PURPOSE

 

To consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve Development Review No. 2003-27, a request by August Bacchetta (project architect) to construct a four unit residential building at 637 North Fairview Street. Bob Jones (owner of property at 631-633 North Fairview Street) and Leota Bancroft (owner of property at 641-643 North Fairview Street) are the appellants. The Community Development Director�s decision to approve the project was appealed to the Planning Board by the same parties.

 

BACKGROUND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Location: The subject property is located at 637 North Fairview Street (Lot 25, Tract No. 13174).

 

Zoning: The subject property is zoned R-3 Low Density Multiple Family Residential. This zoning is consistent with the General Plan. Adjacent and abutting properties are also zoned R-3. (Exhibit A-1)

 

General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property for Low Density Multiple Family Residential use.

 

Property Dimensions: The property is approximately rectangular in shape and is 6,971 square feet in area. The abutting property to the north, 641-643 North Fairview Street (owned by appellant Leota Bancroft), has a ten-foot wide easement on the subject property running along the northerly property line for the depth of the lot. A portion of the structure at 641-643 North Fairview Street sits on the subject property within the easement.

 

Street Classifications: Fairview Street is classified as a local street with a sixty (60) foot right-of-way (36-foot roadway). The subject property is also accessed via a public alley (20 feet wide) to the rear.

 

Current and Past Development of the Site: The subject property is vacant of any residential structures. The property was previously owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and used as a site for utility equipment located mostly underground.

 

Project Description: The applicant has requested approval to construct a new 2-story, 4-unit residential building on a 6,971 square foot vacant property.  The proposed building includes 9 parking spaces in a semi-subterranean garage. (Exhibits B-1 and B-2)

 

Municipal Code Conformance: The subject project is proposed to be built in compliance with all City of Burbank codes and regulations. The plans as submitted are compliant with all zoning requirements of the Municipal Code. It is important to note that after the project was approved  by the Community Development Director, and that approval upheld by the Planning Board, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3633 (BMC Sec. 31-1912(b)), which this project is now subject to, requiring project compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Please refer to pages 2-5 of the staff report to Planning Board (Exhibit E-3) for a full comparison of the project�s characteristics with the required BMC development standards.

 

Development Review Process: Because the project is proposed to be compliant with all City codes and regulations, the only required entitlement is Development Review approval. Upon the mailing of public notices to a 300 foot radius, posting of sign on the property by the applicant, and review of the plans by City departments and divisions, the Community Development Director approved the subject Development Review application on August 18, 2003. The approval is subject to conditions, comments, and corrections as listed by each reviewing department and division, and attached to the Development Review approval letter. (Exhibit C) This approval was followed by a fifteen day appeal period, which ended on September 2, 2003. During this period, any member of the public may appeal the Community Development Director�s decision to the Planning Board. The appeal for this project was filed on September 2, 2003. (Exhibit D) The Planning Board held a public hearing on the appeal on November 10, 2003, and notices of that hearing were mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property, per the Burbank Municipal Code. The Planning Board denied the appeal, and conditionally approved the project (discussed further below). The subject appeal of that decision was filed on December 1, 2003.

 

A previous Development Application (DR No. 2003-16) was approved for a different project design on the subject property on July 1, 2003. That project design included 3 townhouse-style units with surface parking located off the adjacent alley. However, the applicant revised the project significantly, prompting staff to require that the applicant begin the Development Review process anew by filing a new application and withdrawing the previous one.

 

Public Correspondence: Apart from the letters of appeal and request for public records from the appellants, staff received no correspondence regarding the subject application prior to the preparation of this report.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Surrounding Properties: The immediately abutting properties to the north and south (owned by the two appellants) are zoned R-3 and developed with one-story duplexes. Adjacent properties to the east and west are also zoned R-3 and developed with one-story buildings. The nearest R-1 zoned property is located 80 feet from the subject property, at the southwest corner of Fairview Street and Clark Avenue.

