire, earthquake or other natural

disaster, provided that the development is not prohibited by any provision
of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

B. The prohibition specified in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to any
permit for a Project for which:

1. Architectural and structural plans sufficient for a complete plan check

were accepted by the Department of Building and Safety prior to the
effective date of this ordinance; and

2. A plan check fee was accepted by the City on or before September 18,
2007; and

3. No subsequent changes are made to those plans, which increase or

decrease the height, floor area or occupant load by more than five percent
or change the use, or if any changes violate the Zoning Code regulations
in force on the date that the plan check fee was paid .

. Sec. 5. EXTENSION OF REGULATIONS. The City may, by resolution,

extend the provisions of this ordinance for two additional 180 day periods not to
exceed 365 days so long as the City Council makes the following finding: That
the appropriate City agencies and officials are exercising due diligence to assure
that the appropriate land use regulatory controls for the subject area are being
expeditiously processed.

Sec. 6. HARDSHIP EXEMPTIONS. The City Council, acting in its

legislative capacity, and by resolution, may grant an exemption from the
provisions of this ordinance in cases of extreme hardship as determined by the
City Council. An application for hardship exemption shall be filed with the City
Clerk on forms provided by the Department of City Planning.

Sec. 7. APPLICABILITY OF THE ZONING CODE. The regulations of

this ordinance are in addition to those set forth in the planning and zoning
provisions of Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and any other
ordinances and do not contain any rights not otherwise granted under the
provisions and procedures contained in that chapter or any other ordinances.

5
 Los Angeles, CA

Sec. 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be

unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance, which can be
implemented without the invalid provision, and, to this end, the provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be severable.

6
 Los Angeles, CA

Sec. 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and
have it published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper
circulated in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public
places in the City of Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the
Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board
located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one
copy on the bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Los
Angeles County Hall of Records ..

I hereby certify that this ordinance was..Qassed by the Council of the City
of Los Angeles, at its meeting of APR 0 9 t008 .

KAREN E. KALFA Y AN, City Clerk

• • Q! ,
BY~~"
Deputy

Approved -!.AP.!!...R:..:........:.1....::,B_2_00_8_

" ---"'--------:-:;-_._.
Mayor

Approved as to Form and Legality

Pursuant to Charter Section 559, I approve

ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney this ordinance on behalf of the City Planning
Commission and recommend that it be
adopted .

By~~~~&R--~'
~::::::::::::~',-,--::--_
IEDORF CARDENAS
February /1, 2008
See attached report.
ant City Attorney

Date _------'F-=E'=-B --=2"--0"---"""20""'08'--__ S. Gail Goldberg

Director of Plannlno

File No(s). CF No. 07-2283: CPC 2007-2065-ICO

M:\Real Prop_Env_Land Use\Land Use\Sharon Cardenas\Ordinances\The Oaks ICO.doc

7
 Los Angeles, CA

DECLARATION OF POSTING ORDINANCE

I, MARIA C. RICO, state as follows: I am, and was at all times hereinafter

mentioned, a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years,

and a Deputy City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles, California.

Ordinance No. 179814 - Imposing interim regul.ations on the issuance of buil.ding

and demol.ition permits in a portion of the Hol.l.ywood Community Pl.an Area for

the properties general.l.y bounded by Griffith Park on the North, etc - a copy

of which is hereto attached, was finally adopted by the Los Angeles City Council

on April. 9, 2008, and under the direction of said Ci ty Council and the City Clerk,

pursuant to Section 251 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles and Ordinance

No. 172959, on April. 21, 2008 I posted a true copy of said ordinance at each

of three public places located in the City of Los Angeles, California, as

follows: 1) one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance

to the Los Angeles City Hall; 2) one copy on the bulletin board located at the

Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; 3) one copy on the

bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Hall of Records of

the County of Los Angeles.

Copies of said ordinance were posted conspicuously beginning on April. 21,

2008 and will be continuously posted for ten or more days.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this 21st day of April. 2008 at Los Angeles, California.

Maria C. Rico, Deputy City Clerk

Ordinance Effective Date: May 31, 2008 Council. Fil.e No. 07-2283

Rev. (2/21106)
 Mansionization Code Amendments
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

INCREASE OPEN SPACE AND SETBACKS

Section 10.12.030 and A.12.030 Property Development Regulations: RS,

RM, and RH districts related to minimum setbacks
10.12.030 Property development regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts.
The following schedule prescribes development regulations for residential zoning
districts in each area district, as defined in Section 10.01.060(A)(2) and designated on the
zoning map. The columns establish basic requirements for permitted and conditional
uses; letters in parentheses in the “Additional Regulations” column refer to “Additional
Development Regulations” following the schedule.
This section shall not be amended to increase the Standards for Maximum Height of
Structures or Maximum Buildable Floor Area, or to reduce the Standards for Minimum
Setbacks, Minimum Lot Dimensions or Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit, unless the
amendment is first submitted to a city-wide election and approved by a majority of the
voters.

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS I AND II

Area District I Area District II

Additional
RS RM RH RS RM RH Regulations
Minimum Setbacks

Front (ft.) 20 20 20 20 20 20 (A)(B)(D)(T)

Side (percentage-ft.) 10%-3 10%-3;5 10%-3;5 10%-3 10%-3;5 10%-3;5 (D)(E)(F)
min.;5 3;10 3;10 min.;5 3;10 3;10
Corner Side 10%- 10%- 10%- 10%- 10%- 10%- (D)(E) (T)
(percentage- ft.) 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5
Rear (ft.) 12 min 12 min 12 min 12 min 12 min 12 min (D)(E)(F)(G)
10;25 10;25 10;25 10;25 10;25 10;25

Note: In the RS districts, the enclosed area for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots with less than 4,800 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with
more than 4,800 square feet, is excluded from the determination of the maximum amount
of buildable floor area. In all residential districts, fifty percent (50%) of habitable room
floor area in a basement located entirely below grade is excluded from the determination
of buildable floor area. See Section 10.04.030 Definitions, Floor Area, Buildable for
parking, loading and basement areas excluded from Buildable Floor Area.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 1 of 27
Used with permission.
 Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS III AND IV

Area District III Area District IV

Additional
RS RM RH RH Regulations
Minimum Setbacks

Front (ft.) 5 5 5 5 (A)(B)(D) (G)

Side (percentage- ft.) 10%-3 10%-3;5 10%-3;5 10%-3;5 (D)(E)(F)
min.;5 3;10 3;10 3;10
Corner Side (ft.) 1 1 1 1 (D)
Rear (ft.) 5 or 10 5 5 5 (D)(E)(F)(G)
Note: In the RS district, the enclosed area for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots with less than 2,700 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with
2,700 square feet or more, is excluded from the determination of the maximum amount of
buildable floor area. In all residential districts, fifty percent (50%) of habitable room floor
area in a basement located entirely below grade is excluded from the determination of
buildable floor area. See Section 10.04.030 Definitions, Floor Area, Buildable for
parking, loading and basement areas excluded from Buildable Floor Area.

Section 10.12.030 (E) and A.12.030 (E) Side Setbacks and Rear Setbacks
of the Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
E).Side Setbacks. Ten percent (10%) of lot width but not less than three feet (3’) and
need not exceed five feet (5’)., in the RM and RH Zones side setbacks need not exceed
ten feet (10’), and on corner sides setbacks need not exceed five feet (5’).

(1) Exceptions—
Side Setbacks.
Existing lots in the RM and RH Zones currently developed as multi-family and greater
than fifty feet (50’) in width need not provide side setbacks greater than five feet (5’)
when developed with three (3) or more dwelling units.

Reverse Corner Side Setback. Reverse corner lots in Area Districts I and II shall have
the following side yards:
(a) On the lot side line which adjoins another lot the side yard shall be determined in the
same manner as for an interior lot.
(b) On the street side line, the width of the required side setback shall be the same as for
the interior side setback on the lot except that the size and shape of such required side
setback nearest the lot rear line shall be increased to include all of that portion, if any, of
a triangle formed in the following manner:
(i) On the common lot line of the reverse corner lot and the key lot, a point shall be
established where the rear line of the required front yard on the key lot intersects such
common lot line;

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 2 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
(ii) On the street side line of the reverse corner lot, a point shall be established distant
from the common street corner of the key lot and the reverse corner lot equal to the depth
of the required front yard on the key lot;
(iii) The third side of the triangle shall be a straight line connecting points (i) and (ii) of
this section. If an alley intervenes between the key lot and the reverse corner lot, the
width of the alley shall be included in determining the length of the line on the street side
line of the reverse corner lot.
Rear Setback:
(1) In Area Districts I and II, the rear setback (RS) shall be determined as follows: RS =
0.3 x (lot depth in feet) -20; provided that the minimum setback is ten twelve feet (10’)
(12’) and the maximum required setback is twenty-five feet (25’).
(2) In Area District III, RS District, non-alley lots abutting residential at the rear with
2,700 square foot or more in lot area, the rear setback shall be 10 feet.

Section 10.12.030 (F) and A.12.030 (F) Building Height and Required
yards of the Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH
districts
(F) Building Height and Required Yards. Except as provided below, the width of a
required interior side, corner side or rear yard adjoining a building wall exceeding
twenty-five feet (25’) twenty-four feet (24’) in height, excluding any portion of a roof,
shall be increased three feet (3’) over the basic requirement.
(1) Exceptions. If the lot width is less than thirty-five feet (35’), no increase in the side
yard is required.

Section 10.12.030 (H) and A.12.030 (H) Maximum Height of Structures

of the Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
(H) Maximum Height of Structures. See Section 10.60.050, Measurement of height,
and Section 10.60.060, Exceptions to height limits. The maximum number of stories
permitted shall be three (3) where the height limit is thirty feet (30’) and two (2) where
the height limit is twenty-six feet (26’). A floor level may be divided between portions
qualifying as a story and portions qualifying as a basement. Any portion of a floor level
qualifying as a story shall be considered to have a minimum dimension of twenty feet
(20’) measured perpendicular from the outside face(s) of the exterior building wall(s)
which defines that area as a story. (See Graphic Illustration under “Basement” definition-
-Section 10.04.030).
A deck or balcony may shall not be located directly above a second story where the
height limit is twenty-six feet (26’) or the third story where the height limit is thirty feet
(30’), if the following criteria is met. Such decks shall be located adjacent to an interior
living space and shall provide additional setbacks as follows; in all Area Districts the
interior side setback shall be 3 times the minimum side setback; In Area Districts I and II
the rear setback shall be 2 times the minimum rear yard setback and in Area Districts III
and IV the rear setback shall be 15 feet. The surface elevation of any deck or balcony
shall be no higher than nine feet (9’) below the height limit.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 3 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
Whenever new construction or alterations and additions to existing structures involves
grading or scraping, a survey acceptable to the Director of Community Development is
required as a condition of issuance of a demolition or building permit (see Section
10.80.010). The Director shall require that survey markers be set.
The Community Development Director shall determine compliance with this subsection
by reviewing two (2) vertical cross-sections through the property (front-to back and side-
to-side) that show the relationship of each level in a new structure and new levels added
to an existing structure to both existing and finished grade on the property and adjacent
land within five feet (5’) of the property line.

Section 10.12.030 (M) and A.12.030 (M) Open Space Requirement of the
Property Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
M) Open Space Requirement. The minimum usable open space (private and shared) in
RS, RM and RH Districts shall be provided as follows:
(1) For single family dwellings in Area District III and IV and multifamily dwelling units
in all districts, containing 2,333 square feet or less of buildable floor area, the minimum
requirement is 15 percent of the buildable floor area per unit, but not less than 220 square
feet. For calculating required open space, basement areas shall be calculated as 100%
buildable floor area, and 15% open space shall be required for the basement square
footage.
(2) For single family dwellings in Area Districts III and IV and multifamily dwelling
units in all districts, containing greater than 2,333 square feet of buildable floor area, the
minimum requirement is 350 square feet per dwelling unit.
(3) The amount of a dwelling unit’s required open space located above the second story
shall not exceed the proportion of the unit’s total Buildable Floor Area which is located at
the same level or story (where permitted by height regulations) shall not be more than
one-half (1/2) of the total required open space.
(4) Where new buildable floor area is added to an existing dwelling unit located in Area
District III or IV, or within an RM or RH zone in Area District I and II, additional usable
open space shall be provided equal to 15% of the added buildable floor area, until the
total open space requirement provided in this Section is attained.

