ATTACHMENT 4-1
Frequently Asked Questions on the Proposed Updates to Single-Family Residential Regulations
1. Would the proposed updates encourage mansionization? How will the proposed changes to the code enhance/maintain Neighborhood Compatibility?
Response: The proposed updates will not result in mansionization of single -family residential neighborhoods . The proposed updates do not eliminate any existing objective standards including FAR, lot coverage, and top of the ro of height. The proposed update to single -family regulations will codify the established design guidelines contained in the neighborhood compatibility checklist and make it a part of Burbank Municipal Code (BMC). As a result, all single-family residential development projects will be subject to compliance with a larger number of objective standards that maintain the intent of the established design guidelines and will provide greater clarity on what is expected , because these standards are measurable and will be easily understood by homeowners. Compliance of single -family residential development projects with the applicable standards of BMC will be verified during City’s plan check process.
2. Will the proposed u pdates result in elimination of the design guidelines that has worked well towards regulating mass and bulk of single-family dwellings?
Response: The proposed updates do not eliminate any of the existing design guidelines that are currently applicable to those projects that are processed under Single Family Special Development Permit (SFSDP) discretionary review process. Instead, the proposed update will codify the established design guidelines as objective standards in the single family residential regulation that will be uniformly applicable to all single-family residential development projects.
3. Why are these changes being proposed if the design guidelines work well towards regulating mass and bulk? Why is there such an extended processing time under the current regulations, and what changes to the planning review process will happen under the proposed updates? How are the existing standards creating impediment for people who want to remodel their house? Under the proposed changes, do homeowners need to post the sign in front of the house announcing the project, and send notices to everyone within 300 ft? Or are those requirements eliminated? Are you removing the right for a neighbor to appeal? Response: The current timeline for SFSDP discretionary review process − that is applicable to projects that propose new dwellings exceeding 0.35 FAR and 3,000 square foot, additions exceeding 500 square foot that are visible from street, and remodels that include whole house demolitio n − is around 12 to 16 months. As a part of SFSDP review the ATTACHMENT 4-2
projects are reviewed for compliance with design guidelines contained in the neighborhood compatibility checklist, and public notices with information on the project including a decision date and appeal period are mailed out to the residents and property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Currently, the neighborhood compatibility checklist only applies to projects that are required to be processed under a SFSDP discretionary review process. As a result , those projects have more standards they have to comply with than projects that do not require a Single -Family Special Development Permit. A homeowner may only initiate a plan check process after the end of appeal period. The extended timeline is because the ambiguous or subjective regulations create confusion, disagreements on interpretation, and as a result applicants have difficulty revising projects to comply.
The proposed update to single-family regulations will maintain the intent of the established design guidelines by codifying them as objective development standards that will be applicable to all single -family residential development projects.
The objective standards will provide greater clarity on what is expected as these standards are measurable and will be easily understood by applicants . Therefore, the proposed update will facilitate a streamlined ministerial review of all single-family residential deve lopment projects. The uniform applicability of the updated regulations will eliminate the existing two-step review process, including the public notice requirement, sign posting, and the appeal process, and will allow homeowners to apply for a plan check p rocess for all new single -family construction, additions, and remodels, resulting in shorter planning review time of 3 to 8 months.
4. What is the impact of the proposed increase in the maximum plate height on the mass and bulk of a dwelling, views, and privacy?
Response: The two feet increase to the maximum plate height will have a negligible impact to the mass of a dwelling, because the existing maximum 30-foot limit to the top of the roof height will be maintained. Additionally, an increase in the top of the plate height will be offset through the required upper story stepback and plane break modulation standards that would be uniformly applicable to all single -family residential development projects under the proposed updates.
Furthermore, the additional objective development standards, including a top of the roof height limit for front porches of 12-feet, new requirement for 20 percent opening (windows and doors) in the street facing façades of a dwelling, and the application of a maximum size of the s econd floor that is limited to 85 percent of the first floor area will regulate mass and bulk of new single-family dwellings and additions, and mandate designs that creates a sense of transition in height and massing from the adjacent dwellings and relates to the scale of adjoining residential properties. These standards will now apply to all new single-family homes and additions.
