PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a zone text amendment that would amend the development standards for the R-1 Residential Single-family and R-1-H Residential Single-family Horsekeeping zones and eliminate the R-1-E Residential Estate zone.  This report presents a revised version of staff�s proposed development standards and a summary of the input received at the two most recent community meetings on this subject.

BACKGROUND:

Recent History

On September 14, 2004, the City Council adopted an interim development control ordinance (IDCO) that established interim height and floor area ratio (FAR) development standards for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H single-family residential zones.  The IDCO was adopted in response to increasing concerns from the community that many new and remodeled homes in Burbank were out of character with their surrounding neighborhoods.[1]  On October 26, 2004, the Council extended the IDCO through June 30, 2005 to provide staff with additional time to solicit community input and prepare a proposed set of new single-family development standards.

On September 14, staff presented to the Council a comprehensive set of single-family standards that staff recommended be adopted in the IDCO as interim standards (Exhibit A).  The Council elected to adopt only the interim standards for height and FAR, but some Council members provided feedback on other standards staff had proposed.  In response to this input and other input received from the community, staff has revised some of the proposed standards as reflected in this report.

The standards proposed by staff on September 14 were not all directly related to �mansionization� concerns about oversized homes.  In an effort to focus on the mansionization issue, staff has identified in this report those development standards that directly affect the massing of a house and accessory structures and the potential impacts on neighboring properties.  Those standards are addressed first in this report.  Other standards that may not be directly related to mansionization but which staff nonetheless believes should be addressed as part of a package of new standards are discussed separately.

Community Meetings and Public Input

The IDCO was adopted following two community meetings held in May and July 2004, at which community members provided input about their concerns with ongoing development and staff�s proposed changes to the single-family development standards.  In adopting the IDCO, Council directed staff to conduct additional public meetings and seek additional input from the community.  Two additional community meetings were held, on January 27, 2005 and February 9, 2005.  As with the previous meetings, 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, through direct mailing to persons requesting to receive such notice, and through flyers distributed to all City libraries and various City offices.

Both meetings were relatively well attended, with about 40 people at the first meeting and about 50 people at the second meeting.  Staff retained Royleen White Associates, who previously facilitated the community meeting on the re-use of the former Buena Vista Library site, to facilitate both meetings and to graphically record all of the input received at the meetings.  The input received from residents at both of these meetings is discussed throughout this report.  Copies of the graphically recorded input are attached Exhibits B-1 and B-2.

Staff contacted the Burbank Association of Realtors to ensure that its membership was aware of the two community meetings.  Several Association members attended the meetings.  Staff also offered to meet with the Association membership directly to discuss single-family development and the proposed standards if so desired.  As of the publication of this report, the Association had not responded to staff�s offer.

A separate community meeting was held on February 16, 2005 with residents of the hillside area specifically regarding the proposed hillside development standards.  Notice of the meeting was mailed directly to all persons owning property within the Mountain Fire Zone and other persons who requested to receive notice of meetings related to the view protection issue.  As with previous community meetings on view protection, Citywide public notice of the meeting was not provided because the proposed ordinance would affect only the hillside area.  Input received from residents at the meeting is discussed later in this report.  A copy of the graphically recorded input is attached as Exhibit B-3.

In addition to the input received at the community meetings, staff has received written correspondence from a number of individuals regarding R-1 development and the proposed standards.  All of the written correspondence that has been received is attached as Exhibit C.  Written correspondence that has been received regarding view protection issues has been previously provided to the City Council with other staff reports and as such is not attached hereto.  No new correspondence has been received that specifically addresses the proposed hillside development standards.

Relationship of R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H Zones

As noted in previous reports to the Council on this issue, 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.  The R-1 zone is the general single-family zone that is found in most single-family areas of the City.

R-1-H

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.  All of the changes to the standards proposed by staff and discussed in this report would apply uniformly to the R-1 and R-1-H zones.  None of the proposed standards would change the ability of R-1-H residents to keep horses on their properties or construct stables or corrals.

R-1-E

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.  Because the only properties now located in the R-1-E zone are non-conforming, staff recommends that the R-1-E zone be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and that those properties zoned R-1-E be rezoned to R-1 and subject to the same R-1 standards as the rest of the City.

Relationship to View Protection Ordinance

The City Council directed staff to pursue a possible view protection ordinance in three phases, the first of which would be the creation of development standards specific to the hillside area to be completed in conjunction with the amendments to the R-1 standards.  Staff and the City�s consultant prepared draft hillside development standards based upon the draft R-1 standards.  These standards were presented to hillside residents at a community meeting on February 16, 2005.  Per Council direction, this report includes a discussion of the proposed hillside development standards, and staff recommends that they be adopted concurrently with the other proposed R-1 standards.

ANALYSIS:

STANDARDS RELATED TO MANSIONIZATION

As noted above, staff has divided the proposed development standards into two categories: those directly related to mansionization and other standards.  Attached as Exhibit D is a table that summarizes the current development standards, the proposed development standards, and a brief comment on the rationale behind each proposed change.  This table was handed out to all participants at the community meetings in January and February.  Each of the proposed changes is discussed in greater detail below and includes discussion of the following:

• current development standard (including interim standard where applicable)

• proposed development standard

• staff�s reasoning behind the proposed standard

• the effect that the proposed standard would have on development

• relevant input received from the community at the January and February community meetings related to the standard

• comparison of how the proposed interim standard compares to other nearby cities[2]

Height

Rationale/Reasoning: The current height limit under the Code 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 very tall roofs and in some cases, three-story homes.  Homes of such height can have a character very different from smaller one- and two-story homes (Exhibit E-2).  The proposed reduction in height would help to ensure that homes are of a scale more in character with the majority of surrounding homes.  Requiring accessory structures to have a lower maximum height would help such structures to better relate to surrounding rear yard areas and encroach less on the rear yards of abutting properties.

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.[3]  Some homeowners also take advantage of the lack of story limitation by building basements that rise well above the ground surface or 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 are located above ground and will function as living space.

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 height of 23 feet to the top plate is consistent with the interim standard adopted by the City Council.  Staff has found that the vast majority of new homes and additions submitted for plan check review since the IDCO was adopted have been at or below the 23-foot interim limit.  A height of 23 feet allows for 10-foot ceilings on the first and second floors in a typical raised foundation home (Exhibit E-3).  The proposed height limits would also allow for a variety of roof pitches and would not overly restrict roof design (Exhibit E-4).  Staff believes that the proposed heights are more than adequate for both the main dwelling and accessory structures and allow ample room for tall ceilings and pitched roofs.

