Panel Skeptical Over Limits on Mansionization

Glendale Planning Commission members said this week that they are skeptical about proposed restrictions on new single-family houses and most home improvements, despite support from several homeowner groups and a Chamber of Commerce committee.

The restrictions, which address a dwelling’s height, size, landscaping and parking, are aimed primarily at curbing “mansionization,” or the replacement of existing houses with new residences that nearly fill lots, city planners have said.

But the proposed rules may overstep that goal by subjecting house designs and even moderate renovations, such as changing a front window, to too much bureaucratic review, commission members said during a five-hour public hearing Monday.

“What we’re doing is imposing a tremendous amount of regulation, and there’s a price,” Commissioner Don Pearson said. “I’m asking if there is some other way to approach mansionization than this.”

The commission will resume discussion on the proposal March 11. Members may decide then whether to approve the restrictions, or they may schedule a special meeting before the City Council considers the matter March 26, Commissioner Robert McCormick said.

The proposed restrictions would require approval by one of the city’s two design review boards of plans for all new houses, building additions of more than 700 square feet and any changes to a structure’s front facade that ordinarily require a building permit, said James Glaser, the city’s planning services administrator.

They would limit development to 40% of a lot and ensure that new houses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, Glaser said.

The restrictions would limit construction to two stories--except on steeply sloped hillside lots where three stories would be allowed--and require a front setback of 25 feet. They would require that 40% of a lot be landscaped and that extra parking spaces be added, depending on the size of the addition or new residence.

The proposed regulations would also change the role of the design review boards. A temporary ordinance allowed the boards to exempt buildings from zoning restrictions if they were compatible with the neighborhood and would not go beyond the standards set by surrounding neighborhoods.

Under the new guidelines, the boards would not be authorized to grant exemptions to the zoning code. Instead, developers would have to obtain a variance through the city’s zoning department.

But the boards would be allowed to deny a new house design or improvement that is deemed incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, even if it meets all zoning requirements.

The proposed authority of the boards caused widespread disagreement among homeowners at Monday’s hearing and drew skepticism from some members of the Planning Commission.

One homeowner told commissioners that he feared the review process would become too subjective and restrictive of a property owner’s rights.

“When we get to a point where we tell a homeowner that he can’t change his front window, what are the implications of that?” architect Walter Hagedohm Jr. asked.

Under the proposed restrictions, “the design review board looks at the artistic merit of a house, and that is inherently subjective,” he said.

Some commissioners agreed with Hagedohm, saying they thought that the restrictions might overstep the goal of curbing mansionization.

“The implications of this are pretty severe,” McCormick said. “I want to make sure that we’re not creating an additional burden on the regular, old-time homeowner.”

Representatives of the Northwest Glendale Homeowners Assn., the Deer Canyon Oakmont Property Owners Assn. and the Chamber of Commerce’s Housing and Urban Development Committee told commissioners that they generally supported the proposed guidelines. But the groups were divided over whether the design review boards should have more or less authority.

Otto Tronowsky and Robert Yousefian, members of the Northwest Homeowners, told commissioners they thought that the boards should be allowed to be even more restrictive than proposed. But Marco Brambilla, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce committee, said he favored allowing the boards to grant developers exemptions from the zoning code.

The proposed guidelines are modifications of a temporary ordinance approved in September, 1989, to regulate single-family house construction until planners could draft permanent rules. Before that measure, design review was required only for projects on lots under 5,000 square feet in size.

The City Council adopted the temporary measure after the Northwest homeowners group complained about a giant house being constructed on Vista Drive and spearheaded an effort to have the rules revised, said Brian Ellis, the group’s vice president.

“Our organization favors modest development and renovation of the houses in northwest Glendale,” Ellis said. “We just are opposed to houses that are not in agreement with the neighborhood or are shoddily built.”

The homeowners groups have asked that the city notify residents of any design review board hearings about a proposed house construction or major home improvement within roughly 300 feet of residents’ houses.

In addition, the groups want a homeowner representative to serve on the design review boards. The boards predominantly are made up of architects, real estate agents and other professionals, Ellis said.

City planners have rejected both suggestions. Glaser said notification to residents would take too much time and would slow the review process. The city now posts notices of design review board hearings at City Hall.

Glaser also said board members are homeowners as well as professionals who are knowledgeable about house design and construction.