ATTACHMENT 4-3
The proposed updates also include objective standards on a screening requirement derived from the design guidelines that will be applicable to all two -story single-family residential development projects, ensuring maintenance of privacy between adjoining dwellings. The updates do not propose any changes to the existing Hillside Development Review process, which has been established to protect the views of homeowners in the designated hillside area of the City.
5. Is there a limit on the raised foundation height, the top plate could be over 28 feet allowing 2 feet for a low - pitched roof. Can you add a maximum height limit for raised foundations? Response: California Building Code does not place a limit on the maximum allowed height of a raised foundation.
However, the height of the raised foundation is captured within the maximum allowed top of the plate height that is limited to 22 feet under the proposed regulations. A higher raised foundation will result in lower interior ceiling height. Therefore, a homeowner will not be able to increase the height of raised foundation beyond a certain limit as it will impact the interior ceiling height of a dwelling.
6. The number of homes with a 7 -foot slope side to side have to be miniscule. This can be resolved without increasing the top of plate height across the board for ALL new homes, right? In the examples shown by the City of Burbank during the February 28th meeting that illustrate the City’s reasoning to account for an increase of top-of-plate, would any of those homes be denied a grading permit to lower the corner and side of the lot to allow for current maximum top of plate buildings? In the case shown by planning, it appears the grading needed would be 12 inches, as our code currently allows for 6 inches without grading permit. Would this property be denied a permit for 6 inches of grading?
Response: Substantial number of the lots northeast of Glenoaks Blvd. are characterized by sloping terrain. Currently, the top of the plate and top of the roof height of single -family dwellings are measured from either the natural grade or the finished grade, whichever is lower. While the reference grade for measuring height is crucial in limiting the mass and bulk of a single-family dwelling, it often creates constraints in accommodating a consistent 8 feet to 10 feet interior ceiling height for dwellings located on sloping lots , regardless of the grading. Shown below is an example of a sloping lot that has been graded and flattened to construct a two-story single-family dwelling at 20 feet top of the plate height with a first floor interior ceiling height at 10 feet and the second floor interior cleaning height at 9 feet. Within the portion of the house highlighted/demarcated in gre en the top of the plate height is measured from the finished grade, which is the lower grade as shown in red on the figure. In the portion of the house highlighted in blue the natural grade, shown as the dashed line, is the lower grade, and the top of the plate height will be measured from the natural grade as indicated in red on the figure , creating an impediment in continuation of the 10 feet and 9 f eet interior ceiling height for the first ATTACHMENT 4-4
Height measured from the lower grade
which is the finished grade
Height measured from the lower grade
which is the natural grade
Natural grade
and the second floor. The proposed update increases the maximum allowed top of the plate height for single -family dwellings to 22 feet in order to provide flexibility to homeowners to continue/maintain an 8 foot to 10 foot interior ceiling height throughout the width and length of a single-family dwelling.
