1 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Public Hearing Re: Ordinance Amending Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, (Case No. PZC-0004-2023) Relating Generally to Standards for Design Review, Entitlement Processes, Parking Requirements for Certain Uses, and Miscellaneous Zoning Code Clean-Ups.
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In August of 2022, City Council initiated amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code related to zoning standards associated with design review, entitlement processes, parking requirements for certain uses, and miscellaneous zoning code cleanups. These proposed amendments are part of a larger plan of the Community Development Department to streamline and simplify existing processes, reduce overall review times, and increase entitlement application efficiency and predictability. The Zoning Code amendments initiated in August of 2022 have been drafted and reviewed by the Planning Commission (with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the amendments as drafted), and are before the Council for consideration and adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review and subsequently adopt the ordinance amending Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, related generally to standards for design review, entitlement processes, parking requirements for certain uses, and miscellaneous zoning code cleanups, following a public hearing.
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2022, the City Council initiated amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code to address improvements to the design review and entitlement approvals Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved forApril 30, 2024 calendar
2 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
in an effort to create a more streamlined process that is simpler, more predictable, and 3 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
faster for many projects, particularly smaller projects. At that hearing, the City Council adopted a series of motions initiating Zoning Code amendments with respect to the following items:
1. Elimination of the 4/5/6 Rule pertaining to interior setbacks in residential zones.
2. Allowance of continuation of non-conforming design to allow replacements, when like-for-like with respect to material, design and dimensions are maintained.
3. Modification of the Code to eliminate the parking requirements for auto inventory for vehicle dealerships.
4. Allowance of concurrent review of design review, planning entitlements and building permit applications.
5. Modifications of the existing requirement for design review for building improvements visible from the street to make such requirement inapplicable to improvements to the rear 50 percent of an existing building.
6. Allowance of a second story addition at the rear 50 percent of a building through Administrative Design Review, provided that the proposed addition is consistent in façade and style of the existing building and is not deemed historic or a historic contributor.
7. Allowance of larger additions with non-conforming garages.
The amendments proposed in the ordinance will not only address the items noted above, but will also amend various Zoning Code provisions for the purposes of consistency, correction of cross-referenced Code sections, and correction of various typographical and grammatical errors. The clean-ups also include amendments to the minimum required parking stall dimensions in residential zones for seismic retrofits, clarification of the applicable review authority for decks over eight feet in height, and a clarification to the applicability of design review for non-residential building additions within an existing building envelope. The bulk of these clean-ups have been discovered during case processing and are being included with the proposed amendments specifically initiated by the Council.
As an aside, an additional motion was adopted during the August 23, 2022, City Council meeting directing staff to review, with community input, the DRB process to improve efficiencies and provide more certainty to applicants and community members, including but not limited to a review of DRB meetings and staff recommendations. However, the proposed amendments contained in the ordinance do not include changes to the Zoning Code related to this motion, as those changes are part of a larger plan within the Community Development Department to streamline existing processes, and will be done at a later time with community input, as directed.
4 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments are intended to reduce overall review times and create a process that is more efficient and predictable. The amendments will mostly effect smaller projects that are less consequential or often have minimal impact to the existing integrity and design of a neighborhood or specific development, but are often subjected to the same review process as projects that are substantially more complicated and impactful.
Accordingly, these amendments will not dilute or diminish the value of the review process, but rather, they will assist in expediting the review of all projects, which will in turn allow staff to commit more time to the more complicated and challenging projects.
Eliminate the 4/5/6 Rule – Interior Setbacks in Single-Family Residential Zones Current Zoning Code standards for single-family zones require new construction to have a 10-foot interior setback in the R1R Zone, and a 6-foot interior setback in the R1 Zone.