Section 10.12.030 (T) and A.12.030 (T) Additional Front Setback

Requirements- RS Properties- Area Districts I and II of the Property
Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
(T) Additional Front and Corner Side Setback Requirement--RS Properties, Area
Districts I and II. In addition to the minimum front and corner side setback shown on
the chart, an additional front and corner side setback area shall be provided as follows:
1. On interior lots, the area shall directly abut the front yard setback, shall be equal to six
eight percent (6%) (8%) of the lot area, and shall be located entirely within the front one-
fifth (1/5) [twenty percent (20%)] of the lot’s buildable depth.
2. On corner lots, the area shall be equal to eight percent (8%) of the lot area, and the area
shall be divided between directly abutting the front and the streetside yard setbacks. A
minimum of 45% and a maximum of 55% of the total required area shall directly abut

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 4 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
both the required front and streetside yard setbacks. Adjacent to the front yard, the
portion of the area shall be located entirely within the front one-fifth (1/5) [twenty
percent (20%)] of the lot’s buildable depth. Adjacent to the corner streetside yard the
portion of the area shall be located entirely within the front one-third (1/3) [thirty-three
percent (33%)] of the lot’s buildable width, and not located within the rear yard setback.
Adjacent to the corner streetside the area shall provide a minimum of 3’ of depth or width
and shall be distributed to provide building wall articulation.
3. The ground level construction in this area shall be limited to fourteen feet (14’) in
height for areas with less than 3:12 roof pitch and seventeen feet (17’) in height for areas
with 3:12 or more roof pitch, as measured from local grade. Areas not having a minimum
3:12 roof pitch located behind minimum 3:12 roof pitch areas shall be set back a
minimum of three feet (3’) beyond the front building line of the pitched roof area (See
Graphic Illustration).
3. A maximum of one-half (½) of said area shall be designed or useable as roof top deck
surfaces.
4. Building projections above said area shall be considered as projections within a front
yard.
Exceptions:
1. Interior non-alley lots fifty-five feet (55’) or less in width with all parking spaces
located within the rear half of the lot shall not be required to provide the additional front
setback area.
2. This requirement may be reduced for a small, shallow, or multiple front yard lot if it
prevents the lot from attaining its permitted buildable floor area subject to approval of a
minor exception.
3. Corner lots, which provide driveway access along the interior side property line from a
front property line curb cut with all parking spaces located within the rear half of the lot,
shall not be required to provide the additional front setback area.
4. This requirement may be modified for the remodel/addition of existing homes if the
additional setback area is provided elsewhere on the lot subject to approval of a minor
exception.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 5 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 6 of 27
 Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

LIMIT LOT MERGERS

Section 10.12.030 entitled “Property Development Standards For Area
Districts I and II” and “Property Development Standards For Area
Districts III and IV”
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS I AND II

Area Area Area Area District Area Area Additional

District I District I District I II RS District II District II Regulations
RS RM RH RM RH
Minimum
Lot
Dimensions

Area (sq. ft) (A) (B) (C)

Minimum 7,500 7,500 7,500 4,600 4,600 4,600 (K)

Maximum 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,800 10,800 10,800

Width (ft) 50 50 50 40 40 40
Minimum

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS III AND IV

Area District III Area District III Area District III Area District IV Additional
RS RM RH RH Regulations
Minimum
Lot
Dimensions

Area (sq. ft) (A) (B) (C)

Minimum 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 (J) (K)
Maximum 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

Width (ft.)
Minimum 30 30 30 30

(K) Lot Dimensions- Area. Minimum and maximum lot area numbers represent a
range of permitted lot areas applicable to new subdivisions and building sites
created by merging, and/or the lot line adjustments for lots or portions of lots.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 7 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
When calculating maximum lot sizes, any lot dimensions with fractions shall
be rounded down to the nearest whole number prior to calculating the lot size.

Pre-existing unmerged developed lots which exceed the maximum lot area may
continue to be used as one lot until such time as new structures, enlargements or
alterations are proposed, in accordance with the 50% building valuation criteria in
Section 10.68.030 E, Alterations and enlargements of nonconforming uses and
structures. At that time when the 50% building valuation criteria is exceeded then the
new lot(s), and new development on those lots, shall comply with the current Zoning
Code property development regulations, and any other applicable Manhattan Beach
Municipal Code regulations.
Exceptions.
1. Properties zoned RM, RH and CL in Area Districts I and II that are
developed with three or more dwelling units, in order to encourage development
of multi-family housing in these areas.

2. Properties zoned RM, RH and CL in Area Districts III and IV that are
located within five-hundred feet (500’) of the Local Commercial (CL) or
Downtown Commercial (CD) Zones and developed with three or more dwelling
units, excluding those located on The Strand, subject to review and approval of a
Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 10.84.

3. Existing Legally Created Merged Lots. Any building site composed of

merged lots in excess of the maximum lot area as prescribed in this section, which
has been legally created or approved prior to February 19, 2008.

3. Non-alley RH lots in Area District III on Manhattan Beach Boulevard east

of Ardmore, since vehicles are not allowed to back out onto the street in this area
and lots need to be merged in order to allow adequate on-site turning movements
so vehicles can safely exit onto Manhattan Beach Boulevard traveling in a
forward direction.

4. Religious assembly and public or private schools uses, used as a single

building site, subject to the Director of Community Developments approval of a
Certificate of Compliance, and in accordance with Section 11.04.050 Certificate
of Compliance. These lots may continue to be used as one building site without
requiring a merger of parcels, and the expansion of existing religious assembly
and public or private schools is permitted without the recordation of a merger of
the parcels, in accordance with Chapter 11.32, Reversion to Acreage and Mergers.

5. The RS-D7 Design Review Overlay-Longfellow Drive, which has larger

lots that are established through a Precise Plan and are required by the Overlay
district.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 8 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
6. The RSC- Residential Senior Citizen Zone, which has a minimum lot size
of 40,000 square feet per the Zoning Code requirements.

7. The RPD- Residential Planned Development Zone which has a minimum

lot size of 40,000 square feet per the Zoning Code requirements.

Section 11.32.090 and A.32.090 Reversions to Acreage and Mergers

Chapter 11.32 REVERSIONS TO ACREAGE AND MERGERS
11.32.010 Reversions to acreage.
11.32.020 Merger of contiguous parcels.
11.32.030 Merger of contiguous parcels--Conditions.
11.32.040 Merger of contiguous parcels--Notice of intent.
11.32.050 Merger of contiguous parcels--Hearing.
11.32.060 Merger of contiguous parcels--Determination of merger.
11.32.070 Merger of contiguous parcels--Determination of non-merger.
11.32.080 Merger of contiguous parcels--Request by property owner.
11.32.090 Merger of contiguous parcels-- Religious assembly and Public or Private
School use

11.32.090 Merger of contiguous parcels-- Religious assembly and Public or

Private School use
A merger of parcels shall not be required for existing religious assembly and public or
private school uses, when the site is used as a single building site, subject to the Director
of Community Developments approval of a Certificate of Compliance, in accordance
with Section 11.04.050 Certificate of Compliance. These lots may continue to be used as
one building site without requiring a merger of parcels, and the expansion of existing
religious assembly and public or private schools is permitted without the recordation of a
merger of the parcels.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 9 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

ENCOURAGE THE RETENTION OF EXISTING

SMALLER HOMES
Sections 10.84.010 and A.84.010 Use Permits, Variances and Minor
Exceptions
Section 10.84.010 Purposes.
This chapter provides the flexibility in application of land-use and development
regulations necessary to achieve the purposes of this ordinance by establishing
procedures for approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of applications for use
permits, variances and minor exceptions.

Use permits are required for use classifications typically having unusual site development
features or operating characteristics requiring special consideration so that they may be
designed, located, and operated compatibly with uses on adjoining properties and in the
surrounding area.

Variances are intended to resolve practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships

that may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing
structures thereon; from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions on the site
or in the immediate vicinity; or from street locations or traffic conditions in the
immediate vicinity of the site.

Variances may be granted with respect to fences, walls, landscaping, screening, site area,
site dimensions, yards, height of structures, distances between structures, open space, off-
street parking and off-street loading, and performance standards.

Authorization to grant variances does not extend to use regulations because sufficient
flexibility is provided by the use permit process for specified uses and by the authority of
the Planning Commission to determine whether a specific use belongs within one or more
of the use classifications listed in Chapter 10.08. Further, Chapter 10.96 provides
procedures for amendments to the zoning map or zoning regulations. These will ensure
that any changes are consistent with the General Plan and the land use objectives of this
ordinance.

Minor exceptions are generally intended to allow certain alterations and additions to
certain nonconforming pre-existing structures. Minor Exceptions are also intended to
encourage home remodeling and small additions to existing smaller older legal non-
conforming homes. The provisions strive to balance the communities desire to maintain
smaller older homes while still allowing some flexibility to encourage these homes to be
maintained and upgraded, as well as enlarged below the maximum allowed square
footage instead of being replaced with larger new homes. Additionally, through the
review process, a project shall be found to be consistent with the intent of the non-
conforming Code provisions. The non-conforming provisions allow existing legal non-
conforming structures to remain, but limits their expansion, so that as these non-

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 10 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
conforming homes become older eventually their useful life will be depleted and the
structures will then be brought into conformance with the current Codes.

Sections 10.84.120 and A.84.120 entitled Use Permits, Variances and

Minor Exceptions
Section 10.84.120 Minor exceptions.

The Community Development Director may grant minor exceptions from certain
regulations contained in this ordinance for projects as follows:

Valuation less than 50%. Projects that do not exceed 50% reconstruction valuation
pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.68.030(E), as provided below.

Applicable Section Exception Allowed

10.12.030 Attachment of existing structures on a site in Area

District III or IV which result in the larger existing
structure becoming nonconforming to residential
development regulations.

10.12.030 Site enlargements (e.g., mergers, lot line

adjustments) which result in existing structures
becoming nonconforming to residential
development regulations.

10.12.030 and 10.68.030 D. Construction of a second or third story residential

addition that would project into required setbacks or
required open space when the pre-existing first or
second story was legally constructed.

10.60.040(H) and, r Reconstruction of raised grade stairways,

architectural archways, covered entries, and covered
porches in required yards and required open space
for pre-existing structures.

10.60.050 Alternative reference point for height measurement

for pre-existing structures that have height
nonconformities.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 11 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
Valuation no limitation. Projects that involve new structures or remodels without limits
of project valuation [ie. may exceed 50% valuation provisions of Section 10,68.030 (E)],
as provided below. Notice may be required for Exceptions to Sections 10.68.030 D and
E., see Section 10.84.120 A and B below for noticing requirements.

Applicable Section Exception Allowed

10.12.030 Attachment of existing structures on a site in Area

District III or IV which result in the larger existing
structure becoming nonconforming to residential
development regulations.

10.12.030 Site enlargements (e.g., mergers, lot line

adjustments), not exceeding the maximum lot area,
which result in existing structures becoming
nonconforming to residential development
regulations.

10.12.030 (M) Reduction in the 15% open space requirement for

dwelling units that are largely 1-story in 2-story
zones and for dwelling units that are largely 2-story
in 3-story zones.

10.12.030 (P) Construction of retaining walls beyond the

permitted height where existing topography
includes extreme slopes.

10.12.030 (T) Reduction in percentage of additional 6% front yard

setback, or 8% front/streetside yard setback on
corner lots, required in the RS Zone- Area Districts
I and II, 15% open space requirement, side yard
setbacks, and/or rear yard setback. This may be
applied to small, wide, shallow, multiple front yard,
and/or other unusually shaped lots or other unique
conditions.

10.12.030 (T) Reduction in percentage of additional 6% front yard

setback required in the RS Zone- Area Districts I
and II for remodel/additions to existing dwelling
units if the additional setback area is provided
elsewhere on the lot.

10.12.030(T) Reduction in percentage of additional 8%

front/streetside yard setback required on corner lots
in the RS Zone- Area Districts I and II for
remodel/additions to existing dwelling units if the

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 12 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
additional setback area is provided elsewhere on the
lot.

10.12 – 10.68 Non-compliant construction due to Community

Development staff review or inspection errors.

10.68.030 D and E, 10.12.030 Construction of a first, second or third story

and 10.12.030 (R) residential addition that would project into required
setbacks or required building separation yards,
matching the existing legal non-conforming
setback(s).

10.68.030 D. and E. Alterations, remodeling and small additions

(enlargements) to existing smaller older legal non-
conforming structures dwelling units.

10.68.030 E. Alterations and remodeling to existing legal non-

conforming structures.