ATTACHMENT 4-5
7. In cases where there is not a slope, is there a maximum height where the second story finished floor would be allowed to start? How high is that? Would this height be the same on homes are level with each other? So, in the future, would current homeowners be subjected to a possible increase of a new construction finished floor being 2 feet higher over their backyard than under the current code? To clarify: our concern is how high the second story finished floor starts above a neighboring yard. Not the total height of the building. Modulate the height based on objective conditions. For my prior question about the second story finished floor on level lots, where the new second story would be two feet higher above a level lotted neighbor’s yard, how many homes could this be the case vs. ones where it would be lowered or be on a hill and be even higher because of the new construction being uphill from an existing home at a lower elevation? Response: Currently, the code does not have any regulations on the height limit for second story finished floor. The code regulates the maximum allowed top of the plate and top of the roof height, as measured form the natural grade or the finished floor, whichever is lower. The update to single-family regulations proposes an increase in the maximum allowed top of the plate height from 20 feet to 22 feet. No changes are proposed to the maximum allowed top of the roof height and the reference grade for measuring height. Additionally, an increase in the top of the plate height will be offset through the required upper story stepback and plane break modulation standards that would be uniformly applicable to all single- family residential development projects under the proposed updates. Furthermore, the additional objective development standards, including a top of the roof height limit for front porches of 12-feet, the new requirement for 20 percent opening (windows and doors) in the street facing façades of a dwelling, and the application of a maximum size of the second floor that is limited to 85 percent of the first floor area will regulate mass and bulk of new single -family dwellings and additions, and mandate designs that creates a sense of transition in height and massing from the adjacent dwellings and relates to the scale of adjoining residential properties.
8. What is the impact of the proposed increase in driveway width within the front yard on the landscaping? Response: The proposed update will allow a 20 feet driveway within the front yard on lots where the garages are located towards the rear of the lot, which will accommodate additional cars on private property rather than the public street.
Under the current code, the minimum required landscaping in the front yard area is 55%. This requirement is being maintained to ensure that minimum required landscaping is provided on all single-family R-1 and R-1-H lots. Expansion of the driveway width in the front yard area of the lot is contingent on compliance with the minimum required front yard landscaping. Additionally, the updates do not propose any changes to the width of driveway approach, which remains unchanged to ensure maintenance of existing area for on-street parking.
ATTACHMENT 4-6
9. What Training has Staff received on the Design Guidelines and current code for SFSDP? When was this training on the SF Design Guidelines completed? Could the City adjust the workflow so that smaller projects could be handled by one or two dedicated staff people to clear projects like interior remodels, sinks, toilets, one room add-on etc. so that they aren't stuck in the same line with large home projects? Response: Training on interpretation and application of code are provided to the planning staff on a continuous on-going basis. All the planners are well versed with zoning regulations, including the regulations on single-family dwellings, and assist the public with zoning related questions at the planning counter. Residential and commercial development projects are distributed amongst all the planners for verification of zoning compliance. Furthermore, the city does not have a specialized team of planners assigned for reviewing small scale single -family residential development projects, and changes to the existing setup is not being proposed as a part of the Zone Text Amendment. The focus of the proposed update is on providing greater clarity thro ugh the implementation of objective development standards that are easily understood by the planner and homeowners and streamlining planning review process by conducting the review as part of the plan check process.
10. Is the council still able to make changes prior to the scheduled vote on this matter? Response: Yes, the Council will be able to recommend changes to the ordinance proposing updates to single -family residential regulations prior to voting on the adoption of the ordinance.
11. What is FAR? It was stated that the FAR was not changed. Is it 0.35 or .40? Response: Section 10-1-203 of BMC defines FAR as the ratio of the floor area of the buildings on a lot to the total area of the lot . Maximum allowed FAR in the single -family residential R -1 and R -1-H zones is 0.4 or 40 percent, and the proposed updates do not propose any changes to the existing FAR limit. Currently, projects proposing new dwelling at or under 0.35 FAR and 3,000 square foot area are exempt from the Single-Family Special Development review process and the associated design guidelines , and homeowners can initiate a plan check process for such projects. The proposed updates will codify the design guidelines as objective development standards within the single-family regulations that will be uniformly applicable to all single-family residential development projects, facilitating a ministerial plan check review process that will shorten the planning review time while ensuring that all single -family development projects comply with design related standards along with other development standards.
ATTACHMENT 4-7
12. How can the city guarantee that the proposed objective standards will deliver the intended result of regulating mass and bulk? Design guidelines are p roven standards, and real -world examples can be seen as what is working, effective results.