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).

The proposed change to the grade definition would have minimal effect on measuring height on level lots, since the ground surface five feet out from the exterior wall is typically 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: Input was received from attendees at the two community meetings on both sides of the height issue.  The general consensus of most attendees was that a reduction in the maximum height was a positive change, and specifically that 23 feet was acceptable.  In supporting a lower height limit, individuals commented on the affect that very tall houses can have on pedestrians walking in front of houses, and on views of the neighborhood from neighboring properties.  Some attendees noted the increased impact of a tall home on a neighboring property in situations where the lots are terraced up a slope, such as in the areas above Glenoaks.  Some people believed that 23 feet was too tall for an accessory structure at the rear of a lot, and supported a lower maximum height for detached accessory structures, while others believed that the height limit should be the same for all structures.

Most of the negative comments received were with regard to the roof height limit of 30 feet.  While some supported the proposed height, others believed that the 30-foot limit was too restrictive for roof design, and that steeper roofs would not be possible under the proposed standard, resulting in �cookie cutter� roof designs.  Suggestions to address this included increasing the height to 32 feet to allow more flexibility, retaining the existing 35-foot limit, and varying the maximum height in relation to the lot size.  Some meeting attendees equated steeper pitched roofs with more attractive homes, and suggested that minimum roof pitches be required.  It was noted that limiting the height does not necessarily prevent a poorly designed home with a box-like appearance, and that the proportion of the roof pitch to the wall size and height can affect the overall design and appearance.

With regard to restricting roof pitches, staff notes that the proposed standards would allow a roof pitch up to 12 inches vertical for every 12 inches horizontal, or 45 degrees.  Staff acknowledges that depending upon the house design, it may not be possible to fit a roof of this pitch within the seven-foot area between 23 and 30 feet.  However, height is a trade-off between ceiling height and roof pitch.  The 23-foot height limitation would allow for 10-foot high ceilings on the first and second floor, but would not require them.  If a steeply pitched roof is important to a homeowner, lowering the ceilings such that the top plate is below 23 feet would allow additional space for roof pitch, since the overall height limit of 30 feet would not decrease just because the second-floor top plate is below 23 feet.  The roof may also be designed such that steeply pitched areas cover a smaller portion of the house, where seven feet may be adequate to achieve a 45 degree pitch, rather than a single pitch over the entire house.

Some meeting attendees suggested not having a height limitation for ceilings or top plates and relying only upon an overall height limit.  Although this practice is used in some cities, staff believes that having a lower maximum height for the top plate is important to control the massing of the house.  Further, in recognition of the importance of roof slope to design, the top plate height prevents people from using the entire height envelope to build living space and using a flat roof or a roof with a very shallow pitch.

Comparison to Other Cities: The proposed height limits 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.

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.

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.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) [4]

Rationale/Reasoning: Staff originally looked at various FAR options and narrowed the range down to between 0.4 and 0.5, ultimately recommending that 0.4 be adopted as the interim standard.  In adopting the IDCO, the City Council approved 0.45.  Given the Council�s direction and community concerns over restricting house size to a point where families would not be able to meet their space needs, staff recommends that this interim standard be adopted as permanent.  A 0.45 FAR represents a notable reduction from the previous 0.6, but still provides considerable development opportunity on a typical lot.  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 recommends excluding the garage (up to a 600 square foot three-car garage) from the FAR, consistent with the interim standard.

Effect: 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.[5]  On the same lot, an FAR of 0.45 without the garage included would allow a house of 3,037 square feet.  Staff believes that this reduction of just over 600 square feet in the maximum possible house size still provides ample opportunity for homeowners to build a sizeable house to meet their family�s space needs.  On a slightly larger 7,000 square foot lot, common in some areas of the City, the maximum allowed size would be 3,150 square feet.  Exhibit F is a table showing the largest house that could be built on varying lot sizes under various FARs that demonstrates the practical effect of changing the FAR.

Community Input: The majority of attendees at the community meetings believed that 0.6 FAR allows for too big of a home, and that a smaller maximum size would be more appropriate.  Some people commented that 0.45 is reasonable and provides for more than enough space for most families and pointed out that 0.45 is consistent with, and in some cases more lenient than, the standards used in nearby cities.  Others believed that 0.45 was not enough of a reduction, especially because the garage area would not be included under the proposed standard.  Some people pointed out that the 0.6 FAR is a dated standard, and that Burbank is lagging behind other cities in limiting houses to a reasonable size.[6]

Some attendees were opposed to any decrease in the current 0.6 standard, and argued that homeowners should be permitted to build to whatever size is necessary to meet their family�s needs.  Some argued that while some reduction from 0.6 may be appropriate, a reduction to 0.45 was excessive.  Others believed that standards other than FAR should be used to control the size of homes, specifically setbacks and lot coverage, and that just the square footage of the house is not the concern.  A number of individuals believed that the overall house size was not the issue, but that the area of the second floor was the main concern, and that was what should be controlled.  Some attendees expressed concern that using a uniform FAR standard for all single-family lots in the City was not a good approach, and that the FAR should be adjusted based on various factors such as lot size, lot shape, and house design, or that exceptions to the standard FAR should be made for unique situations.  A comment that was heard repeatedly from the meeting attendees with regard to FAR and other standards is that design is the biggest concern and that design standards or design review would be a better alternative to math-based standards.  This issue is discussed later in this report.

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 G-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 is shown to be generally consistent with that used by Glendale and Pasadena given the average lot sizes in the three cities.

Lot Coverage

Rationale/Reasoning: With the proposed FAR reduction from 0.6 to 0.45 and the increase in the rear yard setback, there are already substantial limitations on the ability of a homeowner to cover their lot entirely with structures.  One concern expressed by some Council members and by the public is that overly restrictive lot coverage or setbacks would compel homeowners to build two-story homes by limiting their ability to add on to the first story.  Removing the lot coverage limitation eliminates this concern by allowing the first floor to be built as big as desired within the confines of setbacks and FAR.

