Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

This report recommends that the City Council adopt as an urgency measure an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) to establish interim development standards for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones pending completion of the ongoing study of possible revisions to the single-family development standards.

Over the past two years, the City of Burbank has witnessed many single-family residential remodels and rebuilds. In response to high land values, low interest rates, and the ever-increasing need for more space, many Burbank homeowners have opted to maximize the use of their single-family property. The scope of single-family projects has ranged from modest single-story additions to complete teardowns and replacements with new two-story homes of up to 3,500 to 4,000 square feet or more. This latter type of development has sparked a great deal of concern across the community, as many residents believe that the scale of these homes is out of character with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods.

In January 2004, the City Council considered adopting an IDCO that would have temporarily stopped multiple family residential development in the City. As an alternative to adopting the IDCO, the Council approved the appropriation of $50,000 to begin a study of multifamily development standards and densities. At that time, several Council members expressed concern that the single-family neighborhoods across the City were facing some of the same issues as the multifamily neighborhoods. The single-family development standards were allowing for new and remodeled homes to be built to heights and sizes that were perceived to be out of character with other homes. The Council appropriated an additional $25,000 and directed staff to begin a study of single-family development standards in addition to the multifamily study.

Staff retained the architecture firm of RTKL to review the City�s existing single-family development standards and make recommendations for possible changes. RTKL prepared drawings of homes showing the maximum possible height and size under current standards and two alternative scenarios for new standards. Using this information from RTKL and surveys of development standards in neighboring cities, staff developed a set of proposed development standards to replace the current R-1 standards. Many of these proposed standards are recommended by staff to be incorporated into the proposed IDCO and are discussed in detail later in this report.

To gain a better understanding of the community�s concerns about single-family development and to solicit input on staff�s proposed standards, staff hosted two community meetings on this issue. Notice of both meetings was provided by advertisements in the Burbank Leader newspaper, on Charter cable television channel 6, on the Community Development Department web site, through City Council and Planning Board announcements, and through flyers distributed to all City libraries and various City offices. The first meeting was held on May 20, 2004 at the Buena Vista Library, and had a relatively small turnout of only about 15 residents. The second meeting was held on July 14, 2004, also at the Buena Vista Library, and had a large turnout of over 80 residents. The input received from residents at both of these meetings is discussed throughout this report.

Staff intended to present to the Council the findings of the two community meetings and staff�s proposed amendments to the single-family standards at a study session on September 28, 2004. Depending upon the direction from Council, this would have been followed by a Planning Board and Council hearing to formally adopt new standards. Such hearings would probably have occurred in October and November, with the new standards becoming effective around the end of the year. However, staff recognizes the still-increasing levels of concern across the community about ongoing single-family remodeling and rebuilding. As such, staff is bringing this issue forward at the earliest opportunity and is recommending that the Council take immediate action to deal with the ongoing concerns. An IDCO is the only way to immediately put new standards into effect to address this issue.

Single-family Development

Single-family residential development is the dominant land use in the City of Burbank. About 80 percent of all residential land in the City is dedicated to single-family homes. As such, the development standards that control single-family development have a substantial impact on the built environment and character of the City.

Many of the single-family homes in Burbank were built during and after World War II in the 1940s and 1950s. During this period and into the 1960s, homes in Burbank were largely single story, ranging in size from less than 1,000 square feet to around 1,500 square feet. Many of these homes were built with a detached two-car garage to the rear of the house, and some were built with one- and two-car garages attached to the front of the house. Following this �first phase� of single-family development, houses started to grow in size. In the 1970s and 1980s, two-story homes became more common and new and expanded houses increased in size to around 2,000 to 3,000 square feet.

In response to this level of development, the City Council in 1995 adopted the �Mansionization Ordinance,� which established the maximum height, lot coverage, and floor area ratio that are still in effect today.[1] The limitations established by this ordinance, however, still allow for relatively large homes. On a standard lot 50 feet wide and 135 feet deep with an area of 6,750 square feet, the current standards would allow a total of 4,050 square feet of buildings on the lot. Assuming a 400 square foot two-car garage, this would allow for a 3,650 square foot house. The 1990s through the present day have seen the size of many homes increase to this level. Most new, remodeled, and rebuilt homes are two stories tall, and many homes are 3,500 to 4,000 square feet or larger in size. This last �phase� of development that continues today has led to the recent concerns from the community.

Basic Concepts

Before beginning the analysis of the existing and proposed interim standards, it is important to explain the key concepts to be discussed. These concepts do not cover every aspect of single-family development, but represent the standards that typically have the greatest impact on the character of development and are most important to understand when considering new standards.

Height for residential structures is measured in two ways: to the top of the ceiling of the highest room, and to the top of the roof. Maximum height numbers are provided for each of these two heights to control the height of the occupied space and the height and pitch of the roof above it. As important as the height value is the base from which height is measured, known as the grade. The definition of what establishes the baseline grade is especially important on sloped lots where one side of a structure may rise higher above the actual ground surface than another side.

Different setback requirements are established for front, rear, interior side, and street-facing side yards. Setbacks generally establish an area in which a building cannot be placed. However, in some cases it may be appropriate to allow certain structures or portions thereof to encroach into some setback areas. It may also be appropriate to provide additional or different setback requirements for some parts of a structure, such as requiring a second story to be set back from the property line a greater distance than the first story.

The lot coverage is the percentage of the lot that is covered by structures. Lot coverage is measured using the footprint of each structure (see Exhibit A). The height or number of stories of the structure is not relevant for lot coverage calculation, only the overall footprint of the building is used. For example, if a 10,000 square foot lot has a 2,500 square foot single-story home and a 500 square foot garage, a total of 3,000 square feet of building footprint is present on the 10,000 square foot lot. The lot coverage is therefore (3,000/10,000 = 0.3 =) 30 percent. If a second story of 1,000 square feet were added to the house, the ground footprint of the house would not change, and the lot coverage would remain at 30 percent. The variable in lot coverage calculations is what structures are included. Enclosed structures such as homes, garages, and accessory structures are typically included; all enclosed structures are included under Burbank�s current standards. However, non-enclosed or partially enclosed structures such as patios, porte-cocheres, and stables may not be included, and are not included under Burbank�s current standards.