A. Minor Exception Application without Notice. All applications for minor

exceptions may be approved administratively by the Director of Community
Development without notice, except as provided in Section B below.
Additionally, a minor exception from Section 10.68.030 D and E. must meet the
following criteria:

1. Alterations, remodeling, additions (enlargements) to existing smaller legal

non-conforming structures. The total proposed Buildable Floor Area, as
defined in Section 10.04.030 which excludes certain garage and basement
areas from BFA, does not exceed 66% of the maximum allowed (Area
Districts III and IV) and 75% of the maximum allowed (Area Districts I and
II) or 3,000 square feet, whichever is less .

2. Alterations and remodeling to existing legal non-conforming structures.

No limit to the total existing Buildable Floor Area, as defined in Section
10.04.030 which excludes certain garage and basement areas from BFA, but
no further additions (enlargements) permitted.

B. Minor Exception Application with Notice.

1. Applications for minor exceptions from Section 10.68.030 D and E. which do
not meet the criteria in Section A 1. above, may be approved administratively by
the Director of Community Development, with notice. A minor exception from
Section 10.68.030 D and E. must meet the following criteria, and notice as
provide in Section D below, must be provided:

a. Alterations, remodeling, additions (enlargements) to existing

smaller legal non-conforming structures. The total proposed Buildable
Floor Area as defined in Section 10.04.030 which excludes certain garage

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 13 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
and basement areas from BFA, does not exceed 66% of the maximum
allowed (Area Districts III and IV) and 75% of the maximum allowed
(Area Districts I and II) and the Buildable Floor Area exceeds 3,000
square feet but does not exceed 4,000 square feet.

C. Submittal requirements- all Minor Exceptions Applications. Applications for

all minor exceptions shall be initiated by submitting the following materials to the
Community Development Department.

1. A completed application form, signed by the property owner or authorized

agent, accompanied by the required fees, plans and mapping documentation in the
form prescribed by the Community Development Director.

2. Written statements to support the required findings and criteria of this Code
section.

3. A vicinity map showing the location and street address of the development site.

D. Submittal Requirements- Minor Exception Applications with notice.

Applications for minor exceptions with notice shall be initiated by submitting the
following materials to the Community Development Department:

1. A completed application form, signed by the property owner or authorized

agent, accompanied by the required fees, copies of deeds, any required power of
attorney, plans and mapping documentation in the form prescribed by the
Community Development Director.

2. Written statements to support the required findings and criteria of this Code
section.

3. A vicinity map showing the location and street address of the development site;

4. A map showing the location and street address of the property that is the
subject of the application and of all lots of record within 300 feet of the
boundaries of the property; and

5. A list, drawn from the last equalized property tax assessment roll or the records
of the County Assessor, Tax Collector, or the City' s contractor for such records
showing the names and addresses of the owner of record of each lot within 300
feet of the boundaries of the property. This list shall be keyed to the map required
by subsection 4 above and shall be accompanied by mailing labels.

E. Notice to Property Owners- Minor Exception with Notice. After receipt of a

completed Minor Exception application, the Community Development Director
shall provide notice to surrounding property owners as provided in Section D
above. with application submittal items 3 and 4 above. Said notice shall include:

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 14 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
a project description, information regarding where and when project plans can be
viewed, a request for comments regarding said exception, and a commenting
deadline date. No public hearing shall be required.

F. Director's Review and Action-All Minor Exceptions.

1. Notice of Decision. After the commenting deadline date, if any, and within 30
days of receipt of a completed application, the Director shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the required exception. The Director of
Community Development shall send the applicant and City Council a letter
stating the reasons for the decision under the authority for granting the
exception, as provided by the applicable sections of this ordinance. The letter
also shall state that the Director'
s decision is appealable under the provisions
of subsection (K) below. Notice of the decision also shall be mailed to all
those individuals who received the initial notice to property owners described
in subsection (E) above. previously noticed pursuant to A and B above.

2. Findings. In making a determination, the Director shall be required to make

the following findings: consider the following criteria:
a. The proposed project will be compatible with properties in the surrounding
area, including but not limited to, scale, mass, orientation, size and location of
setbacks, and height.
b. There will no significant detrimental impact to surrounding neighbors,
including but not limited to impacts to privacy, pedestrian and vehicular
accessibility, light, and air.
c. There are practical difficulty which warrants deviation from Code
standards, including but not limited to lot configuration, size, shape, or
topography, and/or relationship of existing building(s) to the lot.
d. That existing non-conformities will be brought closer to or in conformance
with Zoning Code and Building Safety requirements where deemed to be
reasonable and feasible.
e. That the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the
purposes of this title and the zoning district where the project is located, the
Local Coastal Program, if applicable, and with any other current applicable
policy guidelines.

G. Additional Criteria- Sections 10.68.030 D and E. When making a determination

to approve an exception to Section 10.68.030 D. and E, the Director shall also
require consider the following criteria to be met, in addition to the criteria
findings in Section 10.84.120 (F) 2., as stated above:

1. Whether deviation from Code is minor in nature.

2. Evidence that significant detrimental impact to surrounding neighbors is
absent.
3. Evidence of significant practical difficulty or economic hardship which
warrants deviation from Code standard.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 15 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
4. Whether the application is in compliance with any current policy
guidelines for Minor Exceptions as may be adopted by the City Council.

2. When making a determination to approve an exception to Section

10.68.030 E, the Director shall also require compliance with the following
criteria, in addition to the criteria stated above in Section 2:

a. The maximum total Buildable Floor Area of the existing dwelling unit
plus the addition(s), as defined in Section 10.04.030, which excludes
certain garage and basement areas from BFA, may not exceed 2,000
square feet in area.

1. New construction must conform to all current Code requirements except as

permitted by this Chapter.

2. Structural alterations or modifications, as regulated by Chapter 10.68, to

existing non-conforming portions of structures shall only be allowed as
follows:
a. To comply with Building Safety access, egress, fire protection and other
safety requirements (i.e. stairs, windows) as determined to be significant by
the Building Official.
b. For architectural compatibility (ie roof pitch and design, eave design,
architectural features design) as determined to be necessary by the Director of
Community Development.
c. Minor alterations to integrate a new 2nd or 3rd floor into an existing 1st
and/or 2nd floor, as determined to be necessary by the Director of Community
Development.
d. Architectural upgrades, including those associated with construction of
new square footage, as determined to be necessary by the Director of
Community Development.
e. Other minor alterations or modifications as determined to be necessary by
the Director of Community Development.

a. A minimum of 25% of the existing dwelling unit, based on project valuation

as defined in Section 10.68.030, shall be maintained.

3. A minimum of 10% of the existing structure, based on project valuation as

defined in Section 10.68.030, shall be maintained.
4. Parking spaces may remain non-conforming with respect to the number of
spaces, except as provided below, as well as the size, consistent with the
provisions in Section 10.64.090 Exceptions, which allows a 1 foot reduction
in dimensions. Other minor parking non-conformities, including but not
limited to, garage door width, turning radius, driveway width, and driveway
visibility, may remain as determined by the Director of Community
Development to be impractical to bring into conformance with Code
requirements.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 16 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
5. All existing parking, required in accordance with Chapter 10.64, or by the
provisions of this Section, shall be retained and shall not be reduced in
number or size.
6. Projects under 2,000 square feet in area per dwelling unit shall provide a
minimum 1-car fully enclosed garage per dwelling unit.
7. Projects 2,000 square feet in area and up to 2,800 square feet per dwelling unit
shall provide a minimum 2-car off-street parking with one fully enclosed
garage and one unenclosed parking space per dwelling unit, which may be
located in a required yard subject to Director of Community Development
approval.
8. Projects 2,800 square feet in area and up to 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit
shall provide a minimum 2-car fully enclosed garage per dwelling unit.
9. Projects 3,600 square feet in area per dwelling unit and over shall provide a
minimum 3-car fully enclosed garage per dwelling unit.
10. All development on the site which is existing legal non-conforming
development for Zoning regulations may remain, however non-conformities
shall be brought closer to or in conformance with current Zoning requirements
to the extent that it is reasonable and feasible.
11. The existing legal non-conforming portions of the structure that remain shall
provide a minimum of 50% of the required minimum setbacks, unless there is
an unusual lot configuration and relationship of the existing structure to the lot
lines for minor portions of the building, then less than 50% of the minimum
required setback may be retained.
12. All development on the site which is existing legal non-conforming for
Building Safety regulations shall be brought into conformance with current
regulations to the extent feasible, as determined by the Building Official.
13. After completion of the project(s) that is subject to the Minor Exception
approval(s), no further addition(s) shall be permitted unless the entire
structure is brought into conformance with the current Code requirements.
This shall not preclude the submittal of multiple Minor Exceptions that meet
the Code established criteria.

H. Additional Criteria- Section 10.12.030 (T). Interior Lots. When making a

determination to approve an exception to Section 10.12.030 (T) for a reduction in
percentage of additional front yard setback for alterations, remodeling and additions
(enlargements) to existing homes if the additional setback area is provided elsewhere,
the Director shall also require compliance with the following criteria, in addition to
the criteria stated above in Section 10.84.120 (F) 2:

1. A minimum of 3% of the additional front setback shall be provided within the

front and shall meet the criteria established in Section 10.12.030(T).
2. The percentage of area that is provided outside of the additional front setback
area, as established in Section 10.12.030 (T), shall be required to be two times
the percentage if it was provided in the front yard. [ie 6% required, if 3% in
the front (3% balance due)- provide 6% outside of the front yard= 9% total].

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 17 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
3. The area provided outside of the additional front setback area shall be located
adjacent to a required setback (ie, not an interior courtyard).
4. The area provided outside of the additional front setback area shall meet all of
the criteria established in Section 10.12.030 (T) 2.-4.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Purpose stated in Section
10.12.010 H.

I. Additional Criteria Section 10.12.030 (T) – Corner Lots. When making a

determination to approve an exception to Section 10.12.030 (T) on corner lots for
alterations, remodeling and additions (enlargements) to existing homes if the
additional front setback area is provided on the streetside frontage, the Director shall
also require compliance with the following criteria, in addition to the criteria stated
above in Section 10.84.120 F 2:

1. A minimum of 3% of the additional front setback shall be provided within the

front and shall meet the criteria established in Section 10.12.030 (T).
2. A minimum of 3% of the additional front setback shall be provided in a
location that is largely directly abutting the streetside setback, and the balance
of the required 8% shall be located adjacent to another required setback (ie not
an interior courtyard).
3. The area abutting the streetside setback shall meet all of the criteria
established in Section 10.12.030 (T) 2.-4.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Purpose stated in Section
10.12.010 H.

E.J. Conditions of Approval. In approving a minor exception permit, the Director

may impose reasonable conditions necessary to:

1. Achieve the general purposes of this ordinance and the specific purpose of the
zoning district in which the minor exception will be located, or to be
consistent with the General Plan;
2. Protect the public health, safety, and general welfare; or
3. Ensure operation and maintenance of the minor exception in a manner
compatible with existing uses on adjoining properties in the surrounding area.

F. K. Effective Date: Appeals. Unless appealed in accordance with Chapter 10.100 of

the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code., a minor exception decision shall become
effective after expiration of the time limits for appeal set forth in Section 10.100.030
Manhattan Beach Municipal Code.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 18 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

Sections 10.64.030 and A.64.030 Off-Street Parking and Loading

Regulations- Off-street parking and loading spaces required

OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED

Off-Street
Loading Spaces:
Off-Street Parking Spaces: Schedule B
Use Classification Schedule A Group Number
Residential

Single-Family Residential: 2 enclosed per unit.(See Minor

Dwelling with Buildable Exception- Chapter 10.84 for existing
Floor Area (BFA), plus any structure provisions)
exempted basement floor
area, totaling less than 3,600
square feet
Dwelling with Buildable Area 3 enclosed per unit. .(See Minor
(BFA), plus any exempted Exception- Chapter 10.84 for existing
basement floor area, totaling structure provisions)
3,600 square feet or more

Sections 10.68.010 and A.68.010 Nonconforming Uses and Structures-

Specific Purposes
10.68.010 Specific purposes.
This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by
restricting their enlargement, prohibiting their re-establishment after abandonment, and
their alteration or restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. While
permitting the use and maintenance of nonconforming structures, this chapter is intended
to limit the number and extent of nonconforming structures by prohibiting regulating and
limiting their being moved, altered, or enlarged in a manner that would increase the
discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards prescribed in this chapter and
by prohibiting (commercial structures only) their restoration after destruction.

