APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2004-67 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PURPOSE

To consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s Decision to conditionally approve Project No. 2004-67 Development Review, a request by Mr. Armin Gharai to add 4,332 square feet to an existing warehouse building located at 2503 North Ontario Street.  Appealing the Planning Board�s decision to approve the project are Mss. Sandra Bowman, Denise McLaughlin and Sharyn Schrick, property owners of the property directly to the north, 2509 North Ontario Street.

BACKGROUND

Property Location: The subject property is located at 2503 North Ontario Street [Southerly 75 feet of Northerly 180 feet of easterly 230 feet of westerly 630 feet of SE � of NE � of SE � of Sec. 4, T IN, R 14 W].  The property is located one lot north of Burton Avenue on the west side of Ontario Street.

Zoning: The subject property is located within the M-2 General Industrial zone and the Golden State Redevelopment Project Area, as are adjacent and abutting properties.  (Exhibit A-1)

General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element designates the property General Manufacturing, which is consistent with the existing zoning designation.

Property Dimensions: The property is rectangular with a width of 75 feet, a depth of 230 feet, and a total lot area of 17,250 square feet.

Street Classifications: North Ontario Street is designated as a Local Street with a 60 foot right-of-way (48 feet paved with 6 foot sidewalks on each side).

Current and Past Development of the Site: The property is occupied by a 6,275 square foot dilapidated warehouse building that was constructed in 1950 (picture to right).

Project Description: The applicant has requested approval to: construct a first floor addition of 2,432 square feet and a second floor addition of 1,900 square feet, for a total addition of 4,332 square feet, increasing the building size from 6,361 square feet to 10,693 square feet; reface the building with split-faced block with molding; modify the front entrance appearance; and, install landscaping and a parking lot. (Exhibits B-1 and B-2) 

Municipal Code Conformance: The existing building is considered legal non-conforming.  The new construction is proposed to be built in compliance with all City of Burbank codes and regulations.

Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements (abridged version)

Development Review Process:  As the project is proposed to be compliant with all City codes and regulations, the only required entitlement is Development Review approval.  Upon the mailing of public notices to property owners and tenants within 300 feet (Exhibit A-2), posting of a sign on the property, and review of the project plans by City Departments, the Community Development Director approved the subject application on October 4, 2004.  The approval is subject to conditions, comments, and corrections as listed by each reviewing department and are attached to the Development Review Approval Letter.  No City departments submitted comments or recommended conditions or restrictions other than existing code requirements.  (Exhibit C-1) 

On October 8, 2004, Mss. Sandra Bowman, Denise McLaughlin and Sharyn Schrick appealed the project. (Exhibit D-1)  On January 24, 2005, the Planning Board voted 4-0 and adopted Planning Board Resolution 2970 to approve the project and deny the appeal. (Exhibit C-2)  Ms. Denise McLaughlin appealed the Planning Board decision to approve the project and deny the initial appeal (Exhibit D-2).

Public Correspondence: Staff has received no correspondence regarding the project, other than documents received from the appellants regarding the subject appeal.  At the Planning Board public hearing of January 24, 2005, the appellants submitted letters, addressed to the property owner of 2503 North Ontario Street and dates November 8, 2004, and; a letter addressed to the Project Planner and dated January 10, 2005.  These letters are from Mr. John Meindl, the appellants attorney. (Exhibits E-1 and E-2)

ANALYSIS

Surrounding Neighborhood: The subject property is surrounded in all directions by the M-2 General Industrial zone, which is �intended for the development of manufacturing process, fabrication and assembly of goods and materials.�  Permitted uses (when more than 150 feet from a residential zone, such as the subject property) include auto repair, wholesale bakery, machine shop, metal processing and stamping, print shop, and warehousing.  Although not an issue of this appeal, the proposed business for the site is a computer warehouse, an allowed use.  Adjacent properties are improved with primarily single story industrial buildings, many of which are built to the front property line.

Department Comments:  The Planning Division held a Development Review meeting on August 5, 2004, which was attended by other City Department representatives, the applicant, the property owner, and two of the three appellants.  Approval, conditioned upon the Applicant meeting all codes, was given on October 4, 2004, after the applicant submitted revised plans on September 27, 2004, that showed that parking and landscaping issues identified by Planning staff had been addressed.

■          Public Works Department, Traffic Division Comments:

1.      Will all deliveries and shipments be from front of building?  If access to rear sliding door of warehouse is needed, then an access easement through neighboring property shall be required.

2.      With common driveway, was there a reciprocal ingress and egress easement with this property and 2509 N. Ontario Street?  This development creates a substandard access to neighbor�s rear property.

The Applicant has stated that the rear delivery door is not needed for his business, and therefore access is not an issue.  Both the Planning Division and the Public Works Department questioned the existence of an easement for the commonly shared driveway between the two properties.  Please see the Issues Raised by the Appellants Section below for further discussion on this topic, the point of the appeal.

■          Burbank Redevelopment Agency Comment:

Agency staff is supportive of the proposed project.  The design elements as incorporated along the exterior elevations appear to provide visual relief and interest at a pedestrian scale. A color and material board, with specific materials and products shall be submitted for review and approval.

■          Burbank Fire Department Comments:

A Fire Department representative was present at the Development Review meeting, and that Department has no written comments that significantly affect the project.  However, at the January 24, 2005, Planning Board appeal hearing, Fire Marshal Starr spoke in regards to the Appellants claims that the proposed project will result in a fire safety situation for their property.  Fire Marshal Starr stated that although the situation being presented is not ideal, that the Fire Department is still able to fight fires and there is no function or code of the Fire Department that prevents the subject project from progressing.