However, houses developed before May 2, 1991, are granted reduced interior setbacks of 4, 5, or 6 feet (depending on the building height) for proposed additions to an existing house. Under current code, the minimum required interior setback for a house is 4 feet if it is 20 feet or less in height, 5 feet if it is over 20 feet and up to 30 feet in height, and 6 feet for a house over 30 feet in height. This development standard is complex without providing a sufficient benefit that could justify the complexity. •There is a minor difference between the additional setback distance of 4, 5, and 6 feet which does little to minimize the visual impact of a taller house. •The rule encourages additions to houses to be built in line with the existing nonconforming interior setback of a house. This often results in long, straight sections of walls which is a design feature that is discouraged in the City’s Comprehensive Design Guidelines.
•Second-story house additions are made more difficult by this rule, even if the addition is in a location that is distant from the portion of the house that has the existing 4-foot or less setback. The increase in the overall height of a house that was under 20 feet, to one that is now taller than 20 feet would require the existing and new building walls to be removed if they do not have a 5 or 6-foot setback. This can also result in other zoning issues when demolition exceeds 50%, classifying the project as new development and triggering DRB and other zoning requirements that would not have applied for an addition.
•Property owners are required to file variance applications that are routinely granted. •The rule creates a double standard for newer versus older houses. •This rule was eliminated from the ROS Zone in 1993 with the adoption of the “hillside ordinance”.
5 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
Thus, one proposed change amends Section 30.11.030, Table 30.11-B, requiring all additions in the R1R zone to have a minimum interior setback of 10 feet and all additions in the R1 zone to have a minimum interior setback of 6 feet.
Non-Conforming Design
Development and design standards are modified over time, often to prevent an undesirable outcome or to better implement community goals and objectives.
Existing properties that do not meet these new development and design standards are considered legal non-conforming. Under current Code, aside from minor repairs, these non-conforming features (e.g., setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) must be brought into compliance with current development and design standards. This requirement can present a challenge for any property seeking to make any form of modification to existing development on a site, including minor additions, replacement of existing features such as stairs and decks, or any other improvements.
The legal non-conforming status of the development would require a property to be in full compliance with the zoning development standards in order to move forward with minor modifications or replace any part of the structure. This has resulted in time and cost challenges for applicants that may have structural, safety, or hazardous conditions. Common examples of this include an outdoor deck on a single-family residence, or an exterior staircase on a multi-family residence, where these structures may be failing or structurally compromised. These types of structures are often integral to the property’s functionality and safety and are often subject to wear and tear over time.
Accordingly, staff has drafted an amendment to Section 30.60.040 to allow for voluntary reconstruction of a non-conforming structure, as defined in Section
30.70.200, where replacement of the entire structure is necessary for property maintenance, safety reasons, or to comply with governmental regulations. The reconstruction will be allowed so long as the structure is rebuilt in substantially the same manner, to the same dimensions as before, and with the same materials and design elements. Key points to consider with this amendment include:
•Section 30.70.200 of the Zoning Code defines a structure as anything constructed, for which a permit is required and has a foundation but no roof, and it does not include fences and walls.
•Owners would have to demonstrate that the replacement is necessary for maintenance, safety reasons, or to comply with any other governmental regulations.
6 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
•This amendment will only allow for a like-for-like replacement and under no circumstances would it allow for an expansion of a nonconforming structure proposed to be rebuilt.
Parking for Auto Retailers
Currently, the code requires that space used for vehicle inventory for vehicle sales, leasing and rental agencies, such as within an above ground parking garage, be counted towards the square footage of the use and is required to comply with the parking requirement for the auto retailer (4 spaces/1,000 square-feet). New or renovated projects are required to provide parking spaces for this area, as they are currently treated as an extension of the show room or retail space. As such, the Code is written in a manner where additional parking is required for the area where dealers are parking their inventory. Typically, this requires more parking than is needed, and many auto retailers request a parking reduction permit, which is typically granted. In order to eliminate the need for the parking reduction, staff proposes that the parking requirement for inventory be eliminated for the auto retailers. This amendment will eliminate additional time and cost needed to apply for a parking reduction permit, and it will discourage the creation of more parking than is necessary. In the past, the strict application of this requirement for vehicle inventory was also used to regulate the bulk and mass of these types of structures, and this will continue to be regulated through current standards for the Design Review process and maximum floor area ratio requirements.