Sections 10.68.030 and A.68.030 Alterations and enlargements of

nonconforming uses and structures
10.68.030 Alterations and enlargements of nonconforming uses and structures.
D. No nonconforming structure shall be structurally altered or reconstructed so as to
increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yards,
side yards, rear yards, height of structures, maximum allowable floor area, distances
between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed in the regulations for the zoning
district and area district in which the structure is located, except as provided for in
Chapter 10.84, Minor Exception. No nonconforming structure shall be moved or enlarged
unless the new location or enlargement shall conform to the standards for front yards,

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 19 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
side yards, rear yards, height of structures, maximum allowable floor area, distances
between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed in the regulations for the zoning
and area district in which the structure is located, except as provided for in Chapter 10.84,
Minor Exception.
E. If any structure on a site does not conform to the standards for front, side or rear yards,
height of structures, distance between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed for
the zoning district and area district where the structure is located, then no structure shall
be enlarged or altered if the total estimated construction cost of the proposed enlargement
or alteration, plus the total estimated construction costs of all other enlargements or
alterations for which building permits were issued within the preceding sixty (60) month
period (twelve (12) months in an IP district), exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the total
estimated cost of reconstructing the entire nonconforming structure unless the proposed
enlargement or alteration would render the structure conforming. Any enlargements or
alterations shall conform to requirements in effect at the time of issuance of the building
permit. For the purposes of this section, estimated construction and reconstruction costs
shall be determined by the Community Development Director in the same manner as the
Community Development Director determines final valuation for the purposes of
building permit fees.
Exceptions.
1. Where a structure is nonconforming only by reason of one (1) substandard front or
interior yard, provided that all nonconforming interior yards are not less than three feet
(3’), the structure may be enlarged or altered, as defined in this title without regard to the
estimated construction cost, provided that no portion of the structure which occupies a
required yard is altered, unless the alteration results in the elimination of the non-
conformity.
2. Where a structure is nonconforming only by reason of a substandard street side yard or
rear yard adjacent to a public street or alley, the structure may be enlarged or altered, as
defined in this title, without regard to the estimated construction cost, provided that no
portion of the structure which occupies a required yard is altered, unless the alteration
results in the elimination of the non-conformity.
3. Where a pre-existing, legally constructed building is nonconforming by reason of the
method of measuring height prescribed by Section 10.60.050, an alteration or
enlargement that conforms to all other regulations of this title shall be permitted without
regard to the estimated construction cost.
4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to projects for which an application for
exemption under Ordinance No. 1787 (nonconforming exemptions) has been made,
processed through the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council.
5. A chimney projection shall not be considered a nonconforming substandard yard, and
therefore shall be allowed in addition to the one non-conforming yard in Section 1 or 2
above. See Section 10.60.040(G), Building projections into required yards or required
open space—Chimneys, for standards.
5. 6. Where a minor exception to allow extra retaining wall height, reduced additional
front yard setbacks, non-compliant construction due to staff error, or for remodeling and
small additions to existing smaller homes, has been approved in accordance with Chapter
10.84 of this Code.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 20 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

Sections 10.60.040 H. and A.60.040 H. Minor Exceptions Site

Regulations-All Districts- Building projections into required yards or
required open space
10.60.040 Building projections into required yards or required open space.
Projections into required yards or required open space shall be permitted as follows:

H. Minor Exceptions. The Community Development Director may grant minor

exceptions: for the construction of a second or third story residential addition that would
project into required setbacks or required open space when the pre-existing first or
second story was legally constructed; and, from the limits on projections of reconstructed
raised grade stairways, architectural archways, covered entries and covered porches into
required yards and required open space for pre-existing structures under the provisions of
Section 10.84.120. (Reserved)

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 21 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

ALLOW ACCESSORY USE OF ADJACENT COMMON

OWNERSHIP LOTS
Sections 10.04.030 (Definitions)
Guest House (or Accessory Living Quarters): Any living area located within a main or
an accessory building which does not have direct interior access to the dwelling unit.
Such quarters shall have no kitchen facilities and shall not be rented or otherwise used as
a separate dwelling unit. Such guest quarters, or accessory living quarters, shall be
permitted only on a lot with one single family residence, except as provided for in
Section 10.52.050 F / A.52.050 F Residential Zones- Adjacent Separate Lots with
Common Ownership. This guest house, or accessory living quarters, shall be a maximum
of 500 square feet in size, limited to one habitable room, and contain a maximum of three
plumbing fixtures.

Sections 10.52.050 B. and A.52.050 B. Accessory Structures

B. Location. Except as provided in this chapter, accessory structures shall not occupy a
required front, side, or building separation yard. Mechanical equipment and storage
buildings shall be prohibited beyond the front building line of the principal structure
on a site. No accessory uses shall be permitted off-site; this shall not prohibit
development allowed in subsection F. below.
Exceptions.
1. Ornamental accessory structures may be located in the front yard of a site if they
do not exceed 42 inches in height.
2. One flagpole may be located in the front yard of a site if it does not exceed 15 feet
in height.
3. One decorative lamp post may be located in the front yard of a site if it does not
exceed 8 feet in height.
4. Architectural screen walls may be located in the front yard of a site pursuant to
Section 10.12.030(P).
5. One basketball hoop/post may be located in the front yard of a site if it does not
exceed 13 feet in height.
Mechanical equipment and storage buildings shall be prohibited beyond the front
building line of the principal structure on a site. No accessory uses shall be permitted
off-site.

Sections 10.52.050 F. and A.52.050 F. Accessory Structures

F. Residential Zones-Adjacent Separate Lots with Common Ownership. Contiguous
residential lots under common ownership may be developed as one site, with only
detached accessory structure(s) on one or more of the lots, subject to the following
criteria.
1. Development shall be compatible with adjoining properties in the surrounding
area (scale, mass, setbacks, height).

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 22 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
2. The development has no significant detrimental impact to surrounding neighbors
(privacy, pedestrian and vehicular accessibility, light, air, noise).
3. One of the lots must be developed with a residential dwelling unit as the principal
structure.
4. The development is in compliance with current Zoning Code standards and any
policy guidelines. For development standards the lots shall be treated as separate,
except that parking shall be provided for the total Buildable Floor Area on all of
the common ownership lots combined.
5. The recordation of a covenant shall be required, and shall provide for the removal
of the accessory structure(s) or the construction of a dwelling unit on the lot that
only has the accessory structure prior to selling the lots as separate lot(s). The
covenant shall stay in effect until such time as the lot(s) that does not have a
residential dwelling unit on it is developed with a dwelling unit, or the accessory
structure(s) are removed. The covenant shall be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any accessory structure on the lot(s) without the dwelling unit.
6. A development plan for the entire site, all of the contiguous lots under common
ownership, shall be submitted.
7. Development on the lot(s) that do not have a residential dwelling unit shall be
limited to the following accessory structures, and shall be in compliance with all
requirements of this title :
a. Guest House (or Accessory Living Quarters) in compliance with the
requirements of Section 10.04.030/A.04.030.
b. Other accessory structures in compliance with Section 10.52.050 E/A.52.050
E.
c. Garages and parking areas, provided the garages or parking is not required for
the dwelling unit on the contiguous lot.
d. Other accessory structures that are not included as gross floor area or square
footage, including but not limited to, pools and spas, sports courts, decks, and
patios.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 23 of 27
 Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

MISCELLANEOUS CLEAN-UP ITEMS

Section 10.04.030- Definitions- Floor Area, Buildable-Areas excluded

from a determination of Buildable Floor Area

Single Family Residential Districts:

Area Districts I and II: The area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400 square
feet on lots with less than 4,800 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with more
than 4,800 square feet. That area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400 square
feet on lots where 2 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided, and up to 600
square feet where 3 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided. Up to 200 square
feet of basement area for purposes of storage and mechanical equipment use. Basement
areas located entirely below local grade, and the related wells if they are the minimum
size required by the UBC. A condition of “entirely below local grade” exists where the
vertical dimension between the local grade elevation and finished floor of the next floor
above is no greater than two feet (2’).

Area Districts Ill and IV: The area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots with less than 2,700 square feet and up to 600 square feet on lots with
2,700 square feet or more. That area used for vehicle parking and loading, up to 400
square feet on lots where 2 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided, and up to
600 square feet where 3 enclosed parking spaces are required and provided. Up to 200
square feet of basement area for purposes of storage and mechanical equipment use.
Basement areas located entirely below local grade, and the related wells if they are the
minimum size required by the UBC. A condition of “entirely below local grade” exists
where the vertical dimension between the local grade elevation and finished floor of the
next floor above is no greater than two feet (2’).

Section 10.12.030 Property Development regulations: RS, RM and RH districts

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS III AND IV

Area District III Area District IV

Additional
RS RM RH RH Regulations
Minimum Setbacks
Front (ft.) 5 5 5 5 (A)(B)(D) (G)
Side (percentage- ft.) 10%-3 10%-3;5 10%-3;5 10%-3;5 (D)(E)(F)
min.;5 3;10 3;10 3;10
Corner Side (ft.) 1 1 1 1 (D)
Rear (ft.) 5 or 10 5 5 5 (D)(E)(F)(G)

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 24 of 27
 Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

(G) Rear Alley Setback Exceptions: Area Districts I and II: The width of a required
rear yard adjoining an alley shall be measured from the alley centerline, provided the rear
yard width is not less than five feet (5’) as measured from the rear property line. See
Section 10.64.110; Aisle Dimensions.
Area Districts III and IV: The width of a required rear yard adjoining an alley, or a
required front yard where the front yard adjoins an alley, may be reduced to two feet (2’)
at height elevations not less than eight feet (8’) above the street grade at the rear, or front,
property line. See Section 10.64.110; Aisle Dimensions.

Section 10.12.030 Property Development regulations: RS, RM and RH

districts

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL AREA DISTRICTS

Additional Regulations
Minimum Usable Open Space (M)
Required Landscaping Adjoining Streets (O)
Fences, and Walls, and Hedges (P) and 10.60.150
Building Separation (R)
Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 10.64 (Q)
House Moving (S)
Underground Utilities See Section 10.60.110
Refuse Storage Area See Section 10.60.100
Outdoor Facilities See Section 10.60.080
Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 10.60.090
Solar-assisted Water Heating See Section 10.60.140
Performance Standards See Section 10.60.120
Nonconforming Structures and Uses See Chapter 10.68
Signs See Chapter 10.72
Condominium Standards See Section 10.52.110
Minor Exceptions See Section 10.84.120
Telecommunications Facilities See Chapter 13.02 of MBMC
RS, RM and RH DISTRICTS: Additional Development Regulations
Substandard Lots See Section 10.60.020 and 11.32.030 and (J)
Building Projections into Setbacks See Section 10.60.040
Landscaping See Section 10.60.070
Accessory Structures See Section 10.52.050
Exterior Materials See Section 10.52.020
Home Occupation See Section 10.52.070
Tree Preservation See Section 10.52.120

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 25 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08

Section 10.12.030 (P) and A.12.030 (P) Fences and Walls of the Property
Development Regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts
(P) Fences, and Walls, and Hedges. The maximum height of a fence, or wall, or hedge
shall be 6 feet in required side or rear yards, and 42 inches in required front yards. In
addition, all fences, and walls and hedges shall be subject to the driveway visibility
requirements of Section 10.64.150, and the traffic vision clearance on corner lots of
Section 10.60.150 (Chapter 3.40).
For the purposes of this section, fence/wall/hedge height shall be measured from the
lower adjacent finished grade (which may include a neighboring private or public
property’s grade) adjacent to any portion of a vertically oriented barrier (including solid
hedges, but excluding structures and buildings, etc.) to the corresponding top of the
fence/wall/hedge said barrier portion, including any attachments. If more than one (1)
fence/wall/hedge is located within a required yard, any portion of a fence/wall/hedge that
projects above a forty-five (45) degree daylight plane inclined inward from the top of the
lowest adjacent fence/wall/hedge, shall be counted toward the height measurement of the
lowest fence/wall/hedge.
Exceptions:
1. A fence, or wall or hedge having additional non-retaining height shall be permitted
wherever a six (6) foot fence is allowed, provided such additional height over six (6) feet
meets one of the following criteria.
a. The additional portion is required, for safety purposes, by the City’s Building Official;
is constructed of primarily vertical railing that is continuously at least seventy-five
percent (75%) open; and, the total combined fence/wall height does not exceed eleven
(11) feet.
b. The additional portion is sloped inward (open or solid) at an angle of not less than
thirty (30) degrees and no more than forty-five (45) degrees from vertical, and provided,
further, that such additional portion shall not make the total height of the fence more than
eight (8) feet and shall not extend closer than three (3) feet to any part of any building.
c. The additional portion is approved in writing by each owner of property (the City in
cases of public right-of-way) abutting the property line along which the fence is located,
and provided, further, that such additional portion shall not make the total height of the
fence more than eight (8) feet, or the combined height of adjacent neighboring retaining
walls and fences more than twelve (12) feet. If a coastal development permit is required
for a fence by Sections 10.96.040 and 10.96.050 of this title, the additional height of the
fence may be approved only if the additional height does impede public views of the
ocean, the beach, or to and along the shoreline.
2. Architectural screen walls not to exceed six (6) feet six (6) inches in height may be
erected in the required front yard in Area Districts I and II provided that such walls are
placed not less than fourteen (14) feet back from the front lot line and not less than the
required setback from the side property line, nor extend for more than one-half (1/2) the
lot width.
For the purposes of this section, fence/wall height shall be measured from the lower
finished grade (which may include a neighboring private or public property’s grade)
adjacent to any portion of a vertically oriented barrier (including solid hedges, but
excluding structures and buildings, etc.) to the corresponding top of said barrier portion,
including any attachments. If more than one (1) fence/wall is located within a required

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 26 of 27
Mansionization Code Amendments Manhattan Beach, CA
Ordinance Nos. 2111 and 2112- Adopted 2-19-08, effective 3-21-08
yard, any portion of a fence/wall is located within a required yard, and portion of a
fence/wall that projects above a forty-five (45) degree daylight plane inclined inward
from the top of the lowest adjacent fence/wall, shall be counted toward the height
measurement of the lowest fence/wall.