The companion to lot coverage is floor area ratio, or FAR. The FAR concept is very similar to lot coverage, in that it is a ratio of the square footage of structures on a lot to the square footage of the lot itself (see Exhibit A). The key difference is that for FAR, the total square footage of all floors is included in the calculation. To use the above example, a 2,500 square foot house and a 500 square foot garage on a 10,000 square foot lot would have an FAR of (3,000/10,000 =) 0.3. However, if the 1,000 square foot second story were added as above, that additional area would be included in the FAR calculation and the FAR would increase to (4,000/10,000 =) 0.4. Non-enclosed areas such as patios, porte-cocheres, and stables are typically not included, as is the case with Burbank�s current standards. Enclosed structures not primarily used for human occupancy, such as garages, are not always included in FAR calculations. Under Burbank�s current standards, all enclosed structures, including garages, are included.

There are three single-family residential zones in the City of Burbank: R-1 Residential Single-family, R-1-E Residential Estate, and R-1-H Residential Single-family Horsekeeping (Exhibit B). The R-1 zone is the general single-family zone that is found in most single-family areas of the City.

The R-1-H zone is found in the Rancho area of the City. The R-1 and R-1-H zones are nearly identical in their development standards. The R-1-H zone includes additional provisions for stables and corrals due to the ability to keep horses in that zone. However, the height, lot coverage, FAR, and other such standards are the same between the two zones. The R-1-H zone functions in generally the same manner as the R-1 zone, with the additional provision for horse keeping. The proposed interim standards would therefore apply to both the R-1 and R-1-H zones to ensure that development in the R-1-H zone is controlled in the same manner as the R-1 zone. None of the proposed interim standards would impact the ability of R-1-H residents to keep horses on their properties. Stables and corrals are now, and would continue to be, exempt from inclusion in lot coverage and FAR calculations so as not to limit people�s ability to construct horsekeeping facilities on their property.

The R-1-E zone is different from both the R-1 and R-1-H zones. The R-1-E zone was originally intended for very large single-family lots, with a minimum lot size of one acre and a maximum density of one unit per acre. However, there are very few single-family properties in the City that meet these criteria, and those that do are zoned R-1 rather than R-1-E. Due to a Municipal Code provision that all land annexed to the City is automatically zoned R-1-E, there is only one subdivision in Burbank with R-1-E zoning. This subdivision is on Frederic Street above Scott Road near the City boundary with Los Angeles. This area was zoned R-1-E by default when it was annexed from Los Angeles, and the zoning has never been changed. Because this zoning was automatic rather than intentional, none of the lots within the subdivision comply with the minimum lot size, density, or other requirements of the R-1-E zone, and all of the properties are considered non-conforming. These properties are developed and function as if they were in the R-1 zone. Therefore, the proposed interim standards would also apply to these few R-1-E properties to ensure that they are regulated as if they were R-1, consistent with how they have been developed and used. Because the only properties in the R-1-E zone are non-conforming, staff will propose that when the new R-1 standards are formally adopted, the R-1-E zone be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and that those properties zoned R-1-E be rezoned to R-1. However, since such an action cannot be taken through an IDCO process, the interim standards would apply to the R-1-E zone.

Per City Council direction on July 27, 2004, staff is studying possible changes to the hillside development standards as �phase one� of the view protection effort in conjunction with the changes to the R-1 standards. The City�s consultant is developing proposed hillside standards that will be brought back to the Council for incorporation into the final R-1 standard revisions. The proposed standards are not yet fully developed, and staff does not want to over-complicate the interim standards. As such, no proposed standards specific to the hillside area are included in the proposed interim standards. However, all of the homes in the hillside area are located in the R-1 zone. As such, the interim R-1 standards would still apply to the residential properties in the hillside area even without standards that specifically address the hillside.

Staff is recommending interim development standards for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones based upon the draft standards that have been drafted as proposed permanent standards for these zones. The proposed interim standards are not intended to address every possible aspect of single-family development requirements. They instead address those areas that most significantly affect the size and character of single-family homes. The final ordinance to be presented by staff in the coming months will include a complete and comprehensive set of new development standards addressing all aspects of single-family development. These standards will likely include changes to numerous Municipal Code sections. The interim standards, however, are intended only as a stopgap measure to address the most critical aspects of the single-family standards. The proposed interim standards are categorized and discussed below.

Rationale/Reasoning: The current height limit allows for the construction of very tall homes and accessory structures that can dwarf adjacent single-story homes and tower over rear yard areas. The current maximum height is excessive and can allow for steeply pitched roofs and in rare cases, three-story homes. Homes of such height can have a character very different from smaller one- and two-story homes. The proposed reduction in height would help to ensure that homes are of a scale more in character with the majority of surrounding homes. Accessory structures would also be better related to surrounding rear yard areas and not excessively tall. Staff notes that the proposed height limit of 22 feet is one foot shy of the 23-foot standard used for multifamily properties within 500 feet of a single-family property.[3] Staff believes that 22 feet is adequate for single-family development.

Effect: The proposed height of 22 feet to the top plate would still allow for a 10-foot first floor ceiling and nine-foot second floor ceiling with a raised foundation, or two 10-foot ceilings with slab construction (Exhibit C). For accessory structures, the proposed standard would allow for a 10-foot top plate for the first level and an eight-foot top plate for the second level. Staff believes that these heights are more than adequate for both the main dwelling and accessory structures and allow ample room for tall ceilings and garage spaces.

Community Input: Some residents believe that the current standards allow for houses that are too tall and �loom� over neighboring homes. Many residents at the meetings stated that height is especially a concern when second stories are built out to the same setback as the first story on all sides, increasing the overall mass of the house. The proposed reduction in maximum allowed height addresses these concerns.

Comparison to Other Cities: Staff surveyed numerous Southern California cities to examine the development standards used in single-family zones most comparable to Burbank�s R-1 zone. The proposed height limits of 22 feet to the ceiling and 29 feet to the roof are comparable to most of the cities surveyed. Glendale allows a maximum height of 25 feet to the ceiling and 28 feet to the roof. Pasadena allows a maximum height of 23 feet to the ceiling and 32 feet to the roof. Some cities surveyed were even more restrictive than staff�s proposal. For example, Santa Ana limits the height to 27 feet to the top of the roof, and West Covina�s roof height limit is 25 feet. Like many of the other cities surveyed, neither city specifies a separate height for the ceiling or top plate, using only the overall roof height. Many of the cities surveyed had separate height requirements for accessory structures that were less than the maximum allowed for the main dwelling unit, consistent with the proposed standard.