The proposed change will amend Section 30.32.060 of the municipal code, which regulates how parking is calculated, so that parking structures that are used exclusively for vehicle inventory for auto retailers shall not be considered floor area for parking purposes. This change will also amend the definition of gross floor area in Section 30.70.070 to exclude parking structures used exclusively for vehicle inventory for auto retailers.
Concurrent Review
For projects that require a Design Review approval and/or planning entitlement(s) (e.g., variance, conditional use permit, density bonus, etc.), the existing process does not allow for concurrent review of these applications and their building permit application(s). Currently, applicants are required to submit their application in succession.
•First, applicants must obtain approval of any necessary planning entitlement(s) from the applicable review authority and wait for the 15-day appeal process to end.
7 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
•Second, applicants can submit their application for Design Review and must obtain the approval of the Board and/or Commission and wait for the 15-day appeal process to end.
•Finally, once the planning entitlement and/or Design Review process(es) are complete, applicants can then proceed to submitting their building permit application(s).
In many cases these steps can be important measures to ensure that prior to submitting for building review, projects meet all of the necessary requirements and design guidelines. However, for many other projects, there can be minimal or no changes necessary to the proposal to comply with zoning requirements and design guidelines. Often, staff receives requests from applicants to be able to submit concurrently for review of planning entitlements, design review applications, and building permits. However, it should be noted that allowing concurrent review creates a risk to the applicant, because if an applicant’s planning entitlement and/or design review application is denied or conditioned such that major changes are required, an applicant will encounter additional costs and delays due to the requirement to re-design and/or resubmit their project for building permits. Due to this risk, it is important that applicants are advised and understand this inherent risk. But, for those projects that comply with Zoning Code requirements and the design guidelines, this change could lead to a reduction in overall project review times and successful permit issuance.
The proposed change would add a new section to Chapter 30.40 of the Zoning Code, which establishes application filing requirements and procedures. This chapter would be amended to add Section 30.40.050 to establish provisions that will allow for the concurrent review of land use permits and building plan check. An applicant would be required to execute a hold harmless agreement acknowledging that by submitting for all applications concurrently, they are doing so at their own risk, and that the planning entitlement(s) and/or design review application(s) could be denied and their approval could result in design changes that will require new submittals or additional fees.
Design Review Exemptions – Building Improvements without Visual Impacts Currently, all improvements to an existing single-family residence that requires a building permit can also require Design Review if the proposed modifications are “visible from the street.”. Determining what is visible can often be subjective depending on the viewing angle, extent of improvements, or specific conditions of a site or building. Thus, a proposed amendment is to modify this requirement so that it does not apply to the rear 50 percent of a single-family residence that is not historic; this amendment would establish a clear boundary of what requires design review and what does not. Any new addition at the rear 50 percent would be 8 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
required to be consistent with the existing building height and materials, and would have to be designed to be consistent with the existing building. This could include expansions of existing buildings that are over one-story in height so long as the proposal meets all of the criteria. Projects that would qualify for this design review exemption will continue to be governed by existing regulations related to floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, landscaping, setback requirements, and existing building height.
The proposed change would amend Section 30.47.020 as it relates to design review applicability for existing single-family development that is not historic.
Moving forward, additions and/or alterations to existing single-family development that are located towards the rear 50 percent of the existing building would be exempt from design review so long as the following criteria are met:
•No changes proposed to a façade directly facing a street. •No increase in height and/or additional stories.
•Does not exceed the height of the existing roofline(s). •Architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling through the use of colors and materials, roof style, and general architectural style and treatment.
For the purposes of this design review exemption, the rear 50 percent of the building is defined as the average distance from the building wall corner closest to the street-front property line to the building wall corner closest to the rear interior property line, measured along a straight line. Projects that are not located at the rear 50 percent and/or do not meet the established criteria will not be eligible for an exemption and will be required to go through a formal design review process.