Response: The proposed objective development standards are derived from the existing design guidelines that were established to regulate mass and bulk of new single-family dwellings, remodels, and additions (refer Attachment 5). The proposed update will capture all the concepts in the design guidelines as clear objective development standards that will be uniformly applicable to all single-family residential development projects, enabling continued regulation of mass and bulk in single -family residential neighborhoo ds, without the extended Single Family Special Development Permit discretionary review process.
13. Many cities allow accessory dwelling units (ADU), that are built above garages with an entrance off an alley, to overhang the minimum rear set back. Can you help me understand why Burbank does not allow this? I'm wondering why the City of Burbank allows two (2) story homes but not two (2) story ADUs? Does the City get credit for a habitable ADU towards State of California housing requirements even if the original owners are the only people using the ADU? Does current situation keep crowding down? How fair is it that you can add 1000 sq. ft. ADU and a 500 sq. ft ADU by right and have a permit in 60 days, yet if I want to add 600 sq. ft. It takes 24 months. Other than the state encouraged ADU buildings, what if any effect might these new building rules have on R1-H zoned properties?
Response: Regulations for ADUs are prescribed by the State law and the City’s regulations as adopted in BMC Section 10-1-620.3 through Section 10 -1-620.7. Please refer to Section 10-1-620.3 through Section 10 -1-620.7 of BMC for regulations on ADU. Per the State law, all ADU applications must be revie wed by a local jurisdiction within 60 days of the receipt of a complete application. Additionally, all code compliant ADUs are required to be approved ministerially as a part of the City’s plan check review and building permit process. ADUs contribute towards the housing units for meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.
Under the current single -family residential regulations, the timeline for obtaining a building permit for single -family residential development projects tha t are subject to Single Family Special Development Permit (SFSDP) and the associated neighborhood compatibility discretionary review process is around 12 to 16 months. If adopted, the proposed amendments would result in a ministerial plan check review process for all single-family residential development projects ATTACHMENT 4-8
in R-1 and R-1-H single family zones. The proposed update would replace the existing two-step review process with a streamlined planning review process for verification of a project’s compliance w ith the existing and proposed objective development standards, with an anticipated timeline of 3 to 8 months.
14. From the Staff report, the Applicants are the only voice they are listening to.
Response: The term “applicant” is used to collectively include homeowners and general contractors or architects hired by the homeowners who are listed as point of contact for a project during submission of a SFSDP application.
Furthermore, the homeowners/applicants are part of the respondent group that have voiced the concerns with the current ambiguity in the code and the extended review time for a SFSDP review.
15. How does allowing larger garage exemptions for rear-facing garages, reduce bulk and mass? Response: Currently, the code incentivizes construction of garages to the rear of a lot to facilitate designs where garages are subordinate to the overall mass and bulk of dwelling, by providing greater FAR exemption for garages located to the rear of a lot, requiring a 10 feet setback for front facing garages from the front façade of a dwelling, and limiting the width of a front facing garage to 50 percent of the width of the front façade of a dwelling. These requirements already exist and the Zone Text Amendment does not propose any changes to these requirements.
16. In terms of incorporating lessons learned from experience and cases: Has there been further clarification to protect property of City of Burbank Trees? Could language be written that would compel an apron size and shape to be built to preserve any healthy City of Burbank Property Tree when any apron design exists which could preserve the City property, and totally disconnect it from driveway size. Or compel driveway change if needed?
Response: Currently, the code requires installation of two trees (minimum size of 15 gallons) for projects proposing construction of new single -family dwelling, if the lot doesn’t have any existing trees. The Zone Text Amendment does not propose any changes to this requirement. Trees located in the parkway/public right of way are regulated by Parks and Recreation Dept. and are not subject to review by the Planning Division. Additionally, tree removal from the public right-of-way requires prior approval from the Park and Recreation Dept. per applicable code section contained in Title 7 Chapter 4 of BMC.