Current Standard: Grade is determined by the average elevation at the exterior walls of the structure measured at the center of each wall

Rationale/Reasoning: The proposed method for determining grade is consistent with the standard used by the Building Division, as adopted from the California Building Code. Using the Building Code standard would allow for consistent application of height standards across the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.

Effect: The proposed standard would probably have minimal effect on measuring height on level lots, since the ground surface five feet out from the exterior wall is typically the same as, or very close to, the ground surface at the wall. The most significant effect of this proposed method would occur on sloped lots where a steep surface is in proximity to the house wall. However, Building Code limitations on the placement of structures near the top and bottom of slopes minimize the practical impact of the proposed change.

Community Input: No input was received specific to this issue, although it is closely related to the height issue discussed above.

Comparison to Other Cities: Different cities determine the grade of a lot in different ways for the purpose of measuring height. The different methods used typically result in minimal variation of results, particularly on level lots. Staff�s proposed methodology for determining grade is consistent with the methodology of the California Building Code, which is a standard used by many cities.

Rationale/Reasoning: The current standards do not limit the number of stories. As a result, a number of three-story homes have been built. These homes are out of character with most single-family neighborhoods due to their height and design, especially outside of the hillside area. Some homeowners also take advantage of the lack of story limitation by building basements that rise well above the ground surface and by building �attics� with steeply pitched ceilings that serve as a third story. The proposed standards would avoid these situations by limiting homes to two stories and requiring basements and attics to be counted as stories when they will be used as such.

Effect: The majority of homeowners do not attempt to build true three-story homes, so the two-story limitation would not affect most homes. A more common design is to build an attic with a structural floor and tall ceiling, which then becomes a de facto third story. This would not be permitted under the proposed standard (unless the attic was acting as the second story of a single story home). With the proposed reduction in the maximum allowed height as discussed above, it would be difficult for a roof to be pitched on a two-story home high enough to allow for practical use of attic space as a third floor.

Community Input: A few residents proposed a prohibition on second stories altogether in some neighborhoods in an effort to preserve the single-story neighborhood character. Due to the extreme limitation this places on a homeowner�s ability to expand their home, staff believes this level of restriction is impractical. Many of the concerns related to second stories were connected to the height of the structure and the setbacks of the second floor, which are addressed in other proposed standards.

Comparison to Other Cities: Most cities surveyed did not explicitly limit single-family homes to two stories. However, some of the prescribed maximum heights are such that it would not be possible to build more than two stories. One city surveyed (Torrance) has maximum height limits specifically for one- and two-story homes.

Proposed Interim Standard: Area of second story limited to 75 percent of area of first story (see Exhibit E)

Rationale/Reasoning: One of the most frequently heard complaints from residents is the lack of additional setbacks for second stories, and the tendency of upper floors to �loom� over neighboring properties. The ordinance recently adopted by the City Council to prevent second stories from continuing the non-conforming setbacks established by the first story addresses this issue. However, there is still concern that, even with a five-foot setback, second stories may be as large (or larger) than the first story under current standards. This can result in a �top-heavy� house, or a house where the walls on all sides rise two stories above the ground with no break or articulation.

Effect: One approach many cities have taken to address this issue is to require setbacks on some or all sides of the second story. However, some cities have found this approach to have the undesired side effect of forcing all two-story homes to use a similar design with the same setbacks. This can result in a so-called �wedding cake� appearance where every two-story home has a stair-stepped look and there is little variety among the different homes. Staff�s proposed approach forces some portion of the second story to be set back from the first story, since the second floor must always be smaller than the first floor. However, the standard leaves it up to the architect to determine where that setback will occur. This would help to avoid all two-story homes from having a similar appearance. Although this would not guarantee that all sides of a home would have an additional setback for the second floor, it would ensure that some setbacks would be provided and that the second floor would not dominate the appearance of the home. Although the proposed standard would not require second stories to be set back from the front, staff believes that a common design option will be to set a second story toward the rear of the first story, which would reduce the impact of the second story on the front yard and the street.

Community Input: Some residents expressed concerns about a lack of additional setback for second floors because of the resulting box-like appearance of the house and the added visual impact of height when the second story is close to the property line. Some residents expressed support for staff�s proposal to limit the size of the second story to a percentage of the first story, since it would require at least some sides and portions of the second story to be set back from the first floor and avoid box-like designs.

Comparison to Other Cities: Several of the cities surveyed, including Pasadena, use encroachment planes to require that second stories be set back from the first story, which can result in the �wedding cake� problem similar to prescribed setback distances. In addition to using encroachment planes, the City of San Gabriel requires that the second story be at least 25 percent smaller than the first floor, the same approach as staff�s proposed interim standard.

Rationale/Reasoning: One of the recent trends observed in single-family development in Burbank is a desire to place the garage at the front of the house, similar to the typical design used in Santa Clarita and other recent suburban developments. Some older Burbank homes had garages facing the street in line with the front of the house or perpendicular to the street projecting in front of the house. The more recent style is for garages to be both parallel to the street and projecting in front of the house. This makes the garage the focal point of the front yard and detracts from the living area of the house. The proposed additional garage setback addresses this issue. With regard to the 25-foot overall setback, staff believes that the current standard is adequate and should not be altered.

Effect: Garages located at the front of the property would have to be either oriented perpendicular to the street or set back an additional five feet behind the front of the living area of the house. Requiring this additional setback prevents the garage from dominating the front yard. Staff has developed additional proposed standards that limit the width of garages at the front of the property and the driveways leading to the garage. To avoid over-complicating the proposed interim standards, staff has not included these additional standards. However, they will be introduced later in the full set of proposed single-family standards.

Community Input: No input was received specific to the front yard setback. Staff indicated that no change to the existing setback was proposed and no feedback was received on that proposal, perhaps indicating that people are generally satisfied with the current requirement.

Comparison to Other Cities: Most of the surveyed cities require minimum front yards of 20 or 25 feet. A few cities use a sliding scale based upon the depth of the lot and/or the front yards of adjoining properties. The City of San Gabriel requires garages with doors parallel to the street to be set back an additional ten feet from the front wall of the house.

Rationale/Reasoning: One of the concerns frequently expressed by members of the community is the ability of homes to be built into the rear area of the lot typically used as an open back yard. Although rarely seen, it is possible under current code standards to build a structure that is continuous from the front 25-foot setback line all the way to the five-foot rear setback line and to both five-foot side setbacks and still be below the maximum 60 percent lot coverage and 0.6 FAR. Such a structure would cover the entire lot aside from the mandated setback areas. The proposed standard would ensure that an open back yard area is provided and would prevent main dwellings from being built to the rear of the lot. The proposed encroachments for the increased rear yard mirror the currently permitted encroachments for the front yard. Because of the increased size of the rear yard, the function of the yard is somewhat different than under the current standards, and its purpose to provide an open yard area is similar to that of the front yard.