Under current exemption regulations and with the proposed changes, corner lots will remain at a disadvantage as most improvements to these sites are directly facing the street, regardless of location. This change will substantially reduce the review time for projects that are typically minor in nature but are currently subjected to the Design Review process and will also facilitate improved review times for other entitlement applications.
Administrative Design Review – Increase in Number of Stories The Administrative Design Review (ADR) process is a director-level review of a project design that was first established in 2013 in an effort to streamline certain planning review processes. For single-family development, the current standards for ADR apply to large additions such as a 950 square-foot addition at the rear of the house or a 300 square-foot addition to the front of the house, and expansion to an existing second-story. Currently, most projects that are proposing an increase in the number of stories go to the Design Review Board (DRB) for review and approval, as opposed to ADR. The proposed change would amend Section 9 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
30.47.030 as it relates to design review authority so that any increase in the number of stories to an existing single-family residence would be subject to the ADR process as long as the following criteria are met:
•The addition of a new story is located at the rear 50 percent of the building. •The addition is architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling through colors and materials, roof style and general architectural style and treatment.
Projects that would qualify for this design review exemption will continue to be governed by existing regulations related to FAR, lot coverage, landscaping, setback requirements, and existing building height. Those projects that propose an increase in the number of stories at the front 50 percent of the façade will still be required to go to the DRB for review and approval. This change will substantially reduce the review time for projects that are less impactful to neighborhood design, but subject to the design review process, and will also facilitate improved review times for other entitlement applications.
Allow Larger Additions with Non-Conforming Garages
Currently, any addition to an existing single-family residence will require a project to bring any non-conforming parking up to current standards. For single-family additions, this typically requires construction of a new garage where they do not comply with today’s minimum parking requirements (e.g., dimensions, garage door, number of spaces, etc.). Originally, staff recommended that the City Council consider allowing a maximum of 300 square feet to be added one time in a ten- year period without requiring the need to bring parking into compliance for single- family development. After deliberation, the Council ultimately directed staff not to place any time limits or a maximum on the size of the addition. Accordingly, this direction has been incorporated into the proposed amendments.
Moreover, since the Council initiated the proposed amendments, the state has adopted legislation regarding single-family parking requirements. Assembly Bill (AB) 1308 (adding Section 65863.3 to the Government Code), effective January 1, 2024, prohibits the City from increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided that the project does not cause the single-family residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the Zoning Code, including, but not limited to, height, lot coverage, and FAR. This legislation is consistent with the Council’s direction, and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code will bring the City into compliance with this State law.
10 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
This proposed change will amend Section 30.32.030 so that any addition of floor area to a single-family residence would no longer trigger a requirement to bring legal non-conforming parking up to current Zoning Code requirements. These amendments will eliminate the time needed to process any additional planning entitlements as well as the additional costs associated with updating a legal non- conforming garage up to current Code standards. This will also alleviate frustration when modest modifications are made to small homes with legal non-conforming parking, often prohibiting smaller additions or requiring a greater scope of work.
Historic Resources
Current code standards allow historic resources to propose an addition of floor area up to 25 percent without bringing parking into compliance. This provision is applicable to any building that is a historic resource, including single-family, multi- family, non-residential and mixed-use buildings. When additional floor area is proposed in excess of the 25 percent, parking must be brought into compliance for the additional area. This can often result in significant changes to a site that is a historic resource where the demolition could require additional environmental review and approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Section
30.32.030 is also being amended to establish provisions for additions to historic resources to not require the expansion, modification or other alteration to an existing garage or carport, or the construction of a new garage to provide Code compliant parking when the existing parking is identified as a significant original or early feature of that property. This section is also being amended to better define what would be considered a historic resource. For the purposes of this sub-section historic resource includes properties listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, identified as a contributor to a pending or designated historic district under this provision, or identified as eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources in a survey adopted and approved by the City Council.
Miscellaneous Zoning Code Clean-Ups
There are a series of miscellaneous zoning code clean-ups proposed with these Code amendments. The majority of the clean-ups are updating language to be consistent throughout the Code, fixing typographical and grammatical errors, and correcting outdated citations to Title 5, Title 16, and Title 30 in the Zoning Code.