 

Department Comments: The subject application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. The Development Review Committee, which is comprised of staff from each of the City departments and divisions that review development plans, discussed the project at its regular meeting of August 7, 2003.  No City departments or divisions submitted comments or recommended conditions or restrictions other than existing code requirements. All code related comments are attached to the Community Development Director�s letter approving the subject Development Review application.  (Exhibit C)

 

Planning Board Public Hearing and Conditions of Approval:

The major issues raised in the appeal to Planning Board were the height and mass of the building, architectural compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, concerns about the amount of traffic and vehicular access to the site, and concerns about reduction of privacy on adjacent properties. The Planning Board did not deem it appropriate to limit the height of the proposed building to one story, as two stories are permitted by code and there are other two-story structures in the vicinity. The Planning Board did not address neighborhood compatibility directly, as at the time the BMC did not include such required findings for Development Review approval. Conditions were placed on the project by the Planning Board to prohibit vehicular access from Fairview Street, and to prohibit windows on the second habitable story facing abutting properties (unless made of opaque material or located higher than five feet above the floor level). The Planning Board denied the appeal and approved the project subject to these conditions. (Exhibits E-1, E-2, and E-3) The attached plans (Exhibit B-2) incorporate these conditions, as well as additional design changes pursuant to staff�s recommendations to achieve more neighborhood compatibility. Staff�s recommendations were to set back the second story beyond the first story building line in order to break up the building mass, and to add fa�ade treatments and landscaping to the front elevation in order to eliminate view of the semi-subterranean garage.

 

Environmental Review: Because the application is for a multiple family residential project within 500 feet of property zoned R-1, a determination of the project�s status under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required pursuant to Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1908.5. Staff determined the proposed project to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3 Exemption), which pertains to multi-family residential structures designed for six dwelling units or less. As such, the project is not subject under CEQA or the BMC to additional review associated with potential significant effects on the environment such as studies of traffic generation, noise, and air quality. (Exhibit F)

 

Summary of Issues Raised by Appellants: The major items noted by the appellants in their opposition to the project are listed below. Each item is followed by a discussion by Staff.

 

(1)   Proposed building is too tall; height should be limited to one story

The project as proposed is compliant with BMC Sec. 31-638(d), which allows multi-family projects within 500 feet of an R-1 zone to have two stories of habitation with a maximum height of 27 feet to the top of the highest ceiling, and 35 feet to the top of the roof ridge line. The proposed semi-subterranean parking level does not qualify as a story and is allowed. The Land Use Element of the General Plan states: �The low density multiple family category [implemented as the R-3 zone] is intended to accommodate single family detached units with guest houses, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, as well as two to three-story multiple unit structures.� Two-story development is allowed in all residential zones.

 

(2)   Proposed building is too massive; architecture is not compatible with surrounding development

The project as proposed is compliant with BMC Sec. 31-1113(h), which requires variation in plane along each of the building fa�ades in order to break up the building�s mass. Additionally, the applicant has revised his original design so that the second story set back along the portions closest to the front property ranges from 28 feet to 31 feet 6 inches. Approximately 40% of the width of the front fa�ade set back at least 44 feet from the front property line. The applicant has also proposed landscaping to soften the visual effect of the above-grade portion of the semi-subterranean garage structure. Vehicular access has also been relocated to the rear alley, so as to be compatible with adjacent properties, as all other properties on the same side of the block take vehicular access off the rear alley.