Effect: The proposed setback would prohibit the main dwelling from being within 25 feet of the rear lot line. On a standard 50-foot wide lot, the 25-foot rear yard area would be 1,250 square feet. Under the proposed interim standard, 50 percent of that area, or 625 square feet, could be covered with detached garages and other accessory structures (per the concept of lot coverage where only the footprint is included, not FAR where the total square footage is included). A typical two-car garage is 20 feet by 20 feet with an area of 400 square feet. A typical three-car garage would be 600 square feet. The proposed 50 percent coverage standard would allow for a three-car garage, an oversized two-car garage with a workshop or storage area, or a two-car garage and small accessory structure to be constructed entirely within the rear yard.

Community Input: Some residents at the meetings discussed side and rear yard setbacks toward the rear of a lot. Specific concerns were shared about the current ability to build the main dwelling unit to the rear of the lot and the ability to build accessory structures with no setback from the side and rear property lines. Structures toward the rear of a lot can encroach upon the open space and perceived privacy in the back yard area. The proposed standard prohibits a main dwelling unit from being built within the rear 25 feet of the lot and places limitations on the setbacks and location of accessory structures, as discussed further below.

A vocal minority at the second community meeting argued that the proposed rear yard setback compels people wishing to expand their home to add a second story rather than pushing out the first story due to the inability to build toward the rear of the lot. Staff acknowledges that the proposed rear yard setback in conjunction with the proposed lot coverage reduction (discussed below) will restrict homeowners� ability to expand first stories into the rear of the lot, and may in some cases force people to build a second story in lieu of enlarging the first story. This represents a tradeoff between the desire for a single-story neighborhood and the desire for open space. As mentioned earlier in this report, staff believes that it is not reasonable to prohibit people from building two-story homes. Second stories, when built to a reasonable size and height, are not typically out of character with a single-family neighborhood. Staff believes that the need to maintain open space is more important than the desire to discourage two-story development. Some argue that back yard open space is for the use of the homeowner and that it should be their option to decide whether or not to provide it. However, the placement of structures on a lot and the corresponding open space, or lack thereof, can substantially impact the comfort and quality of life for neighbors on surrounding properties who seek to enjoy their backyard open space without undue encroachment from neighboring homes.

Comparison to Other Cities: Most of the cities surveyed had minimum required rear yards of either 20 or 25 feet. Several cities use a lot coverage concept similar to that proposed by staff, with allowed coverage ranging from 25 to 40 percent, all below staff�s proposed 50 percent. Some cities allow rear yards to be encroached upon without limitation so long as an equivalent minimum open yard area is provided elsewhere on the property to replace the covered rear yard space. Because of the size and space limitations on most single-family properties in Burbank, staff recommends against allowing this alternative yard space approach.

Rationale/Reasoning: Staff believes that the current five-foot minimum setback is adequate. One of the major concerns with side yard setbacks was addressed by the City Council with the recent adoption of the ordinance to prohibit continuation of non-conforming setbacks. The recommended interim standards for side yard setbacks are with regard to allowed projections and encroachments. The current standards allow platforms and landings to project a distance that allows for �safe exiting� but do not allow stairways, ramps, or balconies to project. Given the limited five-foot width of side yards, staff believes that it is appropriate to keep the area of clear of any aboveground structures, including balconies or platforms. Encroachments can obstruct passage along the side of a house and diminish the purpose of the side yard as an open area between structures. Further, prohibiting such encroachments across the board is simpler to interpret and enforce and reduces opportunities for homeowners to take advantage of the standard and push the limits of permitted encroachments. The width generally used by the Building Division to provide safe exiting and adequate passage is 36 inches. This is the proposed setback standard for air conditioning equipment, chimneys, and similar features. The proposed minimum setback for pool equipment is five feet due to the generally higher noise levels and longer running times as compared with other equipment. As such, no allowed encroachment is proposed.

The code currently allows substandard lots to provide a street-facing side yard setback that is 20 percent of the lot width. Since the minimum interior side yard is half the width of a minimum street side yard, it is consistent to require an interior setback that is 10 percent of the lot width. This is equivalent to the general standard of five feet on a typical 50-foot wide lot. The absolute minimum of three feet is consistent with the Building Code, which requires all walls with openings (i.e. windows and doors) to be set back at least three feet from the property line.

Effect: The setback requirement of five feet will not change, and the recently adopted ordinance prohibits extension of a non-conforming setback. The proposed interim standard will have minor impacts to some currently permitted encroachments and projections. The special allowance for substandard lots will provide flexibility without the need for a variance on lots less than 50 feet in width.

Community Input: Concerns about interior side yard setbacks were mostly related to the placement of second stories and encroachments toward the rear of the lot, as addressed elsewhere in this report and the proposed interim standards.

Comparison to Other Cities: Many of the cities surveyed require five-foot minimum side yards. Some of the cities vary the minimum yard based on the size of the lot, with overall minimum and maximum values; two cities use 10 percent as the standard. Some cities require an overall setback distance for both side yards and leave it up to the homeowner to determine how to allocate the overall total between the two yards, subject to absolute minimum and maximum values.

Rationale/Reasoning: Staff believes that the street-facing side yard of a corner lot serves a similar purpose as a front yard in providing open space to the street. All of the encroachments currently permitted in a street-facing side yard diminish its purpose as an open space area along the street. Staff is proposing a standard that would allow very few encroachments, incorporating aspects of both the front yard and interior side yard with the goal of maintaining that area as open space free of any structures, including porte-cocheres, balconies, and porches.

Effect: The side yard setback for the main dwelling unit is not proposed to change, so the impact on house structures would be minimal. As with the proposed changes to the interior side yard standard, there would be minor impacts due to limits on projecting and encroaching features.

Community Input: No comments were received specifically related to street-facing side yard setbacks.

Comparison to Other Cities: The cities surveyed have a wide range of minimum street-facing side yards, from four feet up to 20 or more feet. Glendale�s minimum street side yard is six feet; Pasadena requires ten percent of the lot width but no less than 10 feet and no more than 25 feet.

