Planning Commission Reins In "Monster Mansions"

By Jorge Casuso

Friday, June 18--Residents north of Montana Avenue got their wish early Thursday morning when the city's Planning Commission rushed through development standards to limit the size of the "monster mansions" proliferating in Santa Monica's wealthiest neighborhood.

The new standards - approved unanimously by the five members present -- must receive City Council approval no later than July if they are to replace a more lenient interim ordinance that expires Sept.22.

The new standards will "protect the quality, character and charm of the neighborhood," said William Dale Brantley, one of three local architects hired as consultants to help develop the standards. "We must balance growth with what everyone loved in the first place."

Under the proposed standards there will be larger yards, with enough room for maybe a few trees, but decks and patios will be smaller to discourage large outdoor parties. Instead of a garage facing the street, there could be porches open on three sides.

The buildings can be taller to add more variety to the structures and avoid the boxy "mausoleum" style so many of the neighbors detest. The upstairs will be smaller than the down and a basement is encouraged.

"The suggestions are not going to please everyone," Brantley said, and a few won't please any one at all."

Most pleased were the neighbors, who had mounted a year-long-campaign to halt the demolition of smaller older homes to pave the way for what they called "philistine fortresses" and "elephantine" houses "in a style that can only be called neo-mausoleum."

"Don't give priority to bulldozers and cement mixers," said Sid Fleishman, a resident of the area. "Let them build them elsewhere. Arizona comes to mind."

"It has been a roller coaster ride," said Doris Sosin, chair of the North of Montana Neighborhood Association (NOMA), which she formed in response to the construction blitz. "We must recapture the integrity and neighborliness of our streets. You have listened to us and understood the reasonableness of our plight."

But some developers and architects, as well as homeowners planning to expand their old houses, said the new standards are too restrictive and could backfire.

In a handwritten letter headlined PLEASE, Kathy & Nick Franklin warned: "If you are genuinely interested in saving some of these older homes in a market where lot value is about $850,000, please consider very carefully what limits you put on remodeling and adding second stories.

"We are dedicated to renovating and expanding an older home with character, but if this cannot be done in a way that makes financial sense no one will do this and all the old homes with charm will be demolished over time."

"I do not support all that you have done," Whitney Phillips, who wants to expand her home, told the commission. "I didn't move there for architecture. The housing stock is old and not very useful for growing families. It is unfair to signal out a neighborhood."

Although the vote was unanimous, at least one commissioner expressed concerns the standards were passed too hastily, with not enough time to study the potential impacts.

"This project has been driven by a bit of hysteria," Commissioner Eric Parlee said after the vote. ""I would have hoped the process had been more leisurely. They could have extended the interim ordinance and let this cook for a little while longer."

By and large, though, city officials applauded a process that was driven in large part by the community.

"These revised standards for a unique neighborhood came from the residents themselves," said Councilman Kevin McKeown, the council's liaison to the Planning Commission. "They organized, identified their issue, and through a series of meetings, workshops and public hearings incorporated the criticism and moved on toward consensus."

More specifically, the proposed new standards would:
•Reduce lot coverage from 40 percent to 35 percent, while encouraging the use of basements.
• Limit the size of second floors - above 14 feet -- to 26 percent of the parcel area (Any area for patio, balcony, roof deck or terrace open on less than two sides is counted as parcel coverage.)
• Provide an incentive for one-story houses by allowing 50 percent maximum parcel coverage for a structure no greater than 18 feet high.
• Increase the maximum building height from 28 feet to 32 feet in order to accommodate more varied architectural styles by increasing the pitch of the roof.
•Increase the space between buildings by dedicating an additional 10 percent of the lot width to the side yard area. This will encourage more landscaping, particularly trees.
• Set back the entire second floor 40 feet from the rear property line.
•Encourage sunken patios, windows and other features that provide light and air to basement rooms, resulting in more livable space.
• Limit the size of two-story accessory buildings by parcel coverage rather than square footage.
• Limit the aggregate square footage of second floor balconies, terraces or roof decks to 400 square feet, unless modified by the Architectural Review Board. (Require a setback of at least 12 feet from the property line for any roof deck or balcony greater than 50 square feet located in the rear two-thirds of the parcel.)
• Increase the second story stepback for the rear yard. (This will limit the amount of building area either overlooking or blocking the light and air of a neighboring rear yard.)
• Maximize the use of alleys.
• Articulate portions of the front facade above 14 feet.
• Encourage front porches by allowing them to project up to six feet into the required front yard setback so long as they do not exceed 50 percent of the front building width.
• Discourage garage doors that face the street.
• Restrict paving to 40 percent of the required front yard area.