C:\Documents and Settings\edanna\Desktop\CC 2-19-08 redline strikeout summary of adopted code language.doc
Page 27 of 27
 Palos Verde Estates, CA
Revised 9-11-07/R07-29

CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

GUIDELINES AND INFORMATION

The City of Palos Verdes Estates is a unique community with the advantage of two
organizations dedicated to protecting and preserving the unique character and the high standards
for development.

The Palos Verdes Homes Association, a private corporation established in 1923, has the
responsibility for enforcing the deed restrictions and providing architectural review and control
through its Art Jury. Exterior design review is the Art Jury's primary responsibility. The Art Jury
also considers compatibility with existing structures, site planning, building coverage, height,
color and materials.

The City government has the normal responsibility for protecting the health, safety and
the public welfare of its citizens. The City also reviews building development of new structures,
and expansion and modification of existing structures to monitor that the development conforms
to all City ordinances and is compatible with other structures in its neighborhood. Whether
control is by deed restrictions or by City ordinance, the more restrictive prevails.

1. Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance (with Commentary)

To help both new and current residents of the City and their architects understand and
navigate the process through the City, the following section sets forth verbatim portions of the
Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance (indented and in quotation marks), accompanied by a
Commentary intended to assist better understanding of the Ordinance and to help expedite the
approval process. The Commentary is not binding and does not supersede the Ordinance or
policies of the City Council and Planning Commission.

To quote section 18.36.010 of the Neighborhood Compatibility ordinance entitled:

“Purpose and intent” -- “The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the natural
scenic character of the city by establishing minimum standards related to the
siting and massing of either a new structure or a remodeled structure in an
existing neighborhood to assure to the greatest extent practicable that the
resulting structures are compatible with the neighborhood within which they are
located. The intent of this chapter is to regulate the development or
redevelopment of each building site with respect to adjacent land, public or
private, and existing structures so as to maximize visually pleasant relationships,
assure a bright, open neighborhood with a maximum of light and air, and avoid
the unpleasant appearance of crowding one structure against another, or of one
structure towering over another, insofar as is reasonable and practical. It is not
the intent to unreasonably restrict or regulate the right of an individual property
owner to determine the type of structure or addition he may wish to place or
modify on his property. It is the intent, however, to assure that the new or
modified structure does not unreasonably impact on adjacent property owners
and the compatibility of structures in the neighborhood. The regulations in this

1
Used with permission.
 Palos Verde Estates, CA
Revised 9-11-07/R07-29

chapter are in addition to the requirements of other regulations or ordinances of

the city, and, where in conflict, the more restrictive regulations shall apply."

Commentary: In accomplishing the Purpose and Intent of the Neighborhood Compatibility

Ordinance, four broad factors are considered: natural amenities, neighborhood character, views,
and privacy.

(1) “Natural Amenities. Improvements to residential property shall respect and

preserve to the greatest extent practicable the natural features of the land, including the
existing topography and landscaping.”

Commentary: To encourage this, the grading ordinance requires approval by the Planning
Commission if, among other things, more than 250 cu. yds. of cut or fill are graded. The fee for
grading may include a road impact fee which may increase substantially if a large amount of soil
is exported off or brought on to the site. Designs which flow with the land instead of reshaping
the land to conform with the design are more acceptable. It is recognized, however, that increased
grading and export may be desirable to lower the proposed structure in order to favor views of
neighbors or reduce the feeling of massiveness.

(2) “Neighborhood Character. Proposals shall be reasonably compatible with

the existing neighborhood character in terms of the scale of development of surrounding
residences, particularly those within three hundred feet of the proposed development
parcel boundaries. While many elements can contribute to the scale of a residential
structure, designs should minimize the appearance of over- or excessive building
substantially in excess of existing structures in the neighborhood. The square footage of
the structure and the total lot coverage should reflect the uncrowded character of the City
and the respective neighborhood. The height of the structures shall maintain to the extent
reasonably practicable, some consistency with the height of structures on neighboring
properties.”

Commentary: The Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance does not define “neighborhood.”

While the Ordinance does emphasize the importance of compatibility between a proposed
development and those properties within the area to which formal notice is required to be given
(300 feet of the proposed development parcel boundaries), traditionally, the City has not
interpreted “neighborhood” to be limited to that area. In general, “neighborhood” will also
include all properties within the area of the project which are logically affected by the proposed
development, typically, a minimum of 20 of the closest properties on the same street. When
appropriate, the Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add or subtract properties
contiguous to the defined neighborhood which may relate to the consideration of the application.

Consideration will be given to the “floor area ratio” (the ratio of the floor area of the
proposed structure to lot area, as compared to other homes in the neighborhood). In a “transitional
neighborhood” (defined as one undergoing change due to extensive remodeling or tear-down and
rebuilding), one no more than 50% larger than the average on a similar size lot is preferred. If the
proposed structure is more than twice the size of the average home in the neighborhood on a
comparable size lot, it will receive added attention. Consideration will also be given to the “gross
floor area” of a proposed structure, which may add to the apparent size and mass of a structure.

The presence of eaves in the setbacks (front or side) will also be carefully evaluated as to
their effect upon the appearance of crowding and massing.

2
 Palos Verde Estates, CA
Revised 9-11-07/R07-29

Each application will be considered on its own merits and will be judged by how it fits
within the neighborhood. The fact that the deed restrictions permit certain types of development
may be considered, but there is no vested right to develop in a particular way simply because such
development is permitted by the deed restrictions. Conversely, the fact that development in a
neighborhood has historically been only of one particular type, such as single story homes, does
not mandate denial of an application for a different type of development, such as a two-story
home, which is otherwise reasonably compatible. A transitional height from adjacent single-story
homes is encouraged in preference to a maximum permitted height.

It should be recognized that, particularly in an area of smaller homes on smaller lots, all
architectural styles may not be appropriate. To quote an Art Jury guideline, “The design of a
building must, in the opinion of the Art Jury, be reasonably appropriate to its site.” Two-story
elements and high ceilings which effectively increase the bulk are discouraged. A second story
addition is unlikely to be approved if the existing first floor height is substantially above the level
which would have been approved for an original two-story home in a single story neighborhood
unless reasonable attempts are made to mitigate the mass and/or reduce the view impact on the
neighbors.

The Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance takes precedence over other ordinances if

more restrictive, such that the floor area limitation formula in the zoning ordinance is a maximum
and not an entitlement.

(3) “Privacy. Design proposals shall respect the existing privacy of adjacent
properties by maintaining an adequate amount of separation between the proposed
structure and adjacent properties, and the design of balconies, decks and windows should
respect the existing privacy of adjacent properties.”

Commentary: The privacy impact of encroachments of incidental architectural elements such as

eaves, balconies, trash yards, chimneys, and BBQ’s into side setbacks of record may be a factor
considered and addressed in a neighborhood compatibility application. Screen planting to
enhance privacy of adjacent homes is encouraged so long as the screen planting at maturity does
not exceed the height of the roof line in view areas or create significant view impacts.

(4) “Views. Designs should consider to the extent reasonably practicable

neighbors' existing views.”

Commentary: To aid in assessing impacts on neighborhood character, privacy, and views, the
City requires construction of a silhouette in accordance with City standards. While views cannot
be guaranteed, reasonable efforts should be made to minimize the impact on the neighbors’
existing views when a new development is proposed. When existing views will be impacted by
the addition of a second story the matter will be carefully reviewed.

It is recognized that because of the wide diversity of terrain and layout of lots, many adjacent
properties will have no view or limited views depending on whether a proposed development is
of limited or not unreasonable height or if the new development is situated substantially below
existing structures. It is further recognized that view obstruction by a proposed project tends to
create the greatest animosity toward the applicant. Neighbors and applicants should recognize
what is required and what is permitted under City ordinances including Neighborhood
Compatibility, Zoning and Grading and try to work with each other to maximize mutual benefit.

Maturing trees in a view neighborhood have a significant influence on the retention of

3
 Palos Verde Estates, CA
Revised 9-11-07/R07-29

views. Disputes concerning privately-owned trees blocking views should be addressed to the
Homes Association.

2. When Applications are Required

The Palos Verdes Homes Association requires that the plans for all new homes and all
changes to the exterior of an existing property be approved by the Art Jury. An application for
submitting plans for approval may be obtained from the Homes Association office. While all
applications must comply with applicable City ordinances, the City requires that an application
for a proposed project be submitted for Planning Commission (and possibly City Council) review
and determination of compliance with the Neighborhood Compatibility and Grading Ordinances
in the following instances:

A. For Neighborhood Compatibility determination if:

(1) Any new structure of one thousand square feet or more of gross floor area.
(2) Addition of one thousand square feet or more of gross floor area to any
existing structure.
(3) Additions of gross floor area in the form of a second story whether in whole
or in part to any existing structure.
(4) Addition to an existing building of a second story deck or balcony eighty or
more square feet in area and/or projecting more than six feet from the
existing building.
(5) Addition to an existing building of a second story deck or balcony which is
located in a required side yard setback.
(6) Addition of a mezzanine, whether in whole or in part to any existing
structure, that changes the exterior of the building or structure.
(7) Any increase in the roof ridge elevation of any portion of an existing
building, unless the increase is only a result of utilizing an alternate roofing
material.

B. For Grading applications if:

(1) The building official has required an engineering geology report.
(2) The project results in a cut or fill in excess of ten (10) feet in depth or
height.
(3) Any lot where the quantity of cut and fill exceeds two hundred fifty (250)
cubic yards.
(4) Any lot where the quantity of cut and fill exceeds one hundred (100) cubic
yards for grading exterior to the dwelling unit foundation, garage and
driveway.
(5) There has been grading or a grading application on the property within
twenty-four (24) months preceding the date of the current application which
would, when combined with the current application, require grading permit
approval.

For projects where neither A nor B above are triggered, Planning Commission approval
of plans is not required. Sec. 18.36.040 provides for exemptions to the Neighborhood
Compatibility process. For those projects not exempted, the following process in Section
3 below will apply:

4
 Palos Verde Estates, CA
Revised 9-11-07/R07-29

3. City Review Process

For an application to be accepted by the Planning Department for submission to the Planning
Commission to determine Neighborhood Compatibility, it must be accompanied, at a minimum,
by a preliminary plot plan and floor plan, cross sections including adjacent homes or land on all
four sides, and preliminary elevations in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the appearance in
the defined neighborhood. It is recommended that accurate data concerning the square footage of
the house and the ratio of floor area to lot area of the proposed structure compared to the average
ratio in the neighborhood be included with the application. In order to minimize architectural
expenses, it is recommended that detail drawings not be submitted because of the possibility of
recommended changes by the Commission. If the application is for a new home, for a second or
higher story addition, or for effectively a tear-down and rebuilding resulting in a two-story
structure where a one-story existed, it is strongly recommended that included with the application
on forms furnished by the Planning Department, shall be an affidavit executed by the applicant
indicating that property owners within three hundred feet of the proposed development parcel
boundaries have been contacted by certified mail, have been given the opportunity to review the
preliminary plans, and have been given the opportunity to state whether they favor or oppose the
project. Neighborhood meetings at which plans and explanations are available for review are
strongly advised and should be conducted as early in the process as possible prior to the hearing
before the Planning Commission. Those who oppose the project may state their concerns,
preferably on forms provided by the Planning Department, and made available to the neighbors
by the applicant. The concerns or objections should be accompanied by supporting data, such as
cross sections, sight lines and relative size, substantiating the reasons for concern or objection.
Individual documentation of concerns or objections will take precedence over petitions with
multiple names. Legitimate and substantiated comments by neighbors will be thoroughly
evaluated, as will comments provided by the applicant and supporters of the project. However,
the final determination of approval rests with the Planning Commission and City Council.