Rationale/Reasoning: Based upon the concerns expressed by the community and the Council, staff believes that reducing the permitted amount of lot coverage is one of the most effective ways of reducing the size of homes and the density of structures on a lot. With the current lot coverage maximum of 60 percent, it would be possible to meet the 25-foot front yard setback and five-foot side and rear yard setbacks and fill the entire remainder of a standard lot (50 feet by 135 feet) with a structure. This would eliminate any useable rear yard area and be an imposition upon the comfort of neighbors to the sides and rear. As mentioned above in the discussion of rear yard setbacks, staff believes that the provision of back yard open space is very important in a single-family neighborhood, and the proposed standard would help to ensure that adequate open space is provided. Exhibits F-1 through F-3 are diagrams prepared by RTKL showing the maximum possible development under existing lot coverage and FAR standards and options for new standards, including the proposed interim 45% standard.

Effect: The proposed lot coverage would allow for just over 3,000 square feet of building footprint on a standard 50-foot by 135-foot lot. This compares with the 4,050 square feet of footprint that would be permitted under the current standard. The reduction of just over 1,000 square feet represents 1,000 square feet of back yard open space that would not be provided if an owner chose to maximize the lot coverage. As mentioned above, the proposed lot coverage limitation may compel some homeowners to add a second story to their home when they may have otherwise expanded the first story into the back yard area. Staff acknowledges this consequence and nonetheless continues to recommend the proposed interim standard in the interest of preserving back yard open space. As pointed out by some community members, the proposed lot coverage (and FAR) limitations may have unintended consequences for substandard small lots, since the land area available for buildings is already limited. Staff is aware of this concern and will be prepared to address it at the time the full R-1 standards package comes forward. For the purposes of the interim ordinance, owners of substandard lots may apply for a variance if necessary.

Community Input: Many residents at the community meetings shared staff�s concern about the ability of a homeowner to cover the entire lot area outside of the minimum setbacks with structures. Many residents supported a reduction of the current 60 percent lot coverage, but many also felt that staff�s proposal of reducing it to 45 percent was going too far, and that a number somewhere in the middle was more appropriate, especially for smaller lots. Some residents also believed that the garage and non-enclosed structures should not be included in the lot coverage calculation as a trade-off for the reduced number. Staff has considered various lot coverage values and believes that the proposed standard of 45 percent strikes an appropriate balance between the ability to build a sizeable house and garage with the need to provide open space and prevent over-concentration of structures on a lot. Staff believes that all structures on a lot, including non-enclosed structures, should be included in the lot coverage calculation since any such structures occupy land area and affect the density of structures and available open space. The FAR is the more appropriate vehicle for excluding the garage and non-enclosed structures, as discussed below.

A vocal minority of residents at the second meeting stated their opinion that the design of the home, more so than lot coverage, was the concern of defining what is offensive to a neighborhood. These residents believe that a design review process rather than a simple lot coverage limitation should be put in place. Some residents also expressed concern over the effect of the proposed lot coverage to promote two-story development, as discussed above.

Comparison to Other Cities: Several of the cities surveyed have maximum lot coverage values of 35 or 40 percent. Several cities have varying values based upon lot size. The highest value observed for a standard sized lot was 50 percent in the City of Santa Ana. None of the surveyed cities were as high as Burbank�s current 60 percent standard for a typical lot (Santa Monica allows 60 percent for lots smaller than 3,000 square feet). Two of the cities exclude non-enclosed patios from the lot coverage calculation, but the majority of cities include all covered structures, consistent with the proposed interim standard. To address the concern about two-story development, some cities provide two different lot coverage limits: one for two-story development and a higher limit for homeowners willing to maintain a single-story home.

Rationale/Reasoning: Staff looked at various FAR options and narrowed the range down to two possible values, 0.4 and 0.5. Most cities that use FAR count only living space and do not include the garage in the FAR calculation. To remain consistent with common practice and to �give back� some of the house square footage being lost by the FAR reduction, staff decided to recommend excluding the garage from the FAR under the interim standards. The new requirement for determining when a patio is considered enclosed is adopted from the Building Code to maintain consistency in application. On a standard 50-foot by 135-foot lot, the existing 0.6 FAR would allow 4,050 square feet of building, including the garage. Subtracting 400 square feet for a standard garage leaves 3,650 square feet of house.[4] On the same lot, an FAR of 0.5 without the garage included would allow a house of 3,375 square feet, less than 300 square feet below that allowed by the current standard. Staff believes that this reduction is not adequate to make a noticeable difference in the size of homes. With an FAR of 0.4, the largest allowable house would be 2,700 square feet. Staff believes that this size represents a substantial reduction from the current allowance of 3,650 square feet but still provides the opportunity for homeowners to build a sizeable house to meet their family�s space needs. Exhibit F-1 shows two example homes that could be built under the existing 0.6 FAR as compared with a �typical� house. Exhibits F-2 and F-3 show possible homes that could be built under the proposed 0.4 FAR standard and the alternative 0.5 FAR standard also considered by staff.

Effect: The proposed FAR reduces the maximum house size on a standard lot to 2,700 square feet. On a slightly larger 7,000 square foot lot, common in some areas of the City, the maximum allowed size would be 2,800 square feet. When coupled with the proposed lot coverage limit and second story size reduction, a possible configuration on a standard lot would be a 1,540 square foot first floor with a 1,155 square foot second floor (2,695 total square feet), with a 400 square foot garage. The resulting lot coverage footprint of 1,940 square feet is well below the 45 percent lot coverage limit of 3,037 square feet. Almost 1,100 square feet of additional lot area would be available for a larger first floor (and reduced second floor to stay below the FAR limit), an oversized garage, or workshop attached and open to the garage.

Community Input: Similar to lot coverage, some members of the community support a reduction from the current standard while others believe that staff�s 0.4 proposal is too low. A concern that was raised by several residents is the impact that a lower FAR would have on substandard lots. For example, on a 3,000 square foot lot, the maximum house size would be limited to 1,200 square feet. Some residents suggested allowing higher FARs for smaller lots or otherwise adjusting for lot size when determining the FAR. A number of cities use sliding scales for FARs whereby smaller lots are given higher FAR numbers to permit comparable sized homes. Another method used by some cities to address this concern is an absolute minimum permitted house size coupled with FAR to add to that minimum. An example of this approach would be to use 1,500 square feet plus an FAR of 0.2. This would guarantee a minimum limit of 1,500 square feet on all lots regardless of size, and would then allow for some additional development based on lot size. On a standard 6,750 square foot lot, this example would allow a 2,850 square foot house. On a substandard 3,000 square foot lot, this would allow a 2,100 square foot house.