ATTACHMENT 4-9
17. Is it possible to build a swimming pool on every single lot in Burbank? If not, could the code be changed to allow swimming pools on every lot, in case there are lots where the pool could only work if was dug 3 inches from the edge of the rear of the property? Would the limits on pools be considered subjective, or would there be an objective restriction that based on the topographical make -up of the lot and the existing buildings? For the swimming pool question, does every lot need to be able to accommodate the same size and shape pool.
Response: All single-family residential lots are eligible to have a pool, subject to compliance with the encroachment and setback requirements specified in the single -family residential regulations (Section 10 -1-603 of BMC). The code does not include regulations on size and shape of a pool. Any proposed pool would also have to meet applicable building code requirement, which is addressed during the plan check review process.
18. In the case of non -conforming structures, would property that is built off -plan, over the 2017 setback standards and closer to the street than approved and also the maximum at time of approval, or located in a place that was not permitted be protected by this zone code addition if it were built before this change in the code? If so, would future builders be treated equally if it were discovered that they built a structure in an area that it is closer to the street than the front set back? Response: The Zone Text Amendment proposes updates to the non-conforming section (Section 10-1-1810 of BMC) of the code to allow openings along legal non -conforming exterior walls of a dwelling and allow by-right replacement of legal non-conforming portions of a dwelling that have been damaged due to dry rot and termites to provide flexibility to homeowners. No other changes are proposed to the non-conforming section of the code. Legal non-conforming sections of a building can remain, however new construction will need to meet the current development standards.
19. What was the impact of Covid -19 on processing projects? How much time did Covid add to review and evaluate SFSDP projects?
Response: The 12 to 16 months processing timeline for SFSDP projects has been consistent since 2017. The extended timeline results from a two-step review process that is further exacerbated by the ambiguous or subjective regulations creating confusion and disagreements. The Planning review time for SFSDP projects has not changed due to onset of COVID 19.
ATTACHMENT 4-10
20. I would like to reach out to Staff and request a meeting with members of the Planning Department to review my questions and share information in an i nteractive meeting format, with back -and-forth discussions. The Zoom meeting does not allow sharing information or two -way discussion. Members of the community and Preserve Burbank would like to be afforded the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes in back-and-forth discussion and share information in person meeting. Holding an interactive meeting with members of the Community will allow Staff to present real -world examples of how the proposed changes may help and Not destroy neighborhood compatibility. I hope that staff will take me up on my request for an in person meeting and/or more interactive meeting format to collaborate with members of Community and allow all parties to share information. Doing the meeting via zoom, many people don’t know how to zoom? I feel it restricted input.
Response: Planning Division conducted an interactive community meeting on February 28 th, 2022, to provide an overview of the proposed updates to the regulations on single-family R-1 and R-1-H zones. During the meeting, members of the public were provided with multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback on the proposed Zone Text Amendment both verbally and in writing. Additionally, members of the public can email documents to the following email address to share their feedback: [email protected].
21. Floor Area Ratio (Attics): Currently, staff is requiring attics, 4’ H with a structural floor to be counted toward the FAR. They are requesting that the height be increased to 5’ H and structural floor be removed from the language. Most houses use the attic as a mechanical space. An exception needs to be created so that intent of the Attic can be confirmed. Leave in the structural floor exception, or create a different one so that we don’t end up with low sloping roofs, with no attic mechanical space.
Response: The proposed update will require any attic space with a floor surface and 5 feet or greater height to be accounted for in the FAR calculation. This update has been proposed to simplify the zoning code for a streamlined planning review, because determining if an attic has structural floor is challenging during planning review and requires input from Building and Safety Division. The changes are proposed to maintain consistency with California Building Code which considers attic space that exceeds 5 feet in height and goes up to 7 feet − as measured from attic floor surface to the ceiling−as habitable space. California Building Code does not recommend any minimum dimension for an attic space for housing mechanical equipment and the proposed update will not preclude a homeowner from creating an attic space for housing mechanical equipment.