After a completed application accompanied by the application fee and two sets of drawings is
accepted by the Planning department, it will be reviewed by the planning staff, and the applicant
will be notified when planning corrections, if any, are available. After corrections, if any, have
been made, 10 sets of complete and corrected preliminary plans must be forwarded to the City for
placing on the next available Planning Commission agenda. Every effort will be made to expedite
placing a completed application on the Planning Commission agenda, but there can be no
guarantee as to which meeting because of the unpredictable volume of applications. However,
processing will be accomplished within the time period specified by State law. After review in
the public hearing by the Commission, changes may be required. To minimize additional
application fees, it may be preferable for the applicant to request that the matter be held over to
the next meeting while consideration of suggested changes is accomplished. If the changes
suggested are the result of last minute public input or protest after having had the opportunity to
provide input before the application was submitted to the Planning Commission, it will be the
responsibility of the protesting individual to furnish written justification accompanied by
supporting data, for the change to be considered by the Commission. The action of the Planning
Commission is final unless the City Council takes affirmative action to bring the matter before
itself off the consent agenda, or unless an appeal is filed.

4. Art Jury Review Process

The Art Jury, which reports to the Board of Directors of the Palos Verdes Homes Association,
reviews plans for all new homes and all changes to existing properties. The Art Jury makes
certain that the project not only meets its standards of architectural style and design, but also

5
 Palos Verde Estates, CA
Revised 9-11-07/R07-29

considers compatibility with existing structures, site planning, building coverage, height, color
and materials. Since the Art Jury has the primary responsibility for architectural design review
and control dating back to 1923, it is strongly recommended that the application process for
approval of a new or modified structure begin by submitting preliminary plans, clearly depicting
the proposed project, to the Homes Association for preliminary approval. While an application
can be submitted concurrently to the City for preliminary neighborhood compatibility approval,
there may be less overall time consumed and less architect cost for changes if preliminary Art
Jury approval is obtained before submitting plans to the City.

Upon receipt of approval of preliminary plans by the Art Jury, and receipt of approval from the
Planning Commission, confirmed by the City Council, the applicant can submit working
drawings to the Art Jury for approval. Upon final approval by the Art Jury, if there are no changes
in basic design found by the Planning Department affecting Neighborhood Compatibility and
other Planning Commission issues, the working drawings may be submitted to the Building and
Safety Department for plan check and issuance of permits without further consideration by the
Planning Commission.

5. Summary

In summary, the above explanations and guidelines are intended to provide a greater
understanding of the objectives and the methods of reaching those objectives in creating and
protecting the unique jewel called Palos Verdes Estates. To quote from the original Protective
Restrictions, "...every possible protection has been established, to make sure that the
neighborhoods in Palos Verdes can never be spoiled, that every man who builds a fine home or
other building here need not fear that a thoughtless or unsympathetic neighbor would put in a
kind of building next to him so unattractive or inappropriate as to be ruinous." Both the Homes
Association since 1923 and the City since incorporation in 1939 share the same objectives. In
adopting the Neighborhood Compatibility concept by the City in 1988, the objectives are the
same with an additional opportunity to provide oversight, if needed, and to provide an
opportunity for public input. Again, it is not the intent of the City to unreasonably restrict or
regulate the right of an individual property owner to determine the type of structure or addition he
may wish to place or modify on his property. It is the intent, however, to assure that the new or
modified structure does not unreasonably impact adjacent property owners and the compatibility
of structures in the neighborhood. It is the hope that applicants and neighbors can resolve
concerns and objections amicably for their mutual benefit. Remember, the applicant may be your
new neighbor.

6
 Salt Lake City, UT

Salt Lake (Utah), City of. 2008. City Code.

Title 21A. ZONING

Chapter 21A.34. OVERLAY DISTRICTS

Section 21A.34.120 YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District

A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Yalecrest compatible infill (YCI) overlay
district is to establish standards for new construction, additions and alterations of
principal and accessory residential structures within the Yalecrest community. The
goal is to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations
and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The YCI
overlay district promotes a desirable residential neighborhood by maintaining
aesthetically pleasing environments, safety, privacy, and neighborhood character.
The standards allow for flexibility of design while providing compatibility with existing
development patterns within the Yalecrest community.

B. Overlay District Boundary: The YCI overlay district applies to any residential
property zoned residential R-1/5000 or R-1/7000 within the area defined by the
intersecting centerlines of 1300 East, 800 South, Sunnyside Avenue (840 South),
1900 East and 1300 South Streets.

C. Building Height:

1. Maximum Building Height: All heights to be measured from finish grade.

a. Pitched roofs: Twenty seven and one-half feet (27.5') measured to

the midpoint of the roof (as indicated in section 21A.62.050, illustration B, of
this title.

b. Mansard or flat roofs: Twenty feet (20').

c. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes from one side
property line to the other side or corner side property line may increase the
maximum building height, as measured from the downhill side face of the
building at a rate of one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference
between average grades of the uphill and downhill faces of the building, up to
a maximum height of thirty feet (30').

2. Maximum Exterior Wall Height Adjacent To Interior Side Yards: Eighteen

and one-half feet (18.5') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established
by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or
fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback
beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with
a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the
maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction
thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the
property line than the required side yard setback.

a. Lots With Cross Slopes: Lots with cross slopes where the
topography slopes from one side property line to the other side or corner side

Used with permission. 1

 Salt Lake City, UT

property line, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half
foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the
average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building.

b. Exceptions:

i. Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to

a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height
of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the
maximum wall height limitation described in this section.

ii. Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum
exterior wall height if:

(A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and

(B) The total combined width of dormers is less than

equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade
facing the interior side yard; and

(C) Dormers spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart.

D. Front Yard Requirements: The minimum front yard shall be derived by

measuring the front yards (the open, unoccupied, landscaped space between the
front building lines of all developed properties) fronting the same side of the street
within three hundred feet (300') of the subject property but in no case shall the
measurements extend across intervening streets. The minimum required front yard
shall be equal to the average of the smallest fifty percent (50%) of front yards
measured. For example, if ten (10) developed properties are located along the same
side of the street within three hundred feet (300') of the subject property, the
required minimum front yard is equal to the average of the five (5) (10 x 50% = 5)
smallest front yards.

E. Accessory Structures:

1. Maximum Height For Accessory Structures With A Pitched Roof: Fifteen feet
(15').

2. Noncomplying Detached Garages: An existing noncomplying detached

garage located in the rear yard may be rebuilt or expanded at its existing location to
a maximum size of four hundred forty (440) square feet subject to the approval of
the development review team (DRT).

3. Garages Located In Front Of The House: No detached garage shall be

constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section
21A.62.040 of this title), unless a new garage is constructed to replace an existing
garage. In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in the same location with
the same dimensions as the garage being replaced.

4. Maximum Garage Door Height: Eight and one-half feet (8.5').

F. Standards For Attached Garages:

2
 Salt Lake City, UT

1. Located Behind Or In Line With The Front Line Of The Building: No attached
garage shall be constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in
section 21A.62.040 of this title), unless a new garage is constructed to replace an
existing garage. In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in the same
location with the same dimensions as the garage being replaced.

2. Width Of An Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the

street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the
house. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, or in the
case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the
width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors up to a maximum of
three feet (3').

3. Maximum Garage Door Height: Eight and one-half feet (8.5').

G. Special Exception For Garages: A garage built into a hillside and located
forward of the front line of the building may be allowed as a special exception
granted by the board of adjustment, subject to the following standards:

1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of
parking.

2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage

and satisfy the standards of the YCI.

3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or
main floor of the house.

4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements.

H. Authority To Modify Regulations Through Variance Or Special Exception:

The board of adjustment may consider applications from property owners seeking to
change, alter, modify or waive any provisions of this section or other regulations
applicable to the district in which the subject property is located through the variance
(chapter 21A.18 of this title) or special exception (chapter 21A.52 of this title)
processes. No such change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be approved
unless the board of adjustment finds that the proposal:

1. Will achieve the purposes of the Yalecrest compatible infill overlay district
described in subsection A of this section; and

2. Will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this title and
of any plans adopted by the city. (Ord. 44-05 § 1, 2005)

3
 Scarsdale, NY

Scarsdale (New York), Village of. 2008. Village Code.

Chapter 310. Zoning

ARTICLE XVI Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Houses in Residence A Districts
[Added 3-26-2002 by L.L. No. 1-2002]

§ 310-100. Purpose and applicability.

A. The unique character of residential neighborhoods in Scarsdale rests on the

diversity in the style and design of houses as well as the general uniformity in the
scale of houses located on similarly sized lots in neighborhoods throughout the
community. The recent trend of tearing down existing houses and replacing them
with larger houses or building large additions to existing houses threatens the
appearance and impacts upon the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of
Scarsdale.

B. This article establishes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all single-family and
two-family residences in the Residence A Zones. It responds both to the desire of
residents to enlarge their homes to meet the needs of their families and to preserve
neighborhood character by requiring houses to appear to be of the same or similar
scale to others in the neighborhood. It is the intent of this article to encourage both
new houses and expansions or alterations to existing houses to have a consistent
scale with the nearby residences on both sides of the street. The FAR provisions are
intended to be applied together with other provisions of the Village Code, including
the provisions for lot coverage.

§ 310-101. Definitions.
[Amended 12-11-2007 by L.L. No. 15-2007]

Words used in this article shall have the meanings indicated in Chapter 310, Zoning,
§ 310-2, and, in addition thereto, the following terms shall have the meanings
indicated:

DECK — An outdoor platform attached to the principal structure of a building and

built above the natural grade. A deck does not have a roof and is exposed to the
elements.

DORMER — A subunit of a structure interrupting a roof slope with its own walls and
roof, and characterized by the roof shape, including but not limited to flat, decked,
hipped, shed, gabled, inset, arched, segmental, and eyebrow styled roofs.

GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA — The sum of the gross area of all floors of a
residence, measured to the exterior of the outside walls. In calculating the gross
floor area of houses in the Residence A Zones for the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio (FAR), all floor areas of each floor of all principal and all accessory
structures on the lot shall be included, except for the portion which may be
exempted as provided in § 310-103. Any interior space with a floor-to-ceiling height
in excess of 14 feet shall be counted twice.

Used with permission. 1

 Scarsdale, NY

HEIGHT, FLOOR-TO-CEILING — The distance between the finished floor and the
finished ceiling of an interior space. The distance shall be equal to the length of a
theoretical line drawn from the floor to a point of the highest portion of the ceiling
directly above it and is perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the floor.

OUT-OF-SCALE — With regard to a building or any part thereof, the condition of

being or appearing to be disproportionately large, bulky, or massive relative to the
other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood (particularly, but not limited to, the
buildings on contiguous tax lots) and/or relative to the size of the tax lot upon which
the building is situated; also, with regard to any one part of a building (or an
addition to a pre-existing building), the condition of being or appearing to be
disproportionately large, bulky, or massive relative to any other part of the same
building (or, in the case of an addition, relative to the pre-existing building); with
regard to an accessory structure, the condition of being or appearing to be
disproportionately large, bulky, or massive relative to the principal structure, the
other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood, and/or the size of the tax lot upon
which the accessory structure is situated.

PORCH, ENCLOSED — A structure attached to a building, with a floor, roof, and

structural supports, and permanently, seasonally, or temporarily enclosed with solid
materials, such as glass or lexan (a clear, durable, hard plastic material). Screens,
curtains, or latticework made of wire-mesh, cloth, paper, strips of wood or metal, or
other similar material, shall not be considered "solid" for the purpose of this
definition. A porch does not need to be heated or insulated to be considered
"enclosed."