Comparison to Other Cities: Several of the cities surveyed do not specify a maximum FAR and use only lot coverage to control single-family development. Those cities that do use FAR are within a range of values generally from 0.3 to 0.5, some of which are varied based upon lot size. At the two community meetings, some residents stated that FAR values must be looked at in conjunction with average lot sizes to account for the practical house size that would result from the stated FAR. Some residents were concerned that direct comparison of the proposed FAR to other cities would not be appropriate if the average lot sizes in other cities were different from those in Burbank. To address this issue, staff was able to obtain single-family lot size information from Glendale and Pasadena to compare with Burbank (information was not readily available from other cities).

The single-family lot size distribution for all three cities is a standard distribution (Exhibit I-2). Over 45 percent of the single-family lots in Burbank are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet. Although not as high a percentage, Glendale also had more lots in the 6,000 to 7,000 square foot range than any other size, at over 25 percent. Pasadena�s lots were generally a little larger, with over 25 percent of the lots in the 7,000 to 8,000 square foot range. Despite these minor differences, the majority of lots in all three cities fell between 5,000 and 8,000 square feet. For lots under 10,000 square feet in size, Glendale uses three FAR values ranging from 0.3 to 0.45 depending upon the zoning district. Pasadena uses an FAR of 0.3 and allows 500 square feet of house in addition to the amount determined by the FAR. When compared along with the lot size information, the proposed FAR of 0.4 is shown to be generally consistent with that used by Glendale and Pasadena given the average lot sizes in the three cities.

Rationale/Reasoning: Restrictions on accessory structures are to be used in conjunction with the 50 percent lot coverage limitation within the 25-foot required rear yard area. Staff proposes to retain the six-foot separation requirement from the main dwelling unit as this is consistent with Building Code setback requirements for walls with openings, as is the newly proposed standard of a four-foot separation for eaves. Staff proposes to increase the minimum setback from zero to three feet, with an additional setback for the second floor, to provide separation between all structures and prevent structures on abutting lots from being built against one another. A required setback also reduces the degree of encroachment that an accessory structure can have on neighboring yards to the side and rear. The additional setback requirement for the second story and decks provides additional buffer space and increased comfort level for neighboring rear yard areas.

Detached second dwelling units are proposed to have a minimum five-foot setback rather than the three feet for other structures due to the nature of second dwelling units. Accessory structures such as offices or recreation rooms are not typically occupied all day. Second dwelling units, as a living space, may be occupied all day and night. As such, staff believes it is appropriate to provide a setback consistent with that required for main dwelling units. This same principle is applied to staff�s recommended deletion of the separation requirement from R-1-H lot lines. As structures used only intermittently and not used for living or sleeping purposes (second dwelling units are not permitted in the R-1-H zone), staff believes it is not necessary for such structures to be separated from stables or corrals by a distance greater than the setbacks already required for stables themselves. The proposed increased setback for swimming pools is intended to provide additional access space and increased safety around swimming pools.

Effect: The proposed interim standards would substantially impact the location and design of accessory structures. The proposed standards would not change the allowed size or use of the structures, and would not change the requirement for a conditional use permit for all accessory structures over 300 square feet. Due to the high volume of conditional use permit applications that are processed for accessory structures, staff is exploring various options for changing the size requirements and internal design standards. None of these standards are proposed for the interim ordinance because staff has not yet completed the analysis and does not wish to over-complicate the proposed interim ordinance.

Community Input: Several residents expressed concern about the setbacks and height of accessory structures toward the rear of lots. These concerns are based upon the location and mass of the structures, as well as the perceived loss of backyard privacy from second story windows. The proposed setbacks and height restrictions partially address this concern. The perceived loss of privacy is an issue that is not easily addressed. The additional second story and deck setbacks will move decks and windows back several feet from the side and rear lot lines, which will increase the comfort level of people in abutting backyards and perhaps reduce the perceived invasion of privacy. However, abutting rear yards would still be visible from second story windows. The only way to fully address this would be to prohibit windows on certain elevations or restrict the placement of windows. Because of their potential effect on the design of an accessory structure, staff is not recommending either approach.

Comparison to Other Cities: Several of the cities surveyed had setback requirements for accessory structures that were less than the setbacks for the main dwelling unit, ranging from two to five feet. Some cities do not specify separate setbacks for accessory structures, and most of the cities surveyed did not specify additional setbacks for the second stories of accessory structures.

Rationale/Reasoning: Due to the reduction in the allowed FAR, most lots in the City would not accommodate a 3,600 square foot house, and the current parking standard would be inconsistent with the amount of development permitted. The proposed FAR would allow houses of about 3,000 square feet or less on most lots in the City. Houses in excess of 3,000 square feet would be considered relatively large. A 3,000 square foot house could easily accommodate five or six bedrooms and a large family that is likely to have more than two automobiles and staff believes it is an appropriate threshold at which to require three parking spaces. Staff�s proposal to require garages and disallow carports is in an effort to require a fully enclosed space for automobile parking and reduce the aesthetic impact on neighboring properties. Finally, the limitation on the width of the garage at the front of the property is intended to prevent the garage from dominating the front of the house and becoming the focal point of the property, similar to the additional garage setback requirement discussed earlier in this report.

Effect: Under the proposed FAR, the number of houses in excess of 3,000 square feet would be substantially reduced. As such, not many homeowners would be required to provide three spaces and the impacts of this standard would be minimal. The prohibition of carports would also have a minimal effect, as not many homeowners elect to build a carport in lieu of a garage. The Zoning Ordinance requires carports to be enclosed on three sides for two-thirds of the height of the wall, so many people opt to just build a full garage. Finally, the limitation on the width of garages at the front of the house would have a minimal impact in most cases. On a standard 50-foot lot, the 40 percent limitation would allow for a 20-foot wide standard two-car garage.

Community Input: No community input was received specific to this issue. One resident at one of the community meetings commented that Burbank residents often use their garages for storage regardless of how many spaces are provided, and that cars are parked in driveways or on the street, and that the City should require residents to park in their garages. The code currently requires only that parking be provided; it does not require that the parking be used. Staff is not proposing to change this standard.

Comparison to Other Cities: Several of the surveyed cities limit the width of garages at the front of the property. Some cities require additional parking for larger homes, with varying requirements. Glendale requires three spaces for homes 3,500 square feet or larger, and requires up to four or five spaces for larger homes.

