PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is for City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve Development Review No. 2003-27.  This is a request by August Bacchetta (project architect) to construct a three unit residential building (previously proposed as four units) at 637 North Fairview Street. Bob Jones (tenant 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:

 

The City Council began the public hearing on this matter on March 9, 2004. (Exhibit 1) Much of the testimony of the neighborhood surrounded the issue of density.  Although some concerns were stated about access from the alley and a two or two and one-half story development, ultimately, the neighbors did not support a four unit project.  Statements were made that a duplex or triplex would be more fitting for the neighborhood.  After testimony from the public Council Members began deliberations which focused on the density problems discussed by the neighbors and possible design changes.  The City Council voted to continue the matter to April 13, 2004 to allow the applicant to revise the plans to address the community and Council concerns.  Subsequently, the matter was continued from the April 13 meeting to April 20, 2004 to allow the applicant and appellants the time to meet and possibly come to a compromise on the project.

 

On March 21, 2004, the appellants and the applicant met at the site.  Mayor Murphy and one planning staff member were also present.  Options were discussed including one that placed two duplex style projects on the site and one that reduced the density to three units on the site.  The parties present agreed to meet again once the architect had an opportunity to make some new drawings.

On April 1, 2004, the parties met again, this time the developer, Glen Lotka, was also present.  The appellants supported the three unit project that was presented if two changes were made.  The architect made those changes and the plans are now submitted for consideration by the City Council. (Exhibit 2)

 

This plan reduces the number of units to three and removes the semi-subterranean garage and places all parking spaces at grade level off of the alley.  On the street-facing elevation, the second story is setback between four feet and seven and one-half feet from the first level required setback (this is because of the odd-shaped lot).  Both side elevations have two different setbacks, one sets 25% of the upper story back five feet from the lower story.  The second setback puts the other 75% of the upper story at least two feet setback from the lower story.  The common open space is located between the units and the parking area in the rear.  The architect has placed small windows on the second floor which will not offer a line of sight for residents from the second floor to the adjacent neighbor�s property.

 

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

 

It is staff�s assessment that the 10 findings required by Ordinance No. 3633, adopted by the City Council on February 10, 2004, can be met.  The new section adopted by Council 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 will comply 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 and amended by the conditions attached to the City Council approving resolution.

 

(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 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.  These features include height, size and massing, proportions, articulation, elevations, pedestrian entry locations and circulation, roof style and pitch, location, placement, and orientation of the building.

The project has been revised to reduce the mass and height of the building and the second story in particular.  The features of the proposed development are not incompatible with features within 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.  Although not contained within a garage like the surrounding properties, the parking provided is compliant with current codes.

 

(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 pedestrian paths on the front elevation to the three units.

 

(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.

The parking spaces are now at grade level offering easy access to and from the units.  A full-sized guest space is also provided off of the alley.  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.

 

(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 between the units and the parking area at the rear of the property.  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 modified is now of a density similar to the surrounding neighborhood.  The windows on the upper floors facing adjacent properties add to the aesthetics of the elevation without infringing on the privacy of neighbors.  The project as conditioned is consistent with all City codes and standards regarding the size, location, and types of these items.

 

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 as proposed by the applicant and the conditions as proposed by staff.

 

 

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1                       City Council report including attachments dated March 9, 2004

Exhibit 2                       Revised plans submitted by applicant on April 5, 2004 (plans are separate)