PORCH, UNENCLOSED — A structure attached to a building, which has a floor, a

roof, and structural supports, but not permanently, seasonally, or temporarily
enclosed with solid materials, such as glass or lexan (a clear, durable, hard plastic
material).

§ 310-102. Maximum floor area ratio.

As illustrated herein as Table XVI-1, the maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR)
for houses shall be as follows:

A. Lots of 4,999 square feet or less shall have a maximum FAR of 0.43 (maximum
floor area ratio = 0.43).

B. Lots between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square feet shall have a maximum FAR
of 0.43, minus 0.016 for every 1,000 square feet or part thereof in excess of 5,000
square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.43 - ((lot size - 5,000) / 1,000) x 0.016].

C. Lots between 10,000 square feet and 14,999 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.35, minus 0.012 for every 1,000 square feet or part thereof in excess of
10,000 square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.35 - ((lot size - 10,000) / 1,000)
x 0.012].

D. Lots between 15,000 square feet and 29,999 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.29, minus 0.006 for every 1,000 square feet or part thereof in excess of
15,000 square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.29 - ((lot size - 15,000) / 1,000)
x 0.006].

2
 Scarsdale, NY

E. Lots between 30,000 square feet and 34,999 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.20, minus 0.0045 for every 1,000 square feet or part thereof in excess of
30,000 square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.20 - ((lot size - 30,000) / 1,000)
x .0045].

F. Lots between 35,000 square feet and 39,999 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.1775, minus 0.003 for every 1,000 square feet or part thereof in excess of
35,000 square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.1775 - ((lot size - 35,000) /
1,000) x .003].

G. Lots between 40,000 square feet and 44,999 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.1625, minus 0.002 for every 1,000 square feet or part thereof in excess of
40,000 square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.1625 - ((lot size - 40,000) /
1,000) x .002].

H. Lots between 45,000 square feet and 49,999 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.1525, minus 0.0015 or part thereof for every 1,000 square feet or part
thereof in excess of 45,000 square feet [maximum floor area ratio = 0.1525 - ((lot
size - 45,000) / 1,000) x .0015].

I. Lots between 50,000 square feet and 76,230 square feet shall have a maximum
FAR of 0.1450 (maximum floor area ratio = 0.1450].

J. Any house which exceeds 15,000 square feet of gross residential floor area shall
be required to obtain a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Table XVI-1
Illustrative Table of
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Lot Size Resulting Gross Residential Floor Area
(square feet) Maximum FAR (square feet)
3,000 0.4300 1,290
4,000 0.4300 1,720
5,000 0.4300 2,150
6,000 0.4140 2,484
7,000 0.3980 2,786
8,000 0.3820 3,056
9,000 0.3660 3,294
10,000 0.3500 3,500
11,000 0.3380 3,718
12,000 0.3260 3,912
13,000 0.3140 4,082
14,000 0.3020 4,228
15,000 0.2900 4,350

3
 Scarsdale, NY

16,000 0.2840 4,544

17,000 0.2780 4,726
18,000 0.2720 4,896
19,000 0.2660 5,054
20,000 0.2600 5,200
21,000 0.2540 5,334
22,000 0.2480 5,456
23,000 0.2420 5,566
24,000 0.2360 5,664
25,000 0.2300 5,750
26,000 0.2240 5,824
27,000 0.2180 5,886
28,000 0.2120 5,936
29,000 0.2060 5,974
30,000 0.2000 6,000
31,000 0.1955 6,061
32,000 0.1910 6,112
33,000 0.1865 6,155
34,000 0.1820 6,188
35,000 0.1775 6,213
36,000 0.1745 6,282
37,000 0.1715 6,346
38,000 0.1685 6,403
39,000 0.1655 6,455
40,000 0.1625 6,500
41,000 0.1605 6,581
42,000 0.1585 6,657
43,000 0.1565 6,730
44,000 0.1545 6,798
45,000 0.1525 6,863
46,000 0.1510 6,946
47,000 0.1495 7,027
48,000 0.1480 7,104
49,000 0.1465 7,179
50,000 0.1450 7,250
51,000 0.1450 7,395
52,000 0.1450 7,540

4
 Scarsdale, NY

53,000 0.1450 7,685

54,000 0.1450 7,830
55,000 0.1450 7,975
56,000 0.1450 8,120
57,000 0.1450 8,265
58,000 0.1450 8,410
59,000 0.1450 8,555
60,000 0.1450 8,700
61,000 0.1450 8,845
62,000 0.1450 8,990
63,000 0.1450 9,135
64,000 0.1450 9,280
65,000 0.1450 9,425
66,000 0.1450 9,570
67,000 0.1450 9,715
68,000 0.1450 9,860
69,000 0.1450 10,005
70,000 0.1450 10,150
71,000 0.1450 10,295
72,000 0.1450 10,440
73,000 0.1450 10,585
74,000 0.1450 10,730
75,000 0.1450 10,875
76,000 0.1450 11,020
76,230 0.1450 11,053
76,231+ No maximum None1
NOTES:
1
Houses which exceed 15,000 square feet in size shall be required to obtain a
special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

§ 310-103. Exemptions from the calculation of floor area ratio in Residence

A Zones.
[Amended 10-14-2003 by L.L. No. 11-2003; 5-13-2008 by L.L. No. 4-2008]

A. Decks, patios, unenclosed porches and porticoes.

(1) All space in unroofed structures such as decks and patios shall be
excluded from the calculation of FAR.

5
 Scarsdale, NY

(2) All space in unenclosed porches and porticoes shall be excluded from the
calculation of FAR. For the purpose of FAR calculation, "unenclosed" shall mean those
porches or porticoes that are open and not permanently, seasonally or temporarily
enclosed as defined in § 310-101.

B. Basements, cellars and basement garages. That portion of the floor area of the
basement, cellar or basement garage where the exposed exterior wall or walls facing
the front yard is less than three feet as measured from the existing or proposed
grade, whichever is lower, shall be excluded from the calculation of FAR. All the
remaining portions of the floor area of basements, cellars or basement garages,
where the height of the exterior exposed wall or walls facing the front yard is three
feet or more as measured from the existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower,
shall be included in the FAR.

C. Attics or space under a sloping roof.

(1) All unfinished or finished space in an attic or under a sloping roof which
has no dormers facing the front, side, or rear yards, or which has dormers or
dormered porticoes that do not exceed the following dimensions, shall be excluded
from the calculation of FAR:

(a) For dormers facing the front or side yards, where the
exterior width of such dormers does not exceed 30% of the exterior
linear width of the roof upon which they are situated. The exterior
linear width of the roof shall be measured from end to end at the
widest point of the roof.

(b) For each of those dormers which face the rear yard, where
the distance between the side walls of the underlying story and the
side wall of the dormer is greater than five feet.

(2) Where the dimensions of one or more dormers exceed one or both of the
standards under § 310-103C above, the total area in the attic or under the sloping
roof shall be included in calculation of FAR, except as provided for in § 310-103C(3)
below.

(3) That portion of unfinished or finished space in an attic or under a sloping

roof where the distance between the floor and ceiling is less than four feet shall be
excluded from the calculation of FAR.

D. Garages.

(1) On lots measuring 9,999 square feet or less, the lesser of 250 square feet
or the total floor area contained within one-story garages, either detached or
attached to the principal structure, shall be excluded from the calculation of the FAR.

(2) On lots measuring 10,000 square feet or more, the lesser of 400 square
feet or the total floor area contained within one-story garages, either detached or
attached to the principal structure, shall be excluded from the calculation of the FAR.

(3) In those instances where an additional story is provided above a garage,

whether detached or attached, such floor area or garage floor area, up to the limits
set forth herein as defined by lot size, shall be excluded from the calculation of FAR.

6
 Scarsdale, NY

For purposes of Subsection D, attic space or area under a sloped roof shall not be
construed to be an additional story unless it meets the criteria of § 310-103C(1)
above.

(4) Notwithstanding the above, Subsection D shall not apply to basement

garages.

§ 310-104. Side yard setback FAR bonus.

A. In all Residence A Zones, except the AA-1 Zone, for each additional foot that a
house is set back beyond the minimum required side yard setback, an additional 100
square feet of floor area above the maximum permitted FAR on that lot as per §
310-102 shall be permitted, provided that:

(1) In the case of additions to existing homes, the additional or bonus floor
area is added to the rear of the existing house; and

(2) Such an addition complies with the maximum height, maximum lot
coverage, and minimum setback requirements of the Scarsdale Zoning Code.

B. The maximum bonus shall be 400 square feet for lots located in the A-4 and A-5
Residential Zones, 700 square feet for lots located in the A-2, A-2a, and A-3
Residential Zones and twelve hundred (1200) square feet for lots located in the A-1
Residential Zone.

§ 310-105. Procedures for floor area ratio review of houses in Residence A

Zones.
[Amended 12-11-2007 by L.L. No. 16-2007]

A. Building permit review. Upon receipt of a building permit application for a house in
a Residence A Zone, the Building Department shall determine whether granting the
building permit would result in a building FAR in excess of the maximum FAR
prescribed under § 310-102.

B. Houses at or below the maximum FAR. If a house's gross residential floor area
does not exceed the maximum FAR, the Building Department shall proceed with the
building permit application, with no further FAR review.

C. Residences above the maximum FAR. Applications for building permits for
residences whose total floor area exceeds the maximum permitted FAR shall be
required to seek an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance
with § 310-87 of the Scarsdale Zoning Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals may also,
at its discretion, refer the application to the Board of Architectural Review for an
advisory opinion. Any application for an area variance for FAR for a residence shall
require the submission of the following additional materials, if available, in addition
to those required for the building permit:

(1) Elevations of the houses on both sides of the subject house;

(2) Photographs of neighboring houses, structures, and yards within 200 feet
on either side of the subject house; and

7
 Scarsdale, NY

(3) Floor area ratios of neighboring houses on similarly sized lots within 200
feet on either side of the subject house.

(4) The applicant shall also provide written or verbal testimony addressing the
proofs required for area variances.

§ 310-106. Effective date; effect on current applications.

Notwithstanding the effective date of this article, any application that has obtained
site plan approval, a wetlands permit, or cluster subdivision approval from the
Planning Board, an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and/or final
approval from the Board of Architectural Review as of March 26, 2002, shall not be
subject to this article.

8
 Schaumburg, IL

Schaumburg (Illinois), City of. 2007. Village Code.

TITLE 15. LAND USAGE

Chapter 154. Zoning

Administration and Enforcement

§ 154.52 Single-Family Residential Tear Downs and Replacement.

(A)Coordination With All Other Codes And Ordinances:

(1) All new houses shall meet the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance,
unless the village board has approved variations from those development
regulations. Variations shall be reviewed in detail and with great care in order to
protect the surrounding neighborhood.

(2) Construction activity shall only occur during regulated working hours and
noise levels shall be in conformance with applicable ordinances of the village of
Schaumburg.

(3) The grading plan shall meet the applicable regulations of the subdivision and
land development ordinance, unless the village board has approved variations
from those regulations. Variations shall be reviewed in detail and with great care
in order to protect the surrounding neighborhood.

(4) All new homes shall meet the applicable regulations of the building code,
unless the village board has approved variations from those development
regulations. Variations shall be reviewed in detail and with great care in order to
protect the surrounding neighborhood.

(5) Construction and tree protection fencing shall be installed accordingly to

protect the public during construction or demolition of said site and be of a type
approved by the director of community development or designee.

(6) The sidewalk located in front of the new house shall be replaced for the entire
frontage of the property if it has been damaged during construction or contains
any trip hazards or other unsafe conditions, and shall be paid for solely by the
developer or contractor. Corner lots shall require replacement of sidewalks along
both sides that the property has street frontage if damaged during construction
or contains any trip hazards or other unsafe conditions.

(B)Design Guidelines: Neighborhoods which exhibit the greatest potential to

experience tear downs were generally built with single-story homes. Where a tear
down is two (2) stories or greater, care should be used in the design of the new
house in order to coordinate with the surrounding neighborhood. Design features
which visually break up the front of the house and deemphasize height should be
used. Examples of break up techniques are: one-story front porches; compatible
horizontal window placement; compatible roof pitch; and garage door placement
and sizing which does not overwhelm the front of the house.