The participants at the two community meetings were divided about whether any changes to the current standards are needed and if so, what the nature of those changes should be. At the first meeting, the majority of residents believed that the current standards were too lax and that greater restrictions on height and size are needed. Many residents expressed their support for staff�s proposed standards in that they reduced the maximum allowed size, height, and lot coverage. At the second community meeting, a sizeable and vocal minority of those in attendance was opposed to staff�s proposed standards or to any changes that would substantially reduce the allowed size or height of homes.

At each of the community meetings, staff presented the height, lot coverage, and floor area ratio standards that are proposed as interim standards in this report. The community input related to each development standard category is discussed above with the appropriate topic. Those topics and issues that are not directly addressed by any of the above interim standards are discussed below. All comments received at the two community meetings are fully documented in Exhibits H-1 and H-2.

At the second community meeting, many residents on both sides of the issue (those wanting greater restrictions on height and size and those in favor of keeping the existing standards) spoke in support of architectural or design review. Many residents think that relying only on �numbers� such as height and FAR will not guarantee neighborhood compatibility. Other residents believe that the height and size of homes is not the issue at all, but that design is the only issue that should be addressed. Staff has previously discussed the possibility of design review with the City Council in more general terms. Due to the substantial City and staff resources that are required to administer a design review process, the high degree of subjectivity that is involved, the delays that it can cause in processing project applications, and the Council�s prior direction to not pursue design review in this City, staff strongly recommends against any type of design or architectural review for single-family development.

Some residents pointed out that some neighborhoods are still composed of relatively smaller homes that have retained their original size and character and have not been expanded. A few residents expressed their opinion that such neighborhoods should be preserved in the current state, going so far as to prohibit second stories to maintain single-story neighborhoods. As noted above, staff believes that restricting people�s ability to expand their homes to this extent is not practical and not fair to homeowners who wish to add square footage to their homes. The proposed interim standards would reduce the square footage and height of single-family homes to require homes of a certain character. It is not practical, however, to restrict homes to the point that homeowners cannot expand their homes within reason to meet the space needs of their family.

At the opposite end of house size, some residents expressed concern over limiting the development rights of a homeowner when the majority of other homes in a neighborhood are already developed to a height and size that exceeds what the proposed standards would allow. It was suggested that the standards be flexible or that a special discretionary process be set up to allow for exceptions in these cases. Rather than requiring homeowners in such a situation to go through the traditional variance process, staff is exploring the possibility of creating a new discretionary process. The process would have findings related to neighborhood compatibility for those cases where the existing character of the neighborhood is not consistent with the standards. Staff has not completed analyzing the options and is not yet prepared to make a recommendation for inclusion in the interim ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require any home that is inconsistent with the interim standards to go through the traditional variance process.

Staff recognizes the trend over the past several decades of ever increasing household space needs. One of the central goals of planning and zoning, however, is to strike a balance between the rights of one property owner to develop their property to the maximum extent possible and the rights of neighboring property owners not to be negatively impacted by that development. Staff believes that the proposed interim standards will still allow houses of substantial size to be built that will meet the space needs of most families. Staff notes that the number of very large homes being constructed in the City remains a relatively small percentage of the total number of single-family lots in the City. Reducing the allowed size and height of homes will not likely affect the manner in which the majority of single-family homeowners would like to develop their properties now and in the future. The positive effects of the proposed standards in reducing the negative impacts on surrounding properties outweigh the downside of reducing peoples� ability to develop their properties to extent they could under current standards.

IDCO Options

The IDCO for multifamily development that was considered by the City Council in January had several options for the level of restrictiveness and the types or densities of development to which it could apply. The most restrictive type of IDCO is a moratorium, which stops all development of a particular type. Staff is not proposing a moratorium to stop single-family development, but rather interim standards that would put in place additional controls while allowing single-family construction to continue. Because density is not an issue with single-family homes, the main variable for an IDCO is which standards to capture within the IDCO. As mentioned earlier in this report, the standards that staff is proposing to include under the IDCO do not represent a comprehensive list of all standards that apply to the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones. Staff believes that an IDCO is not an appropriate forum to introduce a comprehensive set of standards. Rather, the proposed interim standards address those aspects of single-family development that have been perceived as most offensive to the community, and/or those standards that can have the greatest impact on the size and appearance of a home. The Council may adopt additional standards as part of the IDCO that staff has not proposed, or may remove some of staff�s proposed standards from the IDCO and wait to address them with the full R-1 study.

The two approaches for dealing with projects that fall outside of the interim standards are to simply disallow those projects from going forward or provide some discretionary approval process to consider them on a case-by-case basis. As with the previous multifamily IDCO, staff strongly recommends against using a conditional use permit process to consider projects that do not comply with the interim standards. The basis for such a permit would be tied to compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. With no established findings and no criteria by which to judge a proposed home, staff believes that a conditional use permit would not be an appropriate means of considering such projects.

Staff instead recommends that any proposed home that would not comply with the interim standards be subject to the variance process. The goal of the interim standards is to restrict single-family development to stop projects that may be in conflict with the upcoming revised R-1 standards. Since the proposed interim standards are likely to become the permanent standards, staff believes that it is important to require those projects occurring during the IDCO period to comply with the IDCO standards unless some extraordinary circumstance prevents such compliance. This type of situation is where a variance is appropriate.

Through the R-1 study, staff has identified numerous standards that would be extremely difficult or impossible to satisfy on a substandard lot, particularly the 25-foot wide lots found along Chandler Boulevard and at other locations in the City. The complete set of new R-1 standards will address these lots by creating special standards or sliding standards to accommodate unique lots and situations. The proposed interim standards address these lots to a certain degree, but not all aspects are covered. As such, a variance would also be an appropriate process to deal with substandard lots during the IDCO period until such time that the final new standards can be adopted. Substandard lots typically present unique situations not common in the R-1 zone, and therefore are often good candidates for variance approval.

Development review is not required for single-family homes. As such, the cutoff options for applicability of a new ordinance are more limited than for multifamily development. The two main milestones in the single-family development process are plan check submittal and building permit issuance. With the recently adopted substandard setback ordinance, the Council adopted staff�s recommendation that plan check submittal be used as the cutoff for applicability, meaning that any house project that had been submitted for plan check by or before the day the ordinance was adopted by the Council would be subject to the old requirements and not be required to comply with the new ordinance. Staff is recommending that the same cutoff be used for this interim ordinance.