ATTACHMENT 4-11
22. Floor Area Ratio (12’ from Grade): Currently, staf f is counting any space 12’ H (from grade) as a volume space and counts double toward the FAR. The problem here is when you have a side to side sloping site.
Cathedral ceiling, and in some cases, even 8’ flat celling would have to counted as double.
Response: Currently, the code requires any interior ceiling height or top of the plate height exceeding the maximum allowed one story height i.e.,12 feet, to be counted twice for the purpose of calculating FAR (Section 10-1-603(D)). The Zone Text Amendment does not propose any changes to the aforementioned standard. The ZTA proposes implementation of objective standards derived from the design guidelines and expands the scope of existing standards for uniform application to all single-family residential development projects.
23. Setback (Front): Currently the front yard setback is determined by a prevailing setback (average) of the neighbors. This would mean that the historic setback of 25’ would never be available to new construction. An example: If my neighbor is at 25’, but the next four are not (26’, 27’, 28’, 29’) that would put my setback at (135/5) 27’. This will slowly increase the front yard setback as neighbors construct new homes.
Response: The Zone Text Amendment does not propose any changes t o the existing standards on minimum required front yard setback and side yard setback (Section 10 -1-603(G) and Section 10 -1-603 (A)) . The ZTA proposes implementation of objective standards derived from the design guidelines and expands the scope of existi ng standards for uniform application to all single-family residential development projects.
24. Setback (Upper): Currently there are three (4 if you read the code) ways to determine the upper floor setback. 40% @ 4’ from face of 1st, 30% @ 5’ from face of 1st, or 45 degree from 12’ above grade. The first two only work if you are locating the 1st floor at the minimum side yard setback, and then maximizing the 2nd. If my existing 1st floor setback is at 10’ (required 5’) which occurs often because of rear garages and driveways, my 2nd floor would still have to setback to 14’. If my existing 1st floor is 60’ in length, and I propose a 20’ in length 2nd story, I get no credit for building small and still need to confirm to one of the three. Even the diagrams us ed, show a full two story building with small indentations in the facade. And the 45 degree from 12’ above grade also doesn’t work with a side to side sloping lot.
Response: Currently, the code provides three options for modulating sides of an upper story addition (Section 10-1- 603(E)):
Option 1: At least 40 percent of the length of the second story is set back 4 feet from the first floor building face.
ATTACHMENT 4-12
Option 2: At least 30 percent of the interior side of a building is offset a minimum of 5 feet in depth from the primary wall.
Option 3: The second story setback is determined by a 45-degree inclined daylight plane extending from the intersection of the side property line and the existing grade at a point 12 feet above finished grade.
The ZTA does not propose any changes to the upper-story stepback and plane break modulation requirement contained in Section 10-1-603(E), that has been effective in regulating mass and bulk of single-family dwellings. The three options have worked well in the past five years to provide flexibility to property owners, who can choose different combination of the three options to modulate both the sides of their upper story construction. Currently, the upper-story stepback and plan break modulation requirement only applies to projects that require a Single -Family Special Development Permit.
The proposed changes will require all second -story additions to comply with the upper -story stepback and plan break modulation requirement.
25. Multifamily Setback (side): Currently Multi-family side yard setbacks is an average of 7’. This does not work when your lot width is 50’ and single family residences get a 5’ (10%). How this is written, it does not allow smaller multi-family lots the same density as Single Family. I would recommend adding language adding a “10% whichever is less” language to this item.
Response: Updates to multi-family residential development standards are beyond the scope of the ZTA, that is limited updates to regulations on single-family residential R-1 and R-1-H zones.
26. Openings Requirement (R -1-H): Currently in the R -1-H zone, there is a setback for openings for doors, windows and other openings 10’ from the rear and side property lines when constructed within the rear 35’ of the lot. It is my understanding that this is a health concern, since your neighbor might have horses. But it is my findings that this is limiting the ADU’ s locations for doors and windows. I feel there should be an exception if no adjacent neighbor has stables, or if a mechanical fresh air filter system is installed.