 

(3)   Additional traffic and parking demand caused by the project would be detrimental to surrounding neighborhood; traffic from the project accessing Fairview Street would pose a danger to pedestrians

As stated above under Environmental Review, the project is categorically exempt from review under CEQA, which would include a traffic study. In general, categorical exemptions are intended for and applied to projects such as this that are too small to have a significant impact on the environment. This does not mean that there will be absolutely zero impacts, but any potential impacts will not rise to a significant level because of the project�s small size and consistency with adopted zoning. The current Land Use Element of the General Plan established the current maximum densities in part based on the analysis of traffic impacts, along with other issues, found in the certified EIR.  The General Plan established a density limit (4 dwelling units for the subject property), which when complied with does not result in significant effects on the environment, including traffic. The project as proposed includes nine parking spaces, which meets the minimum requirement of two spaces per unit and one guest space for every five units (subject to rounding off). The project would be one of the few, if not the only, property in the surrounding neighborhood that meets the current Code requirement for parking. Most surrounding properties predate the current BMC parking requirement. There is no City requirement for vehicular access to the site to come from either the street or the alley. However, the adjacent properties do all take vehicular access from the alley. The Planning Board imposed a condition to prohibit vehicle access from the street, and the applicant has revised the project accordingly.

 

(4)   Noise impacts  and reduction of privacy on adjacent properties

As stated above, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA, which would include analysis of impacts from noise. However, the project must comply with the City Noise Ordinance for multi-family zones. The project is typical to multi-family zones. One of the appellants� original noise concerns related to the trash collection area. The Planning Board�s condition requiring the trash area to be recessed into the building has been implemented on the revised plans. There is no Code requirement for the project to include walls separating it from adjacent properties. BMC Sec. 31-1302 allows walls and fences along interior property lines to be up to eight feet tall. The applicant has stated he will construct block walls along the interior property lines. Staff recommends that the Council add this as a condition on the project. With regard to privacy, the Planning Board imposed a condition to prohibit windows on the second floor along the side property lines, unless made of opaque material or located more than five feet above the finished floor level. The applicant has revised the project and eliminated all windows on the second floor side elevations. However, lack of windows compromises the aesthetic quality of the building.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is staff�s assessment that the four findings required by BMC Section 31-1912(b) for approval of a Development Review application for a project in the R-3 zone can be made for this project. These findings, listed below, are applicable to all Development Review applications for multi-family residential projects, pursuant to Ordinance No. 3633, adopted by the City Council on February 10, 2004.

 

Requirements for Approval of Development Review for a Multi-family Project

BMC Sec. 1912(b) reads: �Development Review applications for all projects in R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, MDR-3, MDR-4, and MDR-5 zones have additional requisites for approval. The intent of these additional requisites is to ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that projects in these zones are compatible with the neighborhoods within which they are located, and do not adversely impact adjacent properties or the compatibility of structures in the neighborhood. It is not the intent of these requirements to limit or restrict the ability of property owners to determine the types of structures they may wish to construct on their properties. A Development Review application for any project in the R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, MDR-3, MDR-4, or MDR-5 zones shall be approved if the Director, or if appealed, the Planning Board or City Council, finds:�

 

(1)   All provisions of this Code will be satisfied.

The proposed project complies with all requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code subject to compliance with all comments and conditions attached to the Community Development Director�s Development Review approval letter.

 

(2)   The environmental document prepared for this project was considered prior to project approval and satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (�CEQA�) or the project is exempt from CEQA.

The project was determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to new construction of multi-family residential structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. This exemption satisfies the requirements of CEQA.

 

(3)   The project, as conditioned, will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; or, that any remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations as provided by CEQA.

The project will not result in any significant adverse effects on the environment.

 

(4)   The following features of all structures on the site, including parking garages, fences, and walls, are reasonably compatible and consistent with the project site itself and with existing residential properties and structures in the surrounding neighborhood.

1. height: the vertical distance between grade and the ceiling of the highest room permitted for human occupancy, and between grade and the top of the roof and any architectural features

2. size and massing: the three-dimensional form and volume of the structures and their component elements

3. proportions: the ratio of dimensions between the different elements of a structure, including height to height, width to width, width to height, and volume to volume

4. articulation: clear and distinct separation between structure elements

5. elevations: the view of the front, rear, and side facades of a structure

6. pedestrian entry locations and circulation: the location of pedestrian access points to a project and whether such access is to individual units or to a common project area from which units are accessed

7. roof style and pitch: the type of roof used (flat roof, hip roof, gable roof, mansard roof, or other type or combination) and the slope of the roof surface

8. location, placement, and orientation: the arrangement of structures on the site including the relation of structures to property lines, structures on other properties, and other structures on the same property

As discussed previously in this report, the project has been revised to greatly reduce the mass of the second story. Staff is of the opinion that it is not necessary to prohibit a second story in order to preserve compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The building design includes elements that provide articulation, as required by the BMC. The front elevation is balanced, and it, along with the roof type, generally complement the architectural styles present on the surrounding properties.