Effect: With the proposed reduction in the FAR and increased rear yard setback, the highest lot coverage that could be achieved under the proposed standards is approximately 60 percent, consistent with the current code requirement.  On a standard 50-foot by 135-foot lot, a house built-out to every setback line with an attached garage and patio would have approximately 59 percent lot coverage.  A detached garage or accessory structure would be permitted to encroach into the side and rear setbacks, but would have to be separated from the main house by at least six feet.  The resulting lot coverage would be just over 60 percent.  With the lot coverage limitation removed, a homeowner would only be able to cover about the same amount of lot area as under the current code.  However, the FAR would limit the size of the house and other enclosed structures, and the remaining structures occupying the lot would have to be open patios, porte-cocheres, or similar non-enclosed structures.

Community Input: Meeting attendees did not indicate a general consensus specifically about staff�s proposal to eliminate the maximum lot coverage requirement.  Some meeting attendees commented that lot coverage limitations were important to preserve yard space, which can serve as a �sanctuary� to homeowners and help to form relationships between neighbors.

As noted above, other attendees expressed concern over lot coverage limitations that would overly restrict the ability of homeowners to expand their homes.  It was suggested that people should have flexibility when adding on to their homes to expand the first story, and that lot coverage should not prevent homeowners from building a larger first floor as an alternative to a second floor.  Related to this one-story versus two-story issue, a notable number of meeting attendees expressed concerns about two-story development.  Some attendees believed that one-story homes should be encouraged through the granting of increased FARs or other �bonuses� for homeowners willing to build larger one-story homes rather than two-story homes.  Staff believes that the elimination of the lot coverage removes a substantial limitation that would otherwise prevent larger single story homes.

Comparison to Other Cities: Two of the cities surveyed (Monrovia and Culver City) do not have a lot coverage requirement and rely upon FAR and setbacks to control development intensity, consistent with staff�s proposal.  To address the concern about forcing 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.  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 only for lots smaller than 3,000 square feet).

Front Yard Setback

Rationale/Reasoning: Staff believes that the existing front yard setback is adequate.  Although setbacks in general are one of the primary factors that determine the size and placement of a home, Burbank�s current front yard setback standard requires homes to a built an adequate distance back from the public right-of-way.  The 25-foot setback line provides adequate open space and does not crowd the street.  The porch, eave, and other encroachments already allowed into the front yard are reasonable and allow flexibility in house and front porch design while remaining consistent with the purpose of the front yard to provide open space between the house and the street.

Effect: Staff is not proposing to change the existing front yard setback requirement.

Community Input: Comments about the front yard setback received at the two community meetings were with regard to the second story.  Some attendees believed that the front side of a second story should be required to be set back further than the first story, and/or that a varied setback to require fa�ade variation on the second floor should be required.  While some attendees believed such a requirement should be applied to all sides, most who brought up the issue believed that additional side and rear setbacks were not necessary, but that an additional front yard setback for the second floor was desired to lessen the visual impact of the house on the street.

Comparison to Other Cities: Nearly all of the cities surveyed had front yard setback requirements of either 20 or 25 feet.  Burbank�s current standard is comparable.  Staff recommends against reducing the front setback to 20 feet.

Rear Yard Setback

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.  The proposed standard would ensure that at least a small open area is provided at the back of the lot and would prevent main dwellings from being built to within five feet of the rear of the lot as could happen under the current standard.  Several adjustments are proposed to the allowed encroachments and projections.  In some cases, such as with chimneys and porches, the permitted encroachment is proposed to increase to account for the increase in yard depth from five to ten feet.  In other cases, such as with above-ground porches and stairs, it is proposed that no encroachment be permitted to lessen the impact on abutting properties.

Staff notes that this proposed standard is different from the original proposal of 25 feet with lot coverage limitation.  Some Council members and community members expressed concern that such a large rear yard would compel people to add second stories to their homes where they might otherwise be content to add to their existing first story.  Based upon this input, staff believes that single-story homes with smaller yards are more valued in the community than two-story homes with larger yards, and the proposed standard was adjusted accordingly.

Effect: The proposed setback would prohibit the main dwelling from being within 10 feet of the rear lot line.  In reality, very few homes are built this close to the rear lot line.  This standard would therefore not affect the majority of single-family projects, but would help to prevent a house from being built all the way to the rear of the lot in those situations where it may be desired by the homeowner.  As discussed further below, detached garages and other accessory buildings would be permitted to encroach a certain distance into the rear yard as they can under current standards to maintain flexibility in site design.  Staff notes that a substantial number of the single-family lots in Burbank have five-foot or seven-and-one-half-foot utility easements that run along the rear property lines, and that structures already cannot be built into those easements.

Community Input: Most of the comments received from meeting attendees about the rear yard setback were related to accessory structures, which are discussed later in this report.  Because there are relatively few homes that are built toward the rear of a lot, most people are familiar with accessory structures in rear yard areas but not main dwelling units.  At the first series of community meetings, many attendees were opposed to staff�s original proposal to increase the rear yard to 25 feet over concerns that it would limit options for adding on to the first floor and compel people to build two story homes.  The revised proposal of 10 feet addresses this concern, and this concern was not raised again with respect to the proposed 10-foot setback.

Comparison to Other Cities: Most of the cities surveyed had minimum required rear yards of either 20 or 25 feet.  Culver City requires 10 feet, consistent with staff�s proposed standard.  Several of the cities surveyed use lot coverage limitations within rear yard areas or otherwise require minimum rear yard areas, consistent with staff�s original proposal.

Interior Side Yard Setback

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 adoption of the ordinance to prohibit continuation of non-conforming setbacks.  Council Member Golonski subsequently requested that staff further consider and bring back a recommendation on that issue.  Staff believes that prohibiting the continuation of an existing substandard setback, even on the first story level, helps to prevent homes from further encroaching on neighboring properties.  Staff notes that the ordinance includes a process through which a homeowner may request a �minor exception� to continue an existing setback to address specific situations.  However, requiring any addition to comply with code setbacks forces the addition to be thoughtfully designed in an effort to minimize impacts on neighboring properties.  Staff recommends retaining the current standard and requiring all additions to be built at the minimum required setback of five feet, unless an exception finding is made pursuant to the Code.

The recommended changes to the side yard setback standards are for 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 and pool equipment, chimneys, and similar features.

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.  This standard would allow design flexibility on small lots.

Effect: The setback requirement of five feet will not change, and the recently adopted ordinance prohibits extension of a non-conforming setback.  The proposed 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: Some meeting attendees voiced support for increased interior side yard setbacks especially for larger homes, noting that as homes get bigger, the perceived size of the space between homes gets smaller.  Some people argued for a larger setback for the second floor to lessen the perceived encroachment onto neighboring properties and yards, and others suggested increasing the side yard setback in proportion to the height of the house.  Others, however, argued that increasing the side yard setback for second floors does not in reality increase privacy or improve aesthetics, and is therefore not necessary.

Several attendees at these and the previous community meetings raised a concern about how setbacks and other standards would apply on substandard lots, especially the 25-foot wide lots on Chandler Boulevard and other streets.  The proposed standard addresses this concern by allowing a setback of less than five feet to provide more lot area for the house structure.

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.

Street-Facing Side Yard Setback

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.  However, some of the comments related to providing additional front yard setbacks for second stories would also be applicable to street-facing side yards.

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.

Accessory Structures

Rationale/Reasoning: Although perhaps not as directly tied to mansionization as FAR or height, many attendees at the community meetings were as concerned about the height and setbacks of accessory structures as of the main house, especially given the typical location of accessory structures at the rear of a lot overlooking neighboring yards. 

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.

Staff is proposing to adjust the entitlement requirements for accessory structures due to the large number of conditional use permits (CUPs) that are approved by the Planning Board for accessory structures in excess of 300 square feet.  Rather than require CUPs for over 300 square feet, the proposed requirement would allow structures up to 500 square feet by right, and structures up to 1,000 square feet to be approved with an administrative use permit (AUP), while still providing notice to the neighborhood with an opportunity for appeal.  Further, the window placement and balcony setback requirements would address to the extent feasible the privacy issues that are frequently considered by the Board.

The new upper limit of 500 square feet before discretionary approval is required is consistent with the maximum allowed size of second dwelling units, which are commonly built as detached accessory structures.  Given the limitations on the issuance of second dwelling unit permits, staff recommends that the maximum by-right size be consistent between the two types of uses.  This would prevent homeowners from applying for a second dwelling unit permit with the intention of using the building just as an accessory structure to get around applying for a discretionary approval for a regular accessory structure.  Further, a common type of accessory structure involves building a second story over a detached garage.  Given that a standard garage size is 400 square feet, staff believes that homeowners should be permitted to at least build a typical two-story garage by-right, given the proposed new restrictions on window and balcony placement to address privacy concerns.

Staff recommends changing the entitlement type from a CUP to an AUP as an opportunity to reduce demands on staff resources and reduce the caseload of the Planning Board.  Staff notes that the required findings for an AUP are the same as for a CUP, and that the same public notice is provided to the neighborhood for both types of permits.  Any neighbor with a serious concern about an accessory structure would have the ability to appeal a Director�s decision to the Planning Board, so the opportunity for public participation is the same.  Given that the Planning Board approves the vast majority of accessory structure CUP applications and that the proposed standards would address window placement, which is typically the Board�s main concern, staff believes switching to an AUP process is appropriate.  Placing an absolute maximum size of 1,000 square feet on accessory structures would prevent very large accessory structures from being built, which staff believes are generally inappropriate for a single-family neighborhood.  Under the current Code, there is no limitation on the size of an accessory structure that could be approved with a CUP.

Effect: The proposed standards would substantially impact the location of accessory structures.  The proposed limitations on window placement and additional setbacks for balconies would help provide, to the extent practical, an added degree of privacy for neighboring properties.  The proposed minimum setbacks would reduce the land area that would otherwise be used for backyard space, but this is an acknowledged trade-off of providing a setback from the side and rear property lines.  The change in entitlement requirements would reduce the number of conditional use permit hearings before the Planning Board by allowing smaller accessory structures to be built by right or approved administratively.

Community Input: Many meeting attendees were opposed to the current ability to build accessory structures up to the property line and were supportive of requiring some minimum setback away from the property line.  Concerns about zero-setback structures included excessive encroachment into the neighboring yard, inability to properly maintain the exterior of the structure, and inability of the neighboring property owner to erect a fence or wall on the property line.  On the other side of the issue, some meeting attendees believed that requiring a setback for accessory structures was wasteful of rear yard area by requiring three feet to be located between the structure and property line and rendered unusable.  With a zero-setback, the three feet could instead be provided on the interior side of the accessory structure and used for yard space.  Another concern was that the three feet would be hidden from view and therefore not maintained by the property owner, becoming a nuisance.  No input was received regarding the proposed revisions to size limitation.[7]

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.

Other Standards (Not Directly Related to Mansionization Issue)

Parking

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.  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 garage setback and the width of the garage at the front of the property are intended to prevent the garage from dominating the front of the house and becoming the focal point of the property.

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.  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.  There are a number of homes in Burbank with the garage located in front of the house, but the majority of older homes would meet the proposed setback requirement either because the garage is at the same setback as the rest of the house or because the garage door is perpendicular to the street with a curved driveway.  The main impact of this proposed standard would be on new homes with the garage located nearest the street and the rest of the house set back further, similar to the configuration seen in Santa Clarita and other newer suburban communities.  Some new houses in Burbank have used this design, which would no longer be permitted under the proposed standard.

Community Input: Some meeting attendees believed that more parking is needed as homes get larger, and were generally supportive of the proposed change.  Some people believed that the required number of spaces should be based upon the number of bedrooms rather than square footage.  Many attendees pointed out that whether two or three on-site parking spaces are provided, the majority of homeowners use their garages for storage and park their cars in the driveway or on the street, defeating the intent of providing a larger garage.  Some meeting attendees believed that the City should require homeowners to park their cars in their garages, and that the focus of the law and enforcement should be forcing people to use the parking they have rather than requiring them to provide more parking.

Several meeting attendees believed that the proposed threshold reduction from 3,600 square feet to 3,000 square feet is too drastic, and that a 3,000 square foot limit is too low.  The attendees pointed out the difficulty in accommodating a three-car garage on a typical Burbank lot.  The same attendees were also opposed to counting basement square footage toward the parking requirement, stating their belief that bigger houses do not necessarily mean more people and more cars, especially in the case of a basement.  Several attendees also commented on the proposed limitation on garage width, noting that the proposed maximum width would not accommodate a three-car garage and would limit flexibility in garage design.

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.

Front Yard Structures and Paving

Rationale/Reasoning: The Zoning Ordinance currently states that no paving is permitted in a front yard area other than a driveway.  Although a definition of driveway is provided in the Code, there has been substantial discussion and debate over the years about what constitutes a driveway and whether additional paved parking may be provided in a front yard.  The proposed standard addresses this concern by limiting the total hardscaped area that could be provided in the front yard and by further limiting the width of the driveway.  The proposed standard would remove the current ambiguity about the degree to which additional paving or parking could be provided in the front yard.

Effect: On a typical lot 50 feet wide with a garage located in the rear, the proposed standard would allow for a 12-foot wide driveway and substantial extra hardscape area for a pedestrian path and/or porch.  With the garage located in the front, the standard would allow for a 20-foot wide driveway and a narrow pedestrian path.  Staff believes that the proposed standard is adequate to accommodate the needs of a driveway and pedestrian paths and is not overly restrictive.  The standard is intended to prevent the provision of additional parking in the front yard other than on a driveway leading to a garage, and to prevent the paving of a front yard for use as a porch or recreational area or to avoid the installation of landscaping.  Staff notes that the code allows porches and patios to encroach up to four feet into a front yard area, and the proposed standard would continue to allow this, within the overall 45 percent limitation.  For traffic safety and circulation purposes, staff recommends that the City Planner and Traffic Engineer be permitted to make exceptions so that homes on arterial streets can install circular driveways to prevent backing out onto a busy street.

Community Input: A few meeting attendees believed that parking areas should be allowed in the front yard as a means of alleviating on-street parking.  One attendee noted that when garages are accessed from an alley, there is no driveway on which to park cars outside of the garage, and providing a paved parking area in the front yard (in the configuration of a driveway but not leading to a garage) would allow for additional on-site parking.

Comparison to Other Cities: Several of the cities surveyed place limitations on driveway width and/or the amount of paved area within a front yard.  The maximum hardscaped area allowed within a front yard ranged from 35 percent to 55 percent.  The maximum permitted driveway width ranged from 12 feet to 50 percent of the lot width.  Staff�s proposed standards are in the middle of this range and comparable to other cities.

Notable Changes from Previously Proposed Standards

As noted earlier, several of the proposed standards discussed in this report have been revised from the original set of proposed standards presented to the community and the City Council last year.  The following are the most notable revisions with a brief discussion explaining the reason for the change.

• Height: The proposed maximum height was increased from 22 feet to the top plate and 29 feet to the top of the roof to 23 feet to the top plate and 30 feet to the top of the roof.  These numbers were revised to be consistent with interim standards as modified by the City Council in October 2004.  The one-foot increase allows for two 10-foot ceilings to be included in two-story home, which was requested by speakers at the IDCO hearings.

• Second Story Size Limitation: One of the originally proposed standards would have limited the size of the second story to 75 percent of the size of the first story.  This standard was proposed in response to community input that the size of second stories was a major concern, and that second stories should be set back from the first story.  Staff proposed a percentage limitation in lieu of specified setbacks in an effort to avoid a �wedding cake� phenomenon where all two-story homes provide the same setbacks and have a similar stair-stepped design like a wedding cake.  At the September 2004 IDCO hearing, the City Council did not react favorably to this proposed standard.  As such staff has removed it from the proposed set of standards, which would allow second floors to be built to any size within the overall FAR limitation as is possible under the current code.    Staff notes, however, that a substantial number of attendees at the two most recent community meetings expressed the same concerns about the size of second stories as those at the previous meetings.  Attendees again suggested that some additional setback be required for second stories or that the size of second stories otherwise be limited by some means other than just the overall FAR.

• Lot Coverage: The original set of proposed standards included a lot coverage limitation of 45 percent, a reduction from the current code maximum of 60 percent.  Following comments from both Council members and the community over concerns that the new standards would compel people to build two story homes, staff revisited the lot coverage issue.  As discussed earlier in this report, staff believes that the proposed FAR and increased rear yard setback will work to effectively limit lot coverage, and that a specific separate lot coverage standard would not be needed.  This would also provide additional opportunity for people to expand their single story homes and to provide covered patios or porte-cocheres in addition to their home without being penalized for expanding a one-story home rather than adding a second story.

• Rear Yard: The originally proposed standards included a rear yard setback of 25 feet with a maximum rear yard coverage of 35 percent by detached accessory structures.  Similar to the concerns about lot coverage, feedback from Council members and the community reflected a concern that the setback was excessive and would compel people to build two-story homes where they might otherwise prefer to expand the first story.  As such, staff reduced the proposed setback from 25 feet to 10 feet and eliminated the lot coverage limitation within the rear yard area.

Standards Not Proposed to Change

As reflected in the attached summary table (Exhibit D), no changes are proposed to the following standards:

• Minimum lot size

• Minimum lot dimensions

• Minimum structure size (except that this standard could be varied from in order to provide minimum three-foot side yard setbacks on a substandard lot)

• Second dwelling unit requirements

• Minimum garage size (recently adopted as part of the same ordinance that eliminated compact parking from multifamily residential projects)

Staff believes that these standards are adequate and do not warrant any changes at this time.

Standards for Special Circumstances

One of the most frequently heard comments at all of the community meetings was that a single set of standards could not be evenly applied to all single-family properties in the City and that exceptions should be made for unique circumstances.  Of particular concern to members of the community were small lots, such as the 25-foot wide lots on Chandler Boulevard and other streets, and lots in neighborhoods where many of the houses are already built to a height or size in excess of what the standards would allow.  Some meeting attendees advocated creating different sets of standards for different neighborhoods across the City.  However, staff believes that this approach would result in confusion among Burbank homeowners and would be extremely difficult to administer.  Further, without detailed analysis of each of the City�s single-family neighborhoods, staff is not prepared to make recommendations for different standards to apply to different areas.

As an alternative, staff proposes to utilize an existing discretionary process to provide options for homeowners in unique circumstances to enjoy the same development potential as other single-family homeowners where appropriate.[8] 

1. On lots of less than 6,000 square feet, the FAR could be exceeded subject to approval of an administrative use permit (AUP).

This proposed standard would allow homeowners of small lots to enjoy the same development potential of a larger lot when appropriate and subject to the required AUP findings.  Some lots on Chandler Boulevard, for example, are smaller than 3,000 square feet.  On a 3,000 square foot lot with a 0.45 FAR, the maximum house size would be only 1,350 square feet, relatively small by today�s standards.  The proposed standard would allow a larger home to be built if the Community Development Director was able to make the required findings for granting an AUP, namely that the proposed house would be compatible with surrounding houses and would not have a detrimental impact on nearby properties.  Although an AUP would be approved administratively, notice would be provided to all property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius, just as with a conditional use permit.  Any person would have the ability to appeal the Director�s decision and request a public hearing before the Planning Board.

2. On lots where 50 percent or more of houses within a 300-foot radius exceed the FAR and/or height limits, the FAR and/or height could be exceeded subject to approval of an AUP.

This proposed standard would allow homeowners in neighborhoods where many homes are already built very large or tall to be able to build to the same intensity as their neighbors.  However, this standard sets a very stringent threshold that would not be easy to satisfy by requiring that at least half of the nearby homes exceed existing standards.  Staff considered basing this standard on the number of homes in a given block or along a single street.  However, this approach would allow all remaining lots to potentially be built up in excess of the standards if the 50 percent threshold had been crossed.  With the radius approach, the focus area shifts depending upon the subject lot, so what has happened at one end of a block or street would not necessarily dictate what could happen on the entire block.  The radius approach also recognizes that large and tall homes can have impacts on neighboring properties to the rear and on adjacent streets, not just homes on the same street.  As with the above standard, a request under this standard would be approved (or denied) administratively, but would be subject to appeal.

ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT

At the first two community meetings held in May and July 2004, the participants were divided about whether any changes to the current standards were needed and if so, what the nature of those changes should be.  At the May 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 and height.  At the July 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.  A detailed discussion of the issues raised at these two meetings is included in the September 14, 2004 staff report to the Council (attached as Exhibit A).

At the two meetings held and January and February 2005, the majority of participants seemed to be concerned about the development of larger homes and were supportive of some change to the current standards.  Some meeting attendees expressed concern about specific standards as noted throughout this report, but the groups were generally supportive of reducing the maximum allowed size and height of single-family homes; some believed that the proposed standards do not go far enough.  A vocal minority at the January meeting, composed largely of local home builders, opposed the proposed changes and repeated their belief that the proposed reductions in size and height would overly restrict the ability of homeowners to develop their properties and would adversely affect property values Citywide.

Many of the issues raised at the January and February meetings were not directly related to any of the proposed standards, but dealt with broader concerns.  Most of the concerns raised, such as those related to design review and privacy, are not issues that staff believes can be effectively addressed through a set of traditional development standards as is being proposed.  Many of these issues could be effectively dealt with only through a formal design review process, which staff strongly recommends against.  Nonetheless, the issues most commonly raised by the community members in attendance are significant and are discussed below.

• Need for Revised Standards: Some meeting attendees expressed concern that the effort to develop new standards is being conducted in response to a few isolated problems and that the City�s response is �overkill.�  There was a feeling among a few attendees that a very small minority of the community is bringing the issue of large homes into the spotlight, and that the City Council and City staff are overreacting to the concerns of a few and as a result restricting the development rights of many.  A few people expressed a general feeling that government regulation of single-family development was not a good thing, that the size of a home is the business of the homeowner, and that problems about house size and design should be worked out between neighbors without government involvement.  Other people countered this view by commenting that the very large homes are perhaps limited in number now, but that it is important to address the problem now before large homes appear in increasing numbers throughout the community.

A few attendees believed that the proposed standards discourage people from building new homes because of the limitation on overall size.  Due to the age of the housing stock in the City, these individuals believed that the City should be promoting the complete replacement of homes rather than remodeling of existing dated housing stock.  The attendees commented that Burbank is �growing up� with a great deal of non-residential development, and that the development and the increased property values it brings should extend to residential neighborhoods.

• Compatibility and Design: One of the issues most frequently raised at both community meetings was design and character.  Many attendees believed that height, size, and other numeric standards were not the most important issue, and that such traditional standards cannot effectively address design concerns or the aesthetic impact of a house and its compatibility with the neighborhood character.  Some believed that relying on mathematical standards was too restrictive and could inhibit good design by forcing all homes to be built with the same design.  A design review process that would allow variety while determining an acceptable design on a case by case basis would be a better alternative.  Others argued that size and height were important aspects of character, and that those standards should be used in addition to some design review process.  A common statement heard from many attendees was an aversion to �boxy� designs with little or no fa�ade variation, and a concern that decreased height and FAR would still not prevent someone from building a �box.�

Many of the meeting attendees were aware of the potential pitfalls of a design review process, including the added cost and time required to submit a project for design review.  Some attendees noted their discomfort with giving others the authority to dictate the appearance of their own home and were opposed to design review of any kind.  While some attendees believed that some level of formal design review was critical, several alternatives to a traditional design review process using a design review board were discussed, including:

• Developing strict design guidelines that would be administered by City staff rather than a design review board

• Providing educational materials to homeowners and architects on how to design for neighborhood compatibility

• Adopting single-family design standards similar to those used for multifamily projects such as fa�ade variation, additional setbacks for second floors, etc.

• Determining compatibility based upon objective, quantifiable standards such as not allowing homes to exceed the average size in a neighborhood, not allowing two story homes if none already exist on the street, etc.

• Creating neighborhood-based design review teams that would review project design on a neighborhood level rather than a single Citywide design review board

One of the defining discussions on the compatibility issue was a debate over whether buying a home in a particular neighborhood is buying into the present-day character of that neighborhood with an expectation that it will be maintained in perpetuity, or buying into the potential for that property and that neighborhood to be developed to its maximum potential.  To some, these two were not mutually exclusive, if the development standards are able to maintain a character that is not inconsistent with the existing neighborhood.

• Privacy: Many attendees at both meetings addressed the issue of privacy, primarily with regard to second story windows and balconies with views of neighboring back yards or into neighboring homes.  It was suggested that window placement be required to be varied along the sides of homes to prevent one resident from looking into a neighbor�s house, and that windows be placed higher off the floor to hinder views of neighboring properties.  In the case of second stories, it was suggested that neighbors be permitted to build fences taller than the Code limit of eight feet to block views from neighboring second floor windows.  As discussed earlier in this report, several suggestions were also made that would provide increased FAR or some other type of bonus for maintaining a single story home rather than adding a second story.

• Public Notice: Some meeting attendees believed that public notice should be provided to a neighborhood for any type of house project including additions and remodels.  There was a concern that neighbors are not made aware of upcoming or ongoing projects in their neighborhood, and should be notified, even if they would not have a say in the project or be able to oppose it.  It was suggested that the number of people receiving notice be based upon the people who would possibly be impacted by the project, with the assumption that larger houses would require a larger number of neighbors to be noticed.

�        Property Value Impacts: Some meeting attendees believed that larger homes result in higher property values for both the property on which the larger house is built and surrounding properties.  They argued that decreasing the allowed house size would decrease property values.  Some argued that the neighborhood character can drive property values, while others believed that property location is the chief determinant of property value, not the size of the house that can be built on the property.  Some people pointed out that while the ability to build a larger home may make a property more valuable today, it may not be what makes it valuable in the future, so decisions about maximum house size should not be made with only today�s values in mind.

�        Solar Panels: Several meeting attendees questioned the ability of the City to control the placement of solar panels on single-family homes, especially with regard to height.  A question was also raised about whether a home could be constructed that would obstruct the ability of sunlight to reach existing solar panels on a neighboring property.  State law prevents the City from regulating the ability of a homeowner to install solar energy systems except where such regulations are deemed necessary to prevent a �specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety� (California Government Code Section 65850.5).  There is nothing in the law that would prevent a neighboring property from constructing a house that would prevent sunlight from reaching existing solar panels.

Hillside Standards

Rationale/Reasoning: Each of the proposed hillside standards is intended to limit the size and height of houses that can be developed by right in the hillside area and to require discretionary review at a lower threshold than under the current standards.  The proposed standards would apply to all hillside lots, not just those exceeding a certain slope.  The by-right house size and height are lower than under current standards, and if a house exceeds 24 feet in height or 3,000 square feet, discretionary approval is required that includes providing notice to all neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius.  The proposed standards, while not a view protection ordinance, take view issues into consideration to the extent practical.  The front and rear yard setbacks both consider the location of adjacent homes in an effort to prevent view obstruction.  The lower six-foot fence/wall height and stair-step requirement for retaining walls are intended to minimize view obstruction and adverse aesthetic impacts of large retaining walls on the natural terrain.

Because the number of projects that would be subject to discretionary approval would increase substantially over the existing standards, staff is proposing to change the current CUP process to an AUP process.  As discussed elsewhere in this report, AUPs are approved (or denied) administratively by the Community Development Director, which results in a faster process time and fewer demands on staff resources.  However, notice to all property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site is provided as with a CUP, and any person may appeal the Director�s decision, which results in a public hearing at the Planning Board.  Any time the discretionary process is triggered, the applicant would be required to submit a view study documenting how the proposed house would impact the views of neighboring properties.  The Director (or Board or Council if appealed) would then be required to explicitly consider the impacts of the proposed project on the viewshed, and could require changes to the project or deny the project based upon its view impacts.  Although not a true view protection ordinance, the proposed standards contain substantially more view protections than do the current hillside development standards.

Effect: The proposed standards set the threshold at which discretionary approval is required much lower than the current hillside standards.  Most new or remodeled houses in the hillside area will likely exceed the 3,000 square foot size and/or 24-foot height triggers at which an AUP is required.  Even without discretionary approval, the design of some homes would likely be affected due to the new front and rear setback requirements and height limitation.  Under the current ordinance, property owners subdividing property through the Subdivision Map Act are exempt from the hillside standards regardless of the amount of grading or size of homes to be built, which excludes neighbors from the process.  The proposed standards would remove this exemption and require property owners to go through the discretionary process when grading or building large homes whether or not the work is done in conjunction with a Parcel Map application.

Community Input: At the community meetings on the general R-1 standards, several attendees noted that the impact of the proposed R-1 standards would be different in the hillside area than other areas of the City due to the topography of the hillside and nature of hillside development.  Some supported the concept of having different regulations for the hillside area than the rest of the City.

At the February 16 meeting specifically for hillside property owners, the most common theme was that of design and neighborhood compatibility.  As with the meetings on the general R-1 standards, many of the attendees at the hillside meeting shared their belief that the design of a home was a critical issue both with regard to neighborhood character and view protection.  These people believed that every house and every lot are unique and that a uniform set of standards cannot be applied to all situations.  Many people believed that neighbors should be notified any time a project is proposed in their neighborhood because of the possible effect on neighborhood character.

Going one step further, many people believed that discretionary review should be required for all projects in the hillside area, regardless of house size or height, since even the smallest and shortest homes have the potential to affect someone else�s view and may be designed out of context with the neighborhood.  Some attendees questioned the burden on City staff that would be involved with requiring discretionary review on every hillside project and requested that staff provide statistics about the number of hillside projects.  From September 2004 to February 2005, the Building Division received 212 single-family plan check submittals for projects ranging from very small additions, patio covers, and other minor projects to complete rebuilds.  Of those projects, 20 (about nine percent) were located within the Mountain Fire Zone.  Assuming that all of the projects would have reached the threshold for discretionary review, this would equate to an average of three hillside plan check submittals per month that would be required to apply for an administrative use permit or go through some other discretionary process.

While three additional applications per month does not seem significant, hillside projects would require view protection studies and other complicated analysis more so than most other projects and would require a notable commitment of staff resources.  Staff also notes the additional time, money, and burden on homeowners that would be required to go through a discretionary process even for a small addition.  Further, staff believes that it is important to afford property owners some by-right option for developing their property.

Many of the attendees expressed their belief that the proposed standards do not go far enough to protect views or hillside neighborhood character.  Despite staff�s explanation of the three-phase approach requested by the City Council, many attendees were disappointed that the proposed standards cannot guarantee view protection in all cases and do not constitute a true view protection ordinance.  Some attendees also discussed the impact that trees and other vegetation can have on views and were concerned that the proposed standards did not address that issue.  Staff again notes that the second and third phases of the view protection ordinance process will explicitly address vegetation and view protection.  Per Council direction, the standards proposed in this staff report are intended to be only a first step.  The proposed standards address view protection by requiring view analysis and discretionary review of those homes that are large enough to likely impact the view from a neighboring property.  The second and third phases of the process will be the next steps toward actual view protection.

Comparison to Other Cities: Due to the specialized nature of view protection ordinances, there are relatively few cities to use for comparison.  Some cities have different zones or different standards for hillside areas, but not necessarily with view protection as the ultimate goal.  Of those cities that do have view protection ordinances, the majority of them require design or architectural review for hillside properties rather than having specific development standards for hillside areas, although there are a few that use standards together with a design review process.  Rancho Palos Verdes has a height limit of 16 feet before discretionary approval is required through a �height variation� permit, up to a maximum of 25 feet.  In some cases, such a permit may be approved administratively, similar to what staff is proposing with the AUP requirement.  Malibu requires increased levels of review for homes taller than 18 feet.