Response: The ZTA does not propose changes to existing standard on openings for structures that are constructed within the rear 35 feet of R-1-H lots (Section 10-1-605(B)). The ZTA proposes implementation of objective development standards derived from the design guidelines and expands the scope of existing standards for uniform application to all single-family residential development projects.
ATTACHMENT 4-13
27. Floor Area Ratio (Covered Patios): Currently, staff is requiring covered patios, covered decks, or similar to be counted toward the FAR. This is because enclosed patios are counted “even when open on one or more sides.
Response: Currently, covered patios and covered decks that are attached to main dwelling are counted towards FAR and detached covered patios that are open on all sides are exempt from FAR. The ZTA proposes updates to clearly list structures that are exempt from FAR calculation to codify staff’s interpretation of FAR exemption as it has been applied to these types of structures, including covered attached and detached patios, in the past five years.
28. 10-1-603(M): These seem like an attempt to put Objective Design Standards into the municipal code. • 1a. I am okay with a minimum size, but a little concerned with the “when provided” which means you can have a front door with no entry porch, no covered entry? Response: The objective standard on dimensions of front porch provides minimum required dimension for a front porch when a homeowner wishes to include a front porch for their single -family dwelling. It does not mandate a home owner to provide a front porch. A homeowner will have the fl exibility to have front entrance without a front porch. Compliance with the plane break requirement (Section 10-1-603(M-2) and upper story modulation requirement will ensure regulation of mass and bulk along the front façade of dwelling regardless of presence of a front porch.
• 1b. Does this mean the front door has to face the street? Is there an exception for corner lots, or alleys, or existing.
Response: Section 10-1-603(M-1b) requires that front entrances be located along street facing facades of a dwelling in the case of a new construction and remodeling and/or additions that include changes to the existing front entrance of a single-family dwelling. For a corner lot, a homeowner can choose to provide front entrance along any of the street facing façades of a dwelling. Front entrances along alleys will not be permitted as alleys are not considered streets. Section 10-1-203 of BMC differentiates alleys from street by defining alleys as public right-of-way which serves as a secondary means of access, and streets as public right-of-way that which affords the principal means of access to abutting property.
ATTACHMENT 4-14
• I have never come across a requirement of >20% openi ngs to street. Where did this come from, what does this accomplish?
Response: Section 10-1-603(M-2) requires a homeowner to incorporate openings in the form of windows and doors along 20% of the street-facing façade(s) for a single-family dwelling to prevent construction of blank walls abutting the streets; and create breaks and visual interest along street facing facades to enhance pedestrian experience.
• I have seen this requirement in the Design Guidelines. How does a fence, or hedge block a 2-story structure? Response: Currently, screening in the form of landscaping or hedges that meet the City height standard along shared property lines that are required for projects processed under SFSDP and the associated design guidelines have been identified as an effective way to enhance priv acy between adjoining properties. The proposed update codifies this requirement as an objective development standard within the single-family regulations and expands its scope to uniformly apply to all two-story single-family residential development projects.
• 6a. Barred Windows, this doesn’t include Spanish Style Detailing? Maybe add non ornate.
Response: Section 10-1-603(M-6) includes a list of materials that will be prohibited for single -family dwellings. One the prohibited items is “Barred windows”. The intent behind prohibiting barred window is not to prevent implementation of a certain architectural style, instead the intent is to prevent installation of barred windows that might look out of place and not blend with existing/proposed design of a dwelling, creating an unpleasant pedestrian experience. This standard will not prohibit ornate wrought iron style window grilles that may be proposed in conjunction with Spanish Revival architectural style.
• 6b. I do not agree with prohibiting unfinished cinder -block, concrete block. This is a style and can be Architectural.