Most of these items have been discovered during case processing and are being included here. The changes also include amendments to the minimum required parking stall dimensions in residential zones for seismic retrofits, clarification of the applicable review authority for decks over eight feet in height, and a clarification to the applicability of design review for non-residential building additions within an existing building envelope.
11 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
Seismic Retrofit
In recent years staff has received an increased number of applications for seismic retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the city. These seismic upgrades are necessary to address structural deficiencies of existing buildings for life safety in the event of an earthquake. For properties that are developed with multi-family residential uses, the structural upgrades that are necessary are typically in the lower-level parking areas and involve widening the existing structural columns to reinforce openings at the ground floor so buildings can safely withstand lateral forces that are generated by earthquakes. The most common request is for existing soft-story buildings, where the first floor typically has large openings for garages or tuck under parking and the residential units are located on the upper floors. These buildings are older and susceptible to damage during an earthquake, as they were constructed before building codes had structural requirements for earthquake safety. These older buildings typically do not comply with the minimum parking stall dimensions currently in the Code, and the widening of the existing structural columns for reinforcement impacts these stalls by further reducing these nonconforming dimensions. To move forward with the necessary life safety upgrades, applicants are forced to file an application for a variance or administrative exception for the reduction in the stall dimensions, which are routinely granted. To eliminate the need for the planning entitlement, staff proposes an exception to the parking stall dimensions for seismic retrofits.
The proposed change would amend Section 30.32.090 of the Zoning Code, which establishes parking area design and layout standards, so that modifications to existing parking spaces be allowed to deviate from the minimum stall dimension standards in conjunction with a seismic retrofit when determined necessary by the Building Official for life safety. This amendment will eliminate the additional time and cost needed to apply for the planning entitlement and streamline the review of these types of applications.
Clarifications to Design Review Applicability and Authority Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 30.47.020 of the Zoning Code, which establishes applicability of Design Review, that would clarify exemptions outside of single-family zones. The proposed change will clarify that for all multi-family, commercial, or industrial buildings where the scope of work is within the existing building envelope, it is exempt from Design Review. Common examples of this include the addition of a mezzanine in an existing building and conversions of basement or attic space.
Staff is also proposing an amendment to Section 30.47.030 of the Zoning Code, which establishes the review authority for different projects to clarify the applicability of review by the director of community development. The proposed 12 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
change will clarify that an addition of a deck over eight feet in overall height could be reviewed by the director through the ADR process. Similar to an addition to a single-family residence, these projects are minor in nature, but the ADR process still allows for the public to review and comment on the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting and hearing on February 21, 2024. Four commission members were present, and one was absent. During the Planning Commission hearing, one member of the public provided testimony regarding the changes to the 4-5-6 rule. This individual was concerned about smaller additions to older homes not being able to comply with the new setback requirement. In those circumstances, a property owner could apply for an Administrative Exception to build in-line with the existing non-conforming setback. The commissioners had questions about some of the proposed changes, but there were no specific comments regarding recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance, as presented, regarding standards for design review, entitlement processes, parking requirements for certain uses, and miscellaneous Zoning Code clean-ups.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers adoption of amendments to the Zoning Code. Staff has published all required notices for this hearing. Public notice was also provided for the Planning Commission hearing of February 21, 2024. Staff did not receive any written comments for that hearing, and one individual provided public testimony regarding the proposed amendments, as discussed above.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15305 and 15061(b)(3) because the project involves minor changes to land use regulations which do not result in any changes in land use or density, and because there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 13 {{section.number}}{{item.number}}
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1:Do not introduce and subsequently adopt the proposed amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, 1995 which relate generally to standards for design review, entitlement processes, parking requirements for certain uses, and miscellaneous Zoning Code clean-ups.
Alternative 2:Any other alternative for the proposed amendments not proposed by staff or the Planning Commission.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Vista Ezzati, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Planning Commission Motion, dated February 21, 2024 Exhibit 2: City Council Motions, dated August 23, 2022