Used with permission. 1

 Schaumburg, IL

(C)Tree And Landscape Preservation: All existing trees on the lot which are four (4)
caliper inches or more in diameter for deciduous trees and five feet (5') or taller
for evergreen trees, shall be identified as part of a tree and landscape
preservation plan. Trees located in the public right of way shall be preserved, and
should changes be proposed to trees within the public parkway, those trees to be
removed or relocated shall be made in conformance with section 154.135 of this
chapter except when there are underground utility conflicts as referenced in
subsection 154.135(B)(3)(b) of this chapter, which may be amended from time
to time. All single-family residential properties shall provide trees on the lot in
accordance with subsection 154.136(N) of this chapter which may be amended
from time to time.

(D)Plan Preparation: All applications for demolition permits and building permits for
single-family residential tear down and replacements shall be called a tear down
and replacement plan. Each tear down and replacement plan shall include:

(1) A site plan;

(2) Architectural plans which meet the design guidelines for all sides of the
proposed house;

(3) A tree and landscape preservation plan;

(4) A grading plan showing proposed grades; and

(5) A utility plan showing the existing and proposed water and sewer lines.

(E)Public Hearing Required: All applications for a tear down and replacement plan
shall be reviewed at a public hearing of the plan commission. Notice shall be
made in conformance with section 154.41 of this chapter.

(Ord. 03-37, passed 3-11-2003; Am. Ord. 07-051, passed 3-27-2007; Am. Ord. 07-
165, passed 10-23-2007; Am. Ord. 07-179, passed 11-13-2007)

2
 Solana Beach, CA

Solana Beach (California), City of. 2007. Zoning Code.

Chapter 17.48 OVERLAY/SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES

17.48.040 Scaled residential overlay zone.

A. Purpose.

The purpose of these provisions is to preserve and enhance the existing

community character and aesthetic quality of the city of Solana Beach, by providing
regulations to ensure and protect the character of established residential
neighborhoods; and by preserving the traditional scale and seaside orientation of
residential areas in the city of Solana Beach (see also SBMC 17.04.020).

B. Applicability of the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone.

The requirements of this section shall apply to all areas designated as being within
the scaled residential overlay zone (SROZ) on the city of Solana Beach zoning map.
The SROZ includes only low residential (LR); low medium residential (LMR); and
medium residential (MR) zones, in six geographical areas, west of the Interstate 5
freeway, as indicated on the city of Solana Beach official zoning map, on file with the
city clerk, and available at the department of community development. The SROZ
allows the same densities and uses as the underlying residential zones, but requires
superseding development regulations for floor area ratios, and definitions of atriums,
bay windows, and basements. For the purposes of these regulations all areas within
the SROZ shall be known as “designated areas.”

C. Development Standards.

1. Floor Area Ratios. For purposes of determining the allowable floor area ratio
(FAR) within the SROZ, all development shall be required to comply with a four-
tiered standard as follows:

a. Four-tiered standard: 0.500 for the first 6,000 square feet of lot size;
plus 0.175 for that portion of the lot 6,001 up to 15,000 square feet; plus
0.100 for that portion of the lot 15,001 up to 20,000 square feet; plus 0.050 for
that portion of the lot greater than 20,000 square feet (see chart below for
example).

Example of 16,000-Square-Foot Lot

0.500 for first 6,000 s.f. 3,000
0.175 for 6,001 to 15,000 s.f. 1,575
0.100 for 15,001 to 20,000 s.f. 100
Subtotal 4,675
Add: Garage exemption 400
Total 5,075

b. Atriums, as defined in this section, are to be included in the

calculations to determine the allowable FAR within the SROZ.

1
For more information, please contact the City of Solana Beach
Community Development Department at (858) 720-2240. Used with permission.
 Solana Beach, CA

c. Required parking within garages (200 square feet per space up to a

maximum of 400 square feet for a single-family residence and 200 square feet
for an accessory living unit) shall be excluded from the calculation of floor area
ratio.

2. Bay Window Size and Placement. The placement of bay windows shall be
allowed to extend into the setback such that they may not exceed a maximum
dimension of three feet by four feet by two feet (depth), with one such window
allowed per each 20 feet of linear building fronting the property line.

3. Definitions. For purposes of these provisions, “atrium” shall be defined as an

outdoor area that (a) is typically open or semi-open (i.e., partially roofed) and (b) is
substantially, if not completely, surrounded on all sides by walls of the structure with
which the outdoor area is associated.

4. FAR calculations exclude:

a. Basement. The floor area of the basement portions of residential buildings

calculated as follows:

i. Basement – No Exposed Side(s). Floor area of the entire

basement level when the finished floor of the level above the floor area of the
basement level at any point (including the top finished height of any lightwell
opening) is no more than three feet above the adjacent natural or finished
grade, whichever is lower. Such floor area may abut lightwells which measure
not more than four feet in width (perpendicular to the building wall) nor more
than 20 feet in length (parallel to the building wall) and are not deeper than
28 inches above the finished floor. Such lightwells may occupy no more than
40 percent of the lineal perimeter of that level of the building.

ii. Basement – Exposed Side(s). A portion of the floor area of the

entire basement level having an exposed side or sides when the finished floor
of the level above the floor area of that basement level at any point (including
the top finished height of any lightwell opening) is more than three feet above
the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Such exposure
shall only be continuous, and limited to not more than two sides and not more
than 40 percent of the perimeter of that level. For each linear foot of the
perimeter of a level that is exposed more than three feet between the lower
of the natural or finished grade and the level of the finished floor above, two
percent of the floor area of that basement level shall contribute to the
calculation of FAR (the “two percent formula”). If the foregoing requirements
are not satisfied, then the entire floor area of the level having an exposed
side or sides will be included in the computation of bulk floor area.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the basement level having one

exposed side is constructed for use as vehicle parking and it is the only
garage, then the first 400 square feet of such garage is excluded from the
calculation of FAR.

Example: If the basement is a customary two-car garage of 400

square feet (20 feet by 20 feet equals 400 square feet), then the floor area to
be included in the computation of the FAR is as follows:

2
 Solana Beach, CA

20' x 20' = 400 sq. ft.

exposure = 18' (two-car garage door opening)
400 x 18 x 2% = 144 sq. ft. included in computation of FAR (except none of the 144
sq. ft. will be included in FAR because the first 400 sq. ft. are not included if the
basement is the only garage for vehicle parking)

Lightwells which measure not more than four feet in width

(perpendicular to the building wall) nor more than 20 feet in length (parallel)
to the building wall and are no deeper than 28 inches above the finished floor
shall be calculated as exposed perimeter but need not be continuous with the
“exposed” side or sides of the building.

iii. Basement – Attached to Garage. Notwithstanding subsection

(C)(4)(a)(ii) of this section to the contrary, if the floor area of the basement
level having an exposed side (which is contiguous with not more than one side
and not more than 40 percent of the perimeter of that level) is constructed for
use as vehicle parking (e.g., a functioning garage door is installed) (“garage”)
and residential living area is on the same level and contiguous with the floor
area of the garage, then the two percent formula set forth in subsection
(C)(4)(a)(ii) of this section shall not apply to the floor area of the residential
living area on that level. The floor area of the residential living area (e.g.,
nongarage floor area) on that level shall be excluded from the calculation of
FAR if (A) at least 500 square feet is attributed to the garage (notwithstanding
the actual floor area of the garage), (B) the garage is permanently separated
from the residential living floor area of that level (e.g., separated by floor-to-
ceiling structural walls, with the exception of doorways or openings sufficient
for passage through such walls), and (C) there are not any exposed side or
sides of the portion of the level designed for residential living area where any
portion of the finished floor over the floor area of that level at any point is more
than three feet above the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is
lower. For purposes of this section the word “side” shall mean the exterior wall
or walls of a structure as viewed from any single point and which could be
depicted as an elevation on an architectural rendering.

5. Floor Levels Above Basement. Three-level building facades are prohibited.

When a basement, including a below grade garage, has one or more exposed side(s)
when the finished floor of the level above the floor area of that basement level at
any point (including the top finished height of any lightwell opening) is more than
three feet above the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is lower
(excluding lightwells as provided herein), then the floor area of a third level shall not
be directly above the floor area of the basement in order to prevent the appearance
of a three-level facade. In addition, the floor area of a third level shall be set back at
least 10 feet from the portion of the perimeter of the exposed side(s) of the
basement level (i.e., the second level is the level above the basement level). (Ord.
357 § 5, 2007)

3
 Wheaton, IL

ARTICLE XXVIII

NORTHSIDE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT

28.1 Purpose and Applicability.

The Northside Residential Overlay District is intended to help preserve and enhance the
unique historic character of the City’s northside residential neighborhood and to
enhance property values within this district. This district contains a rich mix of
architectural styles with certain defining elements. The defining elements of this district
include 1) architectural elements such as raised basements, front porches, prominent
front entrances, detached garages placed at the rear of lots, wide roof eaves and an
abundance of other decorative details and 2) siting characteristics such as dwellings
oriented center-front on lots, deep front yard setbacks and wide side yard setbacks.

It is also intended to encourage new construction and, additions or other alterations to

existing single family dwellings that reflect these distinct physical characteristics and are
compatible with the bulk, scale, and siting of existing development within the district. As
such, several incentives are offered as a means of encouraging high quality design that
is consistent with the district’s historic character.

The Northside Residential Overlay District requirements and/or bonus provisions apply
in addition to the underlying zoning district regulations. Where these requirements
conflict with the underlying district regulations or other provisions of this ordinance, the
requirements of Article XXVIII shall be controlling.

28.2 Bulk Regulations and Related Incentive Provisions.

A. Detached garages

1. Floor area ratio incentive provision. Because it is a defining element of the

Northside Residential Overlay District, it is the City’s intent to encourage
single family dwellings designed with traditional detached garages located to
the rear of the principal building. Therefore, within the Northside Residential
Overlay District, only detached garages that are located entirely beyond the
principal building in the rear yard shall be excluded from the gross floor area
calculation for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio. The total floor area
of the detached garage shall be excluded, up to 500 square feet. The floor
area of detached garages that are not located beyond the principal building in
the rear yard shall be counted in the gross floor area calculation for the
purposes of calculating floor area ratio. Detached garages shall meet all other
setback, height, and bulk regulations of the underlying zoning district.

B. Attached garages

1. Side or rear loaded incentive provision. In an effort to minimize the

166
Used with permission.
 Wheaton, IL

appearance of attached garages, a portion of the floor area of attached

garages that are side or rear loaded shall be excluded from the gross floor
area for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio. The total floor area of
the side or rear loaded garage that may be excluded from the gross floor
area calculation for the purpose of calculating floor area ratio is 250 square
feet. All attached side or rear loaded garages must be located at, or behind
the front face of the principal building.

2. Front loading garages. In an effort to minimize the appearance of attached

front loaded garages, the total floor area of attached front loaded garages
shall be counted towards the gross floor area for the purposes of calculating
floor area ratio. All attached front loaded garages must be located at least 5
feet behind the front face of the principal building. On corner lots, an attached
front-loaded garage is any garage which faces the same street as the front
door of the house.

A front loaded attached garage shall not occupy more than one-third of the
front façade of any single family dwelling. This limitation shall not, however,
prevent the construction of a front loaded attached garage less than 22 feet
in width.

C. Unenclosed front porch incentive provision. In an effort to encourage the

construction of front and wrap-around porches in the Northside Residential
Overlay District, unenclosed, roofed front porches shall be permitted to encroach
up to eight (8) feet into the required front yard. The floor area of the roofed front
porch, up to 250 square feet, shall be excluded from the gross floor area
calculation for the purpose of calculating Floor Area Ratio.

D. Raised basement incentive provision. In an effort to encourage the construction

of single family dwellings and additions to existing single family dwellings with
raised basements in the Northside Residential Overlay District, the height of
raised basements less than 3½ feet above existing grade shall not be counted
towards the calculation of a building’s height.

E. Permitted extension of nonconforming side or rear walls. To better allow for

additions to existing single family dwellings in the Northside Residential Overlay
District, nonconforming side or rear walls that do not meet required side or rear
yard setback requirements may be extended without a variation, provided that 1)
the encroachment does not extend beyond the existing building line into the
respective yard (i.e. the degree of nonconformity is not increased) and 2) no
other new nonconformities are created or increased.

F. Volume spaces. In order to encourage the construction of new single family

dwellings and additions to existing single family dwellings that better match the
size and character of single family dwellings within the Northside Residential
Overlay District, when any space has a floor to ceiling height of between 12 and

167
 Wheaton, IL

24 feet, such space shall be counted as two floors for the purposes of calculating
the floor area ratio. A space with a floor to ceiling height of more than 24 feet
shall be counted as three floors.
[amended 2/7/05]

168