Response: Section 10-1-603(M-6) includes a list of materials that will be prohibited for single -family dwellings. One the prohibited items is “Use of unfinished cinder-block or concrete blocks for building façade or fences”. Currently, the code requires perimeter walls abut ting the street to incorporate plaster, stucco, or brick finish. Building on the existing regulation, the proposed standard prohibits unfinished cinder -block facades for building walls and perimeter walls (fences). However, the standard will not prohibit u se of cinder -block veneer for a portion of the dwelling façade if a homeowner utilizes an architectural style/design that warrants use of cinder-block veneer.
ATTACHMENT 4-15
• 6c. You need to put a reflective quantity to this requirement. Most metal roofs provide this information. Again, you need to put a reflective quantity to this requirement.
Response: Section 10-1-603(M-6) includes a list of materials that will be prohibited for single -family dwellings. One the prohibited items is “ roofing with a reflective surface tha t produces glare”. This is an existing standard that is currently applicable to mobile homes and manufactured homes as specified in Section 10-1-603(K) of BMC. The proposed update will expand the scope of the existing standard to all single-family dwellings to ensure higher quality design.
29. How many SFSDP projects have been Appealed in past 4 years? Response: There have been total six (6) appeals in the past five years.
30. How many SFSDP projects are currently Active? How many get permits processed per month & average break down. Will they now be considered “at right” to build. One document reads as it’s the owner / builder responsibility to be in compliance. How many delays are from owner request for changes? Response: There are fifty-five (55) SFSDP projects that are currently being processed by the City. On an average, the processing time for a SFSDP project is between 12 to 16 months. The proposed update will codify the design guidelines as objective standards in the single -family regulations and facilitate a streamlined planning review process, that will eliminate the existing two -step process and allow a homeowner to initiate a plan check process for their single -family development projects, reducing the planning review time to 3 to 8 months. Compliance with the zoning regulations for a project will be verified during the plan check process.
31. Could the staff provide the project numbers for the 2 story new constructi on projects that have been approved and are under construction (or completed). Could they also provide the project numbers for the fastest new two -story construction to achieve approval after 2017? If possible, could they also provide the same information for a project that had a slope as part of the project and was the fasted to be completed? For my last question, to clarify, I'd like to see the project that took the Longest, I was not clear.
Response: Between January 2019 to October 2021, Planning Division has received 78 SFSDP applications. Out of the 78 SFSDP projects, 20 projects proposed construction of new two-story dwellings. On an average, the processing time for a SFSDP project is between 12 to 16 months.
ATTACHMENT 4-16
32. How many SFSDP Applications have been submitted in past 4 years? How many SFSDP projects have been approved in the past 4 years? How many SFSDP projects have been denied past 4 years? How many denied SFSDP projects have been appealed by the Applicant?
Response: Staff has not had time to compile the number related to SFSDP projects that were denied and/or approved in the past five years as this would require significant amount of staff time to review all the projects that were submitted for SFSDP review. Compilation of this information would take additional time to complete. Staff intends to provide additional information regarding SFSDP projects reviewed by the City staff and those reviewed by our consultant planners during the City Council hearing on March 15, 20 22. All the appeals of SFSDP applications submitted in the past have been initiated by neighbors and not the applicant.
As previously noted, over the past two years the City has processed 78 SFSPD Permits 55 for remodels and additions and another 23 for ne w single family homes. As noted, more than 70 percent involve homeowners seeking to add on and modernize their homes to address their household needs.
The current process results in two “plan reviews”; one review of the project to verify compliance with all current objective standards and compliance with the neighborhood compatibility checklist of which applicants make selections from a menu of possible options. These selections are then verified by City staff as meeting the intent of the guidelines and many times results in an ongoing discussion with applicant on their interpretation of compliance of said criteria versus City staff and the consultant staff’s interpretation of the guidelines and standards. As previously noted, this had led to confusion from homeowners, applicants and their designers and architects. A second review occurs during plan check review when all the previously reviewed conceptual plans are compared against the construction drawings to verify that all standards are still being met be fore a building permit can be issued; in essence a second detailed review to verify ongoing compliance with the City's single family residential development standards.