 

(5)   Parking areas and their access points are located and arranged so as to be compatible and consistent with existing residential properties and structures along the block in which the project site is located, except where inappropriate or undesirable due to vehicle or pedestrian safety or circulation issues.

The proposed vehicular access is off the rear alley, matching the abutting properties.

 

(6)   Vehicle circulation areas and access points are located and designed so as to minimize hazards to pedestrians and to vehicles traveling on public streets and alleys, and to minimize interaction between vehicles and pedestrians using public sidewalks, entering or leaving the project site, and entering or exiting the parking area.

The proposed vehicular access is off the rear alley, which is not intended as a primary pedestrian path. The project has 2 pedestrian paths on the front elevation. Staff recommends that the project be conditioned to include a dedicated pedestrian access leading from the garage level up to grade in order to eliminate interaction between vehicles and pedestrians on the driveway.

 

(7)   Tenant and guest parking spaces are located and arranged so as to be readily accessible and easily useable by tenants and guests so as to discourage the use of on-street parking.

Staff recommends that a dedicated pedestrian access way leading from the semi-subterranean garage level be required. While there is no way to guarantee future tenants and guests will not use street parking, this will make the on-site parking more easily accessible. BMC Sec. 1407.01 requires that required parking spaces be free from storage of materials to allow their use as parking for vehicles.

 

(8)   The on-site landscaping provides adequate screening and buffering between the project site and adjacent and abutting properties.

The project must comply with all landscaping requirements of the BMC. The applicant is proposing landscaping on all sides of the building. As stated previously, the landscaping has been added to the front fa�ade to obscure view of the garage.

 

(9)   The common open space areas and amenities of the project, including but not limited to common balconies, decks, patios, and courtyards, are located and arranged so as to maximize and encourage use by project residents, and so as to minimize detrimental effects to adjacent and abutting properties including those related to noise, privacy, light, and views into the open space areas from the adjacent and abutting properties.

The common open space is provided in a central courtyard, with 2 units having private open space facing out to it. Because it is central to the project, future residents will have easy access without an impact on the abutting properties.

 

(10)  All of the project characteristics discussed within this Subsection are located, arranged, and designed so as to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood; and so as not be detrimental or injurious to the quality of life of residents of the project and of nearby properties; or to the public peace, interest, convenience, health, safety, or general welfare.

The project as conditioned is consistent with all City codes and standards regarding the size, location, and types of these items. The project design is as compatible with surrounding properties as is practicable.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Board�s Decision to Approve Development Review No. 2003-27, with the additional project modifications and conditions as proposed by staff.

 

LIST OF EXHIBITS

 

Exhibit        A               Zoning and Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map          

Exhibit        B-1            Development Review Application Package

                    B-2            Plans of Proposed Project (attached document)

Exhibit        C               Community Development Director�s Letter Approving Development Review (with attached conditions,

                                      comments, and corrections from each reviewing City department and division)

Exhibit        D-1            Appeal to Planning Board (with attached letter, exhibits, and additional materials submitted at Planning

                                      Board hearing)

Exhibit        D-2            Appeal to City Council (with attached letter and exhibits)

Exhibit        E-1            Planning Board Resolution No. 2913 Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Community Development

                                      Director�s Decision

                    E-2           Minutes of Planning Board Public Hearing

                    E-3           Staff Report to Planning Board

Exhibit        F               Public Notice of Environment Decision (CEQA)