No City Departments or Divisions had comments that would significantly change the appearance of the project or the site layout.

Issues Raised by the Appellants and Staff Response in Italic: New construction will significantly impact access, valuation and leasing potential of our adjacent building at 2509 North Ontario Street.  We have shared a driveway for over 50 years and now they will build down the middle of the driveway blocking our access.  This prevents our tenant from bringing in his deliveries and restricts the use of our property.  The driveway was always shared.  The decision to approve the project severely impacts our access for fire and safety.  (Exhibit D)

The fence shown in the above pictures is located approximately eleven inches south of the true property line.  All requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code have been verified to be met with this project.  Planning Division Comments and Public Works Traffic Engineering Comment of the Development Review approval packet (Exhibit C-1) require a Title Report for the subject property and question the existence of a reciprocal access easement with the property located at 2509 N. Ontario Street, in that the proposed development limits access to the rear of that property.  The property owner of 2503 N. Ontario Street submitted a Title Report in November 2004 (Exhibit B-3).  Note 7 of that document reads, �The fact that said land shares a common access, with ingress and egress with the lands to the north and south, as disclosed by a physical inspection.�  Further in the document, a Supplemental Report dated July 12, 2002, states, �Item No. 7 is hereby intentionally deleted.�  Therefore, the Title Report does not indicate any formal encumbrances for access. 

Additionally, the property owner of 2503 N. Ontario Street has provided a receipt and a letter from the land broker showing that a chain link fence was installed along the north property line of his subject property on June 11, 2002, and stating that the fence has existed since that time, and no claims for removal have been received. (Exhibit B-4) 

The building at 2509 N. Ontario (Appellants property) occupies the majority of the site and is built to the front property line.  Therefore, the only area for vehicular access, on site parking, and deliveries is located along the south elevation (common driveway area) and at the rear of the site.  The appellants claim that there will be a significant impact to access the rear of their property is valid.  The driveway width for the property located at 2509 N. Ontario Street will be reduced to nine feet eleven inches in width.  BMC Section 31-1603 states, �Every driveway shall be at least ten (10) feet wide and a maximum as approved by the Director,� leaving the adjacent driveway one inch less in width than code requires.  In addition, the project design (trash enclosure along the south elevation) basically eliminates the ability to access the 19 foot deep rear yard of the subject property.  With that noted, the property at 2509 N. Ontario Street will function as it does now with the chain link fence surrounding 2503 N. Ontario Street (the applicant�s property).  Planning staff would like to note that the existing fence has obviously been bumped into since it has been erected.

Although access will be compromised, staff believes that the access and common driveway issues are a civil matter between the property owners, and that the limits of the City code do not address the Appellants concerns.  Staff would like to point out that while it is not required by code, it is physically possible to redesign the project to provide the same amount of additional square footage and improve rear yard access to both of the properties in question by creating the addition along the southern elevation and creating a true common driveway with improved access to both rear yards.  The Applicant has stated that other designs had been considered, but this configuration presented the ideal arrangement for his needs.

Planning Board Public Hearing: The Planning Board reviewed the subject appeal on January 24, 2005, and stated that the issue was a civil matter between two property owners, voting 4-0 to deny the appeal and affirm the Director�s decision to approve the project. (Exhibit C-2)

Environmental Status: The project is ministerial, and is therefore not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  However, a Public Notice of Environmental Determination (PNOED) was posted on July 15, 2004, which determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to the construction of new facilities not exceeding 10,000 square feet.  Planning staff subsequently posted a revised PNOED on February 28, 2005, stating that the project is ministerial and is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15268 (Statutory Exemption) of the State CEQA Guidelines.  (Exhibit F-1 and F-2)

CONCLUSION

It is staff's assessment that this ministerial project meets all of the applicable code requirements and that approval of this Development Review application for a warehouse addition can be made.

Requirements for Approval of a Development Review Application: BMC Sec. 31-1908 classifies the subject project as a ministerial project, in that it is not a project of regional or areawide significance and it is not a multi-family residential project.  In that this project is classified as ministerial, there is no requirement to process environmental review through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and there are no specific findings to approve such a project, other than meeting all code requirements.  However, staff did apply the standard Development Review findings to the project in the original approval letter (Exhibit C-1), in addition to verifying that all applicable code sections were met or able to be met through the Conditions of Approval.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Board�s decision to approve the project and deny the appeal, affirming the Community Development Director�s decision to approve Project No. 2004-67 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A - Zoning and Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map

Exhibit B-1 - Development Review Application Package (including pictures of the site)

 B-2 - Project Plans (Attached)

B-3 - Title Report

B-4 - Receipt for fence and Letter from Broker regarding fence

Exhibit C-1 - Community Development Director�s Letter Approving Development Review (with attached Department comments)

 C-2 - Planning Board Resolution No. 2970 and Minutes, dated January 24, 2005

Exhibit  D-1 - Planning Board Appeal Form

D-2 - City Council Appeal Form

Exhibit E-1 - November 8, 2004 Letter From Appellant�s Attorney

 E-2 - January 10, 2005 Letter From Appellant�s Attorney

Exhibit F-1 - Public Notice of Environmental Decision (PNOED), Posted July 15, 2004

F-2 - Public Notice of Environmental Decision (PNOED), Posted February 28, 2005

go to the top