Unlike development review, where conceptual plans are prepared at lesser expense than construction documents, the first step of City involvement in the single-family home process is the preparation of construction documents for plan check submittal. Although applicants often bring preliminary and conceptual plans in to the Planning and Building counters for unofficial pre-application review, such consultation is not mandatory. Many applicants opt not to take advantage of that opportunity and instead prepare their drawings and submit for plan check without any pre-application discussion. At this point, a substantial amount of money may have been spent on plans, especially for very large or complicated remodels and rebuilds.

Staff considered recommending a phased-in approach of the interim standards, whereby applicants that have already spent time and money having drawings prepared, but have not yet submitted for plan check on the effective date of the IDCO, could still be allowed to submit plans and be subject to the current regulations. However, staff found that such a process would be complicated and difficult to administer. Further, given the urgency surrounding this matter and the desire expressed by the Council and the community to stop out of character single-family development as soon as possible, staff is recommending that the effective date of the IDCO be used as the absolute cutoff. Any project not already submitted for plan check would be required to comply with the interim regulations. At the public hearing, staff will be prepared to provide the Council with information on the number of single-family projects in the plan check process that have not yet been issued building permits and the number of those projects that would not comply with the proposed interim standards. These projects would be allowed to go forward and be built subject to existing regulations under staff�s recommended approach.

Because of the submittal process described above, it is possible that some applicants may be caught in a situation where they have spent substantial time and money relying upon current standards, and will have to have their projects redesigned and plans redrawn as needed to comply with the interim standards. While this may seem unfair to some project applicants, staff believes that the overriding concern in this case is the community welfare that is being threatened by ongoing single-family development that is considered out of character with the community.

The latest and most restrictive cutoff that can generally be used for application of new rules is building permit issuance. Although not recommended by staff, the Council may adopt the IDCO such that any project that does not have a building permit, whether or not it has been submitted for plan check or received plan check approval, is subject to the interim standards. A homeowner or builder that has received a building permit and taken any action on their property in reliance on that permit is generally considered to have vested rights for the permitted project, and cannot be made to comply with subsequently adopted regulations.

Required Findings for IDCO Adoption and Extension

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(c), the City Council must make specific findings in adopting or extending an IDCO:

The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

A combination of factors including high land value, low interest rates, and increasing demands for household space have resulted in widespread single-family development throughout the community, including new homes, remodels, expansions, and complete rebuilds. Many of these homes are of a height, size, and mass that are considered to be out of character with neighboring single-family properties and the Burbank community.

These oversized homes encroach upon the comfort level and quality of life of neighboring residents by creating structures that loom over neighboring properties, encroach upon open yard areas, and diminish the low intensity single-family nature of the neighborhood. The many concerns expressed by members of the community and documented throughout this staff report are evidence of the threat to the public welfare that these structures pose. The continued approval of permits for the construction of such homes threatens the welfare of Burbank residents and properties across the City, as additional out-of-character homes are built throughout the City.

Staff believes that the required finding for adopting an IDCO can be made for this case. Staff notes that the same finding will be required to extend the IDCO after the initial 45 day period if the Council so chooses, and that the additional findings required for multifamily development do not apply to single-family development.

Staff has identified two major alternatives to adopting the proposed IDCO to establish interim standards, should the Council wish to consider alternatives.

Staff believes that the first alternative above would address the community�s and Council�s concerns regarding single-family development, but would not resolve any issues in the interim and would be overly restrictive. The second alternative would not address the issues of concern in the interim pending adoption of a new set of single-family standards. Staff continues to recommend the adoption of interim development standards as presented in this report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adopting the proposed IDCO would not result in any notable costs to the City. The Council previously allocated $25,000 for the purpose of conducting the R-1 standards study, and a contract was executed with RTKL to assist with the study. RTKL assisted staff with the analysis of the current standards and development of the proposed new standards and their work on the project is complete. Adopting the proposed standards on an interim basis prior to final consideration by the Board and Council would not require any additional work by RTKL. RTKL also explored a few alternative standard scenarios, in the event the Council wishes to look at alternative standards or levels of restriction. If any additional work by RTKL is needed to assist with this effort, a small amount of the contract remains for this purpose.

The proposed interim standards are in some respects more complicated than the existing single-family standards. As such, administering the standards may require additional staff time to review single-family project plans, especially in the first weeks after adoption. However, this additional time would not be substantial and is not expected to have a noticeable impact on staff resources or result in any additional costs to the City. In general, staff would continue to administer the standards for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones in the same manner and through the same processes as is done under the current requirements; only the standards themselves would be different.

Through the opinions expressed about single-family development across the City, the community has identified specific aspects of remodeled and rebuilt homes that are of particular concern. Staff has identified the development standards most directly tied to these issues and has developed a proposed set of requirements that would require new and expanded homes to be shorter and smaller than under current standards. These standards would be in place for an interim period to immediately provide relief from some of the concerns.

Staff believes that the finding required by state law for the adoption of an interim ordinance can be made for this situation. Pursuant to Section 65858 of the State of California Government Code, the IDCO must be adopted as an urgency ordinance by a four-fifths vote of the City Council and may initially be in effect for 45 days. At the conclusion of the 45-day period, the Council would have the option of holding another public hearing to consider extending the IDCO for up to an additional 22 months and 15 days.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Interim Development Control Ordinance to establish interim development standards for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H single-family residential zones as described in this report.

Exhibit G Diagram showing proposed second story setback for accessory structures

[1] Prior to this ordinance, there were no limitations on lot coverage or floor area ratio for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones. The maximum permitted height was 35 feet, measured to the top of the structure. There was no maximum height imposed for ceilings.

[2] General comparisons to other cities are discussed with each development standard category throughout the report. A summary table of the standards for all surveyed cities is attached at the end of this report as Exhibit I-1.

[3] The multifamily zones allow a maximum height up to 27 feet to the highest ceiling, consistent with current R-1 standards, if the four additional feet are provided as two feet each toward the ceiling height of the first and second floors (as opposed to at the semi-subterranean garage level).

[4] Under current code standards, a new 3,650 square foot house would actually require three parking spaces, but for simplicity in the comparisons a two-car garage is assumed. If the 3,650 square foot house were achieved by an addition of less than 2,000 square feet to an existing house, only two parking spaces would be required.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Single-family Development

Basic Concepts

IDCO Options

Required Findings for IDCO Adoption and Extension

FISCAL IMPACT: