PURPOSE:

At the City Council meeting of November 9, 2004, the City Council directed staff to prepare zone text amendments for reducing residential densities and implementing new multiple family residential development and design standards. The purpose of this report is to bring back to the City Council recommended changes and additions to the zoning code to respond to the City Councils concerns about residential densities and the quality and compatibility of new residential development. 

BACKGROUND:

The existing multiple family residential development standards are the result of a series of code changes adopted from 1989 to 1991 that required or strengthened requirements regarding open space, building orientation, amenities, landscaping, fa�ade treatment, roof design and other issues.  These code changes implemented Measure One, the voter initiative passed in 1989.  Measure One was a growth control measure and was intended to improve the compatibility of future multiple family development with adjacent land uses, particularly in single family residential areas.

In 1998, the City Council took another step to further compatibility between multiple family and single family residential land use by adopting an ordinance that reduced the allowed height (from 50 feet to 30 feet at the top of the roof) and lot coverage (from 70% to 60%) on multiple-family developments within 500 feet of a property zoned R-1.

In January of 2004 the City Council considered adopting an IDCO on multiple family development in response to growing concerns about multiple family development being out of character with existing neighborhoods.  The City Council ultimately decided not to adopt the IDCO but did appropriate $50,000 to hire a consultant to undertake a study of multiple family densities and development standards.  In February of 2004, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance to amend the development review process to require compatibility findings to ensure that new development would be compatible with existing neighborhood character while the new standards were being developed.

At the November 9, 2004 meeting, staff presented proposed new multiple family densities to the City Council for consideration.  These densities were about 30% lower, on average, than the existing multiple family densities.  City Council gave staff a preliminary endorsement of these proposed new densities.  At this same meeting, the City Council indicated that the preparation of new multiple family development standards was a top priority and directed staff to prepare the necessary zone text amendments for reducing residential densities and implementing new multiple family residential development and design standards. Staff has been focusing its efforts on the preparation of new development standards, which in conjunction with the reduced densities presented to the City Council, would theoretically achieve the desired compatibility.

The City contracted with the consulting firm of EIP Associates to work with staff on the preparation of draft development standards that would incorporate additional design elements.  EIP provided the City with information about standards in several other cities in Southern California and suggested new standards to achieve compatibility and design goals. Community Development Department staff from the Planning and Building divisions tailored these proposed standards to address the perceived shortcomings of the existing multiple family standards.

Staff conducted three public meetings with the community to receive comments on the draft standards. The initial meeting was held on February 3, 2005 and was geared toward the local development community. Staff hosted this special meeting for local developers intending to ask the development community to help determine the adequacy of these development standards and to perhaps suggest other standards that might achieve the same design goals.  Letters had been sent to twelve local developers, inviting them to the meeting and notifying them of two subsequent meetings that would be held later in the month.  Unfortunately none of the invitees attended the meeting.

On February 10^th and 17^th staff hosted two public meetings to share the proposed development standards with the general public; the first meeting was held at the Buena Vista Library and the second in the new Burbank High School Library.  Both meetings were widely advertised by means of utility bill inserts, several display ads in the Burbank Leader, flyers at the Planning and Building counters, in all libraries and on the cable channel scroll, as well as announcements at City Council and Planning Board meetings.  There were twenty residents at the first meeting and sixteen at the second.  Unfortunately no multiple family residential developers attended either of these meetings, although several owners of multiple family properties did attend.  A complete description was given of each of the proposed changes to the development standards, and staff together with the consultant team answered questions and responded to comments. Input was taken from the attendees and incorporated into the proposed development standards where appropriate.  These comments are attached as Exhibit A.

Following the public meetings, staff revised the proposed development standards to reflect ideas gleaned from the pubic input.  The proposed standards are presented in Exhibit B.

ANALYSIS

There has been ongoing concern in the community about the perceived change of character and impacts resulting from the recycling of older single and multiple family residential developments.   The concern relates to both density and design factors.  Reducing multiple family residential densities can have a positive effect on reducing traffic and parking impacts and improving compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. By making changes in the design of some of the new developments, the ambiance of Burbank�s multiple family residential neighborhoods would be further improved. Making changes to either density or design alone, without making complimentary changes to the other, may not have the desired result of improving the quality of multifamily development while minimizing its impacts on the community and neighborhood character; it is important to look at both aspects of development together.

The character of Burbank�s multiple family residential neighborhoods are influenced as much by the physical attributes of development � the development standards � as by the density. Development standards are the tools that shape the physical configuration and aesthetic quality of the building density allowed on a site.  Development standards have important implications with regard to building appeal and neighborhood compatibility.  However, mitigation of impacts in the multiple family residential areas - impacts such as parking, building mass, incompatibility of scale and style with neighboring structures - must be addressed in terms of both density and development factors.

There is a critical relationship between development standards and achievable densities; therefore, in conjunction with the proposed reduction in multiple family densities, staff proposes several changes and additions to the multiple family development standards that will support the new lowered densities and reduce some of the perceived impacts of the increasing build-out of the multiple family residential areas.  The goal of the new standards is to maintain the quality, integrity and distinct character of the City�s multiple family neighborhoods while continuing to allow needed new housing development to occur.

A delicate balance is required between too much design control and not enough.  Too many requirements, and too much specificity in these requirements, can act as a disincentive to creative design and architecture; it can create a cookie cutter type of development in the community.  On the other hand, insufficient development and design controls allows for a  poorly designed housing product that can have a negative effect on adjacent  properties and on the neighborhood as a whole.

The proposed standards

The Table in Exhibit B is a comprehensive matrix of all existing and proposed multiple family development standards.  Some of the standards are proposed to be retained as is, some are proposed to be modified, and several new standards are proposed that currently do not exist in the code. The proposed standards are discussed in more detail below.  These proposed standards are generally of two types: traditional development standards such as height, setbacks, and open space (numbers 1.0 � 7.4 and 9.0 � 10.1 in the  table) and standards that incorporate design elements such as materials, colors, and architectural features (numbers 8.1 - 8.9).

The proposed changes to the zoning code (Exhibit B) are either:

1) Substantial modifications to existing standards, such as no semi-subterranean garage encroachment into required side yards, no tandem parking, fa�ade variation to achieve improved building elevations, enhanced landscaping in parking areas, no rooftop open space, elimination of compatibility findings;  or          

2) Introduction of new standards which will codify design elements, such as  building orientation, windows and doors, entries and porches, materials and colors, and roof design.

The intent of adding standards that require specific design elements is to achieve a higher quality multiple family housing product that is compatible with surrounding development.  In other cities, this is often achieved through the design review process, which is time consuming and costly and problematic in that it is a purely subjective process.  In an effort to achieve better design without resorting to design review, City Council asked staff to look into codifying design elements, as standards, where possible.  The goal is to take as much subjectivity as possible out of the approval process and to ensure consistency in implementation. The implementation of design related standards will always include some degree of subjectivity inasmuch as the zoning code is always subject to some interpretation.  However, codifying such design elements as standards, and using very specific criteria to for these standards, would minimize the amount of subjectivity in the approval process.

In December of 2003, staff presented a report to the City Council regarding the pros and cons of design review as a way of addressing the quality and compatibility of multiple family developments.  Inasmuch as the City Council expressed opposition to a design review process,  staff is endeavoring to achieve the same results by codifying, where possible, design elements that will create a more aesthetically pleasing and compatible multiple family housing product.

All the proposed changes and additions to the multiple family residential development standards are detailed in the table in Exhibit B.  The following are some of the most significant changes proposed.

Multiple Family Residential Densities

Reason for the Proposed Change

The proposed lowering of multiple family residential densities was directed by City Council in response to growing concern by both the City Council and the community at large about the amount and density of multiple family development that has been occurring and the effect this new development has had on the quality and character of the multiple family residential neighborhoods.  The proposed density changes are a significant reduction of about 30%; current densities have been in place for more than 40 years.    The reduced multiple family residential densities (Exhibit B, 1.1) were first presented to City Council in November of 2004 and staff was told to proceed with their implementation.  The proposed development standards detailed in this report have been developed to work with these reduced densities.

Effect

Lower multiple family densities will make it easier to comply with the more stringent development standards proposed.  Whereas lower densities alone will reduce the number of cars and people in a given neighborhood thereby reducing the impacts associated with traffic congestion, parking and noise, the combination of reduced densities and the variety of design standards proposed are intended to ensure compatibility of new development with the surrounding neighborhood.

Community Input

When the reduced residential densities were presented to the City Council in November 2004, some property owners and developers expressed concern about the detrimental effect this would have on the development potential of multiple family residential property in Burbank.  They also mentioned that reduced densities would increase the cost of construction and thereby increase the cost of housing in Burbank.

Reduced multiple family residential densities were presented again at two community meetings during which a full description was given of this and other proposed changes to the City Code.  Stawff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  A comment was made that with the decrease in allowed densities, condominiums would become even moir� expensive and would no longer be affordable as an entry level ownership option.  Additional comments noted that creasing densities drives up housing costs and reduces opportunities for affordable housing and makes it m ore difficult for people to live in Burbank.

The following changes relate to development issues that the City Council specifically requested staff to look into, such as that of unrestricted access to guest parking and semi-subterranean garages.

Parking

Two changes are proposed for parking standards, one prohibiting tandem parking and the other requiring unfettered access to guest parking.

Tandem Parking

Reason for Proposed Change

Tandem parking spaces often provide greater flexibility in parking layout and in overall project design by allowing more spaces to be fit into a smaller area.  However, tandem parking spaces can also be underutilized because of the inconvenience associated with them.  Rather than having to move out one car to access another, many people choose instead to not use the tandem pair of spaces and instead park one car on the street.  This increases on-street parking impacts and defeats the purpose of requiring the additional space.  Eliminating tandem spaces will help to ensure that all off-street parking spaces are utilized and that on-street parking impacts are minimized.

Effect

Tandem parking can create conflicts in circulation and access to parking spaces.  The lower densities proposed will facilitate the design of parking areas without the need for tandem spaces.  With the proposed decrease in density, the maximum number of units and hence the number of parking spaces required for a given project will be lower than under current standards.  Tandem spaced would no longer be necessary to be able to maximize the allowed density, since project designers would have fewer spaces to fit into the same area.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

Guest Parking

Reason for Proposed Change

The issue of guest parking for multiple family residential developments arose from the perceived problem that when guest parking is combined with tenant parking in a secured subterranean or semi-subterranean parking garage, guests tend to park on adjacent streets.  The thought was that if guest parking was unrestricted and easier to access then guests wouldn�t use street parking.

The Municipal Code requires that one guest parking space be provided for every five dwelling units.  In the case of surface parked projects, the provision of unrestricted access to guest parking is not an issue.  However, when parking is provided in a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage structure, with a security gate, it does become an issue.  Pushing the security gate back into the underground structure to allow unfettered access to the guest parking requires that the necessary back-up and turning radius be provided, both for the guest parking spaces in front of the security gate, and for the required tenant parking behind the security gate.  After much deliberation, staff is of the opinion that from a design perspective, this does not become feasible until the parking structure covers a minimum of two lots, and this would occur when a minimum density of twelve units is proposed which requires two guest parking spaces.  Therefore, staff recommends that unrestricted access be required for all surface parked multiple family projects, and unrestricted access be required for full and semi-subterranean garage structures when two or more guest parking spaces are required (Exhibit B, 5.4).

Effect

Guest spaces are often unused because they are located behind security gates and inaccessible to guests.  This proposed standard would facilitate the use of guest parking in an effort to reduce on-street parking impacts.  For small developments with only one guest space, the single space required is not significant enough to warrant special design to separate the space, as it can add costs and limit design options.

Semi and full subterranean garage structures will be required to move the security gates to the interior of the garage structure and there may be an incremental increase in the cost of construction.  However, as the attached exhibit (  ) illustrates, the provision of unobstructed access t the guest parking can be accomplished, and the allowable density can be achieved.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

Semi-Subterranean Garages 

Reason for Proposed Change

Semi-subterranean garages detract from the aesthetic quality of multiple family residential developments, especially those on smaller lots.  As they are currently allowed, they can encroach into the side yard and impact adjacent properties.  The proposed changes and additions to the existing standards for semi-subterranean garage structures are intended to reduce the impacts on adjacent properties and to promote a more attractive housing product (Exhibit B, 5.1).  The proposed standard reduces the height that a semi-subterranean garage can extend above ground.  Current code allows the garage to extend up to 5 feet above the average grade; the proposed standard would limit it to five feet above the natural abutting ground surface and this change will prevent a semi-subterranean garage structure from rising well above five feet on sloped lots.  Whereas current code allows for encroachment of semi-subterranean garages into the side yards in certain instances, such as in the Downtown and Lake Street areas or where abutting buildings have similar encroachments, the proposed standards do not allow for any encroachment of a semi-subterranean garage into a side yard.  Two additional proposed standards directly affect the aesthetic impacts of the semi-subterranean garage: requiring that the garage be designed as an architectural element that is an integral part of the building design with similar materials and colors, and that where the garage extends above ground on a street facing elevation, it must be completely screened by a landscaped berm.

Effect

Allowing a semi-subterranean garage to encroach into a side setback can provide flexibility to a project designer by providing five additional feet in which to layout a parking area, but the impacts on adjacent properties has been a growing concern.  However, as noted above, the proposed reductions to the maximum permitted densities would result in fewer units in a given project and fewer required parking spaces.  Hence, the additional flexibility provided by the side yard encroachment will not be needed.  The side yard encroachment is most critical on single-lot projects, where the additional five feel provides substantial benefit.  However, the proposed densities would allow substaqntailly fewer units on a single lot, such that it would not likely be necessary to construct semi-subterranean parking to provide the required number of spaces.  Because of the costs associated with semi-subterranean parking, it would not likely be economically feasible for single lot developments to consider parking other than on-grade, given the fewer units that could be built.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

Fa�ade Treatment

Reason for Proposed Change

Often the street fa�ade of a building is attractive and includes variations in plane and materials and has a decorative architectural treatment while the side and rear facades, visible from neighboring properties and side views are plain with minimal treatment.  The proposed standard (Exhibit B, 8.2) requires that the architectural theme be applied to all elevations and that any architectural element, material and/or color used on one fa�ade of a building be continued around the corners of the building and extend down the adjacent side fa�ade.  Several other proposed standards enhance the pedestrian orientation of development by requiring street orientation and pedestrian scale; the intent of this is to make it more pleasant to walk down these streets.  The aesthetic quality of multiple family developments is addressed in the proposed standards that deal with architectural features such as windows and door, roofs and balconies. The proposed change for required fa�ade breaks is intended to increase the flexibility in project design and provide greater opportunities to project designers to design a high quality product.

Effect

These standards provide visual interest on all building fa�ades and allow for flexibility to accommodate any architectural style.  This standard avoids rigid patterns and allows for design flexibility on larger lots.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

Compatibility

Reason for Proposed Change

An important addition to the multiple family development standards is the proposed new standard (Exhibit B, 10.1) that deals with the compatibility of new development within the multiple family residential neighborhoods.  This new standard would eliminate the need for the formal findings of compatibility with surrounding properties that are currently required under the current code as part of the DR process.  The proposed requirement would allow the Director to require changes to a multiple family project if it is deemed incompatible with the neighborhood character or would impact single family homes in the area. 

Effect

The proposed standards are collectively intended to ensure compatibility with multifamily neighborhoods.  Codification of this requirement would eliminate the need for formal findings of compatibility with surrounding multifamily properties and nearby R-1 properties, as required under the current Code through the DR process.  The proposed requirement would allow the Director to require changes to a project in the event that a proposed project would be inconsistent with the neighborhood character or otherwise impact single family homes.  Such an issue would also be grounds for an appeal of the Director�s decision.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact to the City from the changes discussed in this report.  Whereas some of the proposed development standards are likely to increase the cost of developing multiple family housing, the proposed standards are in line with the standards in neighboring communities and should not unreasonably hinder the continued development of new multiple family housing.

CONCLUSION

The proposed changes to the multiple family development standards follow in the footsteps of previous efforts to improve the quality and compatibility of multiple family developments in the community.  Previous attempts focused on the compatibility of multiple family developments with adjacent single family homes; this is the first time that compatibility with surrounding development and neighborhood character within the multiple family areas is the focus of the changes.  The proposed standards and code modifications are a significant step forward toward reducing the impacts of new multiple family developments on the surrounding properties and ensuring compatibility with the neighborhood.

Development standards are intended to establish the minimally acceptable level of project design and quality, while still providing enough flexibility to achieve a variety of building styles.  The goal of the proposed revisions to the multifamily standards is to "raise the bar" of what constitutes the minimally acceptable multifamily project in Burbank and to require a higher quality housing product.  Staff believes this will be achieved by the increased focus on aesthetics, project orientation and functionality, architectural features, materials, and overall quality of design.

Staff is scheduled to make a detailed presentation of the proposed new standards at the April 26, 2005 City Council  meeting at which time the City Council will be asked to provide direction to staff as to the implementation of these proposed standards.  In order to codify those standards and changes endorsed by the City Council, as expediently as possible, staff is proposing the following schedule:

June 13, 2005 - Public Hearing on Zone Text Amendment before the  Planning Board

July 12, 2005 - Public Hearing on Zone Text Amendment before the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff seeks City Council direction regarding the proposed new development standards.

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A - Community Input from February 10^th and 17^th public meetings

Exhibit B - Table of Proposed Multiple Family Development Standards

Exhibit C - Diagram of Semi-Subterranean Garage with Accessible Guest Parking

Summary of Public Input

Multifamily Development Standards

Community Meeting #1

February 10, 2005

Project Size and Type

• Proposed standards and accompanying photos and diagrams are not representative of Burbank�s development patterns

• Most development is not on multiple lots

• Most projects are on land area less than 10,000 square feet

• Most projects are on single lots; these standards are too restrictive for single-lot developments

• Do the new standards encourage multi-lot developments by making single-lot developments too difficult or impossible to design?

• There should be different standards for single-lot developments

Character and Design

• Open space requirements dictate character

• Older buildings built in the 40s and 50s had great character because no open space requirements

• Measure One adopted in early 90s added open space requirements which changed how buildings looked

• Counterpoint: not all buildings from the 40s and 50s have good character

• Visual impact is the key issue with developments; need some appeal process to address visual impact

• Should provide bonuses for good design such as increased number of units, increased height, etc.

Apartments vs. Condominiums

• Should have different development standards for apartments and condos

• Condominiums are more valuable so standards should require higher quality product

• Burbank needs �beautification�

• Counterpoint: requiring higher standards for condos may discourage condo development; this is bad; condos are important entry-level ownership opportunity

• But, with decreased densities, condos will become more valuable and increase in price and won�t be entry-level

• One ramification of this would be no conversion ever from apartments to condos; once built, the project would be locked in as apartments due to different standards

EXHIBIT  A

Density/Intensity

• Should use FAR for multifamily as with single family to control development intensity

Setbacks

• Disallowing equipment to be located in side yard areas forces equipment onto roof or forces indentations to made in building to provide room for equipment

• Noise of operating equipment is still a concern

• Should require additional front setbacks for upper stories

Parking

• Guest parking is not practical to provide (at all) on single lot developments; no room for any parking other than tenant parking

• Not fair to require guest parking for any multifamily project; single family does not have guest parking requirements and single family homeowners receive guests just as multifamily tenants do

• New requirement prohibiting unit entries directly from parking areas: make sure that attached garages are exempted from this requirement

• Screening/berming requirement for semi-sub garages: space between berm and structure poses a security hazard

Landscaping

• Increased landscaping not good for apartments; owners do not maintain trees or vegetation and it becomes overgrown; no trees or very few trees is better than overgrown trees that are not maintained; okay in condos because homeowner�s association pays for landscape maintenance

Economic Impacts

• Property values are affected by changes in allowed density and development standards; is decreased density and new standards a taking?

Summary of Public Input

Multifamily Development Standards

Community Meeting #2

February 17, 2005

General

• Existing and proposed standards are too restrictive; make it too difficult to build a multifamily project in Burbank

Character and Design

• Requiring porches on front fa�ade is good but could require ADA ramps which would have unintended adverse impact on project design and appearance

• Should have different standards for different areas of the City to address character in those areas, not one set of standards citywide

Parking

• City should enforce on-site parking; too much on-street parking occurring

Economic Impacts

• Decreasing densities drives up housing costs and reduces opportunities for affordable housing for first-time buyers; makes it more difficult for people to live in Burbank

Housing and School Impacts

• Decreasing densities reduces housing opportunities for people who work in Burbank

• Schools should be considered; any new multifamily development will impact schools

Traffic and Environmental Impacts

• Traffic and parking concerns are not addressed in new standards; new development creates more traffic and on-street parking

• Burbank is already overbuilt with studios and traffic, why allow any more to be built?

Existing Development

• Maintenance of existing older buildings is a bigger concern; rather than focusing on requirements for new buildings we should be enforcing maintenance on existing buildings

• Should be time limits imposed in which someone has to clean up their property

• Possible to require conversion of older existing buildings to meet new standards?