Projects Subject to IDCO

As reported to the City Council on several previous occasions, the vast majority of single-family projects that have been submitted for plan check since the IDCO was adopted in September 2004 have complied with the interim standards.  The interim standards have not generally affected single-family development in the City, except to prevent the relatively small number of very large homes that would otherwise have been built.  Staff believes that this indicates that the interim height and FAR, now proposed to become permanent, are not detrimental to Burbank homeowners� ability to develop their properties.  The goal of the standards is not to prevent homeowners from building to meet their needs, but rather to preserve neighborhood character by preventing the construction of very large homes.

Some people at the community meetings noted that the problem as it exists now is very small, and that reducing standards Citywide is not an appropriate response to an issue that some believe affects only a small number of people.  Staff sees the issue differently and believes that the relatively small number of homeowners that have had to change their projects as a result of the interim standards indicates that the standards will work well and will not negatively impact the vast majority of homeowners.  The standards will achieve their goal of preventing the relatively small number of very large homes, and will have a positive impact on remaining properties by preventing encroachment of large homes.

Several home builders at one of the community meetings stated their belief that people are aware of the IDCO and are holding off on pursuing their house projects while the IDCO is in place because of a desire to build bigger.  The builders argued that the types of projects submitted during the IDCO are not indicative of the true nature of demand for larger homes in Burbank.  They believed that the new standards would negatively affect a larger number of homeowners that are choosing to remain silent during the IDCO period.  However, the experience of planners working at the public counter indicates otherwise.

Planners that interact with homeowners and builders on a daily basis report that the majority of people submitting plans for single-family additions and remodels are not aware of the interim height and FAR standards.  Nonetheless, their proposed additions come in well below the 0.45 FAR and 23-foot height limitation.  Again, staff believes that this trend is an indication that the interim standards are not restricting the abilities of the vast majority of homeowners to meet their space needs.  Staff�s experience since the IDCO was adopted has been that most homeowners adding on to their homes are not proposing to build homes even as large as what would still be permitted under the interim standards, and that the more restrictive standards have not had any detrimental effects for most homeowners.  Further, staff notes that no AUP applications have been received from applicants requesting to exceed the interim standards, as is permitted under the IDCO.  If homeowners were truly interested in building larger homes, staff would have expected to see at least one or two AUP applications in the six months since the IDCO was adopted.

Timeline for New Standards

Pending direction from the City Council to proceed with the proposed standards presented in this report, staff intends to present the standards to the Planning Board at a public hearing on April 25, 2005.  This would be followed by a City Council hearing in late May.  If adopted by the City Council, the new standards would become effective around the time that the IDCO is slated to expire on June 30, 2005.

With a total of four community meetings, staff believes that adequate public outreach has been conducted and that adequate input has been received.  As noted throughout this report and in the attached previous staff report and written correspondence, a substantial amount of public input has been received.  Community members have expressed their opinion about the problems, or lack thereof, with current R-1 standards and development patterns, and have shared their thoughts about staff�s proposed revisions to the standards.  In response to input received at the first two community meetings and from the City Council, staff made several revisions to the standards before going back to the public.  At the second two community meetings, staff�s proposed standards were more refined, which facilitated more direct and detailed input from the community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adopting the proposed standards would likely have a minor fiscal impact on the City in the form of increased staff resource demands to administer the hillside development standards.  The proposed Citywide standards are similar in scope to the current standards, and would not require any additional staff resources to administer.  The proposed changes to the entitlement process for accessory structures would likely result in decreased use of staff resources due to a decrease in CUP applications.  However, the proposed hillside standards would require discretionary approval through the AUP process where such approval is not currently required.  Depending upon the number of hillside homes that would be subject to the discretionary process, additional staff resources would be required to process the additional AUP applications.  Some of this additional demand would be offset by the fact that all discretionary approvals in the hillside area would be through the AUP process rather than the CUP process, as is currently required for some projects.  CUPs require a greater amount time and work to process, so requiring an AUP in lieu of a CUP would provide savings in staff resources.  However, it is also likely that the rate of appeal of AUP applications will be higher in the hillside area than for typical AUPs due to the sensitive and controversial nature of hillside development.  This would then require additional resources to take an AUP through the public hearing process when it would not otherwise be required.

CONCLUSION:

Staff has received a substantial amount of input from the community and the City Council since January 2004 when the Council first directed staff to proceed with a study of the R-1 standards.  Staff has assembled a set of proposed development standards to address the chief concern that new and remodeled houses in the City are allowed to be built too big and too tall.  Staff believes that the standards effectively address that concern to the extent practical, striking a balance between protecting neighborhood character and preserving a homeowner�s right to develop his/her property to meet living space needs.

A great deal of concern has been expressed by the community about the design of single-family homes and the loss of privacy that can result from building a two-story home.  While staff understands and appreciates these concerns, staff believes that these issues cannot be addressed through traditional development standards, and could only be effectively dealt with through some type of design review process.  Staff strongly believes that the negative effects of a design review process outweigh any advantages, and based upon previous input from the City Council staff continues to recommend against design review.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with a zone text amendment that would implement new development standards for the R-1 and R-1-H zones, including special standards for the hillside area, and eliminate the R-1-E zone.  This would be accompanied by a zone map amendment to rezone the few R-1-E properties in the City to R-1.  Staff recommends that the process be expedited such that new standards are in place prior to the expiration of the IDCO on June 30, 2005.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A         City Council staff report from September 14, 2004

Exhibit B-1      Graphically recorded input from January 27, 2005 community meeting

                        B-2      Graphically recorded input from February 9, 2005 community meeting

                        B-3      Graphically recorded input from February 16, 2005 hillside standards

community meeting

Exhibit              C         Written correspondence received         

Exhibit              D         Summary table of existing and proposed development standards

Exhibit              E-1      Diagram showing proposed grade definition

                        E-2      Diagram of house elevations comparing existing and proposed height

standards

                        E-3      Diagram showing ceiling heights under existing and proposed height

standards

                        E-4      Diagram showing roof pitch options under proposed height standard

Exhibit              F          Table of maximum house sizes under various FARs and lot sizes

Exhibit              G-1      Summary table of development standards from all cities surveyed

G-2      Charts showing distribution of single-family lot sizes in Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena (by actual numbers and percentage)

Exhibit              H-1      Map of Mountain Fire Zone

                        H-2      Diagram showing proposed height standard for hillside area

go to the top