Monrovia planning commission recommends zoning change to allow decorative features in bungalow courts
October 16, 2025 | Monrovia, Los Angeles County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Acting Chair Rose presided over the Monrovia Planning Commission meeting on Oct. 15, 2025, where the commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance 2025-11, a narrowly focused amendment to the Monrovia Municipal Code to create incentives for bungalow court development.
The ordinance would add section 17.120.07 to the zoning code, amend section 17.52.110 related to minor exceptions, and formally recognize “bungalow court” as a distinct housing type in the code. John, planning staff, told commissioners that “the purpose of this ordinance is to create a small but important incentive for bungalow court development,” explaining the change would allow certain open-air, nonhabitable structures — for example arbors, trellises and pergolas — to be approved within setback areas through a minor exception review by the Development Review Committee (DRC).
The staff presentation traced the local history and design intent of bungalow courts, showing examples including Harding Court and Myrtle Court and describing a recent new project at 732 Mountain View Avenue. Staff said a decorative arbor installed at the Mountain View project did not meet the front-yard setback under current code, which treats arbors and trellises the same as other accessory structures and leaves no path to approve these features in setbacks. The ordinance is intended to fill that gap without eliminating design review.
Key dimensional limits described by staff in the public presentation include a maximum height of 10 feet in front yards and 8 feet in side yards for these decorative features; a maximum width of 20 feet; maximum depth of 8 feet in front yards; and in side yards a maximum width of 4 feet and depth of 3 feet. Staff said each proposal would still require DRC review for design and safety.
John also told commissioners the ordinance is intended to be consistent with the General Plan land-use policies 9.3 and 9.4, and that the change is categorically exempt from CEQA under California Code of Regulations section 15305 (Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations). “This is a very narrowly focused context-sensitive update to our zoning code,” John said. “It gives us a practical way to accommodate small design elements that define the character of bungalow courts while maintaining clear limits and review safeguards.”
The public hearing drew no speakers for or against the ordinance. Commissioner discussion centered on the expected practical effect: staff said there are no active bungalow court permit applications now, but noted a recently approved landmark duplex with a side-facing courtyard at 423 East Foothill and the 732 Mountain View Avenue project as relevant local examples.
Commissioners voted to adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCR2025-0003 recommending City Council approval of Ordinance 2025-11. The roll call recorded unanimous support: Commissioner Austin — yes; Commissioner Janicek — yes; Commissioner Scheffler — yes; Commissioner Stahira — yes; Commissioner Mishani — yes; Acting Chair Rose — yes. The commission closed the public hearings and moved on to administrative updates.
Separately, staff reported that Public Hearing Item 1 had been withdrawn before the meeting and required no action. Staff also provided two development updates: the DRC conducted an advisory review of a proposed project at 701 South Myrtle Avenue, the final environmental impact report (EIR) for that project is posted on the city’s website, and the commission will receive a 20-day hearing notice with the item scheduled for the Nov. 12 meeting. Staff additionally briefed the commission on recent state legislation referenced as SB 79; staff said the City Council met with Assemblymember John Harbidian, who discussed provisions allowing a city to adopt a local alternative plan consistent with SB 9, and staff will review the statute and return with analysis when ready.
The meeting record shows the commission approved two sets of minutes — Aug. 13, 2025, and Sept. 10, 2025 — by voice vote earlier in the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Ending: The Planning Commission’s recommendation sends Ordinance 2025-11 and Resolution PCR2025-0003 to the City Council; staff indicated additional analysis of state law implications (SB 79 / SB 9 references) and the 701 South Myrtle Avenue project will return to the commission in follow-up notices.
The ordinance would add section 17.120.07 to the zoning code, amend section 17.52.110 related to minor exceptions, and formally recognize “bungalow court” as a distinct housing type in the code. John, planning staff, told commissioners that “the purpose of this ordinance is to create a small but important incentive for bungalow court development,” explaining the change would allow certain open-air, nonhabitable structures — for example arbors, trellises and pergolas — to be approved within setback areas through a minor exception review by the Development Review Committee (DRC).
The staff presentation traced the local history and design intent of bungalow courts, showing examples including Harding Court and Myrtle Court and describing a recent new project at 732 Mountain View Avenue. Staff said a decorative arbor installed at the Mountain View project did not meet the front-yard setback under current code, which treats arbors and trellises the same as other accessory structures and leaves no path to approve these features in setbacks. The ordinance is intended to fill that gap without eliminating design review.
Key dimensional limits described by staff in the public presentation include a maximum height of 10 feet in front yards and 8 feet in side yards for these decorative features; a maximum width of 20 feet; maximum depth of 8 feet in front yards; and in side yards a maximum width of 4 feet and depth of 3 feet. Staff said each proposal would still require DRC review for design and safety.
John also told commissioners the ordinance is intended to be consistent with the General Plan land-use policies 9.3 and 9.4, and that the change is categorically exempt from CEQA under California Code of Regulations section 15305 (Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations). “This is a very narrowly focused context-sensitive update to our zoning code,” John said. “It gives us a practical way to accommodate small design elements that define the character of bungalow courts while maintaining clear limits and review safeguards.”
The public hearing drew no speakers for or against the ordinance. Commissioner discussion centered on the expected practical effect: staff said there are no active bungalow court permit applications now, but noted a recently approved landmark duplex with a side-facing courtyard at 423 East Foothill and the 732 Mountain View Avenue project as relevant local examples.
Commissioners voted to adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCR2025-0003 recommending City Council approval of Ordinance 2025-11. The roll call recorded unanimous support: Commissioner Austin — yes; Commissioner Janicek — yes; Commissioner Scheffler — yes; Commissioner Stahira — yes; Commissioner Mishani — yes; Acting Chair Rose — yes. The commission closed the public hearings and moved on to administrative updates.
Separately, staff reported that Public Hearing Item 1 had been withdrawn before the meeting and required no action. Staff also provided two development updates: the DRC conducted an advisory review of a proposed project at 701 South Myrtle Avenue, the final environmental impact report (EIR) for that project is posted on the city’s website, and the commission will receive a 20-day hearing notice with the item scheduled for the Nov. 12 meeting. Staff additionally briefed the commission on recent state legislation referenced as SB 79; staff said the City Council met with Assemblymember John Harbidian, who discussed provisions allowing a city to adopt a local alternative plan consistent with SB 9, and staff will review the statute and return with analysis when ready.
The meeting record shows the commission approved two sets of minutes — Aug. 13, 2025, and Sept. 10, 2025 — by voice vote earlier in the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Ending: The Planning Commission’s recommendation sends Ordinance 2025-11 and Resolution PCR2025-0003 to the City Council; staff indicated additional analysis of state law implications (SB 79 / SB 9 references) and the 701 South Myrtle Avenue project will return to the commission in follow-up notices.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025
