Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

This report recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve zone text and zone map amendments that would 1) amend the development standards for the R-1 Residential Single Family and R-1-H Residential Single Family Horsekeeping zones and 2) eliminate the R-1-E Residential Estate zone.

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 followed community meetings in May and July 2004, and 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. 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. 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 revised some of the proposed standards. Following additional community meetings in January and February 2005, staff presented revised standards and a summary of the community input to the Council at a study session on April 5, 2005. The Council provided additional direction to staff on the proposed standards, as discussed throughout this report. On April 25 and May 9, 2005, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the proposed zone text and map amendments. The recommendations from the Planning Board are discussed throughout this report with the applicable development standard.

The revisions to the single family standards proposed by staff are 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.

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 as Exhibits A-1 and A-2.

The proposed development standards include some separate standards that would be unique to the hillside area as the first step in the view protection ordinance process (discussed further below). As such, 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 A-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 B, including two letters submitted to the Planning Board just before the April 25 hearing.

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.

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.

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 (Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1995), 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 nonconforming. 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 nonconforming, 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. All property owners of the affected R-1-E properties and all properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the properties were mailed notices of the City Council hearing and the possible change of zoning as required by the Burbank Municipal Code.

At the Planning Board hearing on April 25, a resident of Skyline Drive in the hillside area stated that he believed his property was located in the R-1-E zone. Staff researched the matter to ensure that no R-1-E properties remained in the City other than the previously mentioned properties on Frederic Street. A substantial portion of the hillside area was zoned R-1-E until 1991. At that time, the OS Open Space zone was created, and the R-1-E zoning was replaced with the OS zone. However, the areas that were zoned R-1-E at that time and rezoned to OS were largely the undeveloped portions of the hillside. The developed areas that are today zoned R-1 were also zoned R-1 prior to 1991 and did not have the R-1-E designation. Staff researched multiple sources and verified that that the only remaining R-1-E zoning is the Frederic Street area discussed above.

At the direction of the City Council, staff has been working with a consultant to study options for an ordinance that would preserve and protect views from single family homes in the hillside area. 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 proposed R-1 standards. These standards were presented to hillside residents at a community meeting on February 16, 2005. 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.

This report provides a detailed analysis of changes proposed to all aspects of the single family development standards. However, this report addresses the standards topically and while detailed, represents only a summary of the proposed standards. The full text of the proposed changes to the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC), as they appear in the proposed ordinance, is attached hereto as Exhibit C-1.

As the BMC is currently structured, development standards for each of the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones and the hillside area are located in different sections of the Code. Additional requirements, such as fence heights, setback encroachments, and parking, are scattered throughout other sections of the Code. With the proposed amendments, staff is seeking to better organize the Code in addition to revising the standards. As reflected in the attached draft Code text, the requirements for the R-1 and R-1-H zones would be moved to the same place in the Code. Since the vast majority of the standards are identical for the two zones, combining them into one section avoids redundancy. Those requirements that are unique to the R-1-H zone would be specifically called out. Further, the standards that apply specifically to the hillside area are proposed to be moved from their own section into the same section with the rest of the single family standards. Finally, many of the additional requirements located throughout the Code would be brought into the same section in an effort to consolidate all R-1 and R-1-H standards into a single location.

In addition to changing physical development standards, the proposed amendments include the creation of new discretionary permit processes. The proposed permits would be required in various situations and would require discretionary approval by the Community Development Director. The new permits would be processed and approved in the same manner as an administrative use permit (AUP), including public notice and the possibility of appeal to the Planning Board and City Council. However, the permits would have special required findings that would apply uniquely to the situations for which the permit is required, rather than the generic findings used with an AUP. The three proposed new permits are as follows, and are discussed further in the appropriate places later in this report:

It is often necessary for the Community Development Director to establish policies for the purpose of interpreting and administering the Zoning Ordinance. With the creation of the proposed standards, staff has identified several that may be confusing or difficult to apply to unique situations, and has accordingly drafted policies on how those standards would be interpreted and applied in uncommon circumstances. While it may be argued that such interpretive language should be included in the Code itself, staff believes that the proposed policies would apply only in a very limited number of unique situations, and that such policies are not necessary to codify. Although not subject to formal approval by the City Council, staff has attached the proposed interpretive policies as Exhibit C-2 to provide information about how the proposed standards would be applied in certain situations.[1]

As noted above, the proposed action includes a zone map amendment that would change the handful of R-1-E properties in the City to the R-1 zone designation. The R-1-E zone would no longer exist, and would be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance.

As noted above, staff has divided the proposed development standards into two categories: those directly related to mansionization and other standards. Each of the proposed changes is discussed in greater detail below and includes discussion of the following:

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the height standards as proposed by staff. However, the Board requested that staff look into the effect of the proposed grade determination on sloped lots and the effective decrease in allowed height that would result. As shown in the diagram at Exhibit D-1, height is measured from the average grade, which is determined by taking an average of the highest and lowest ground surfaces at the perimeter of the house. Typically, the floor level of the first floor would be located above the highest ground surface. Since the practical structure height would be from the highest ground surface, the usable height envelope would be less than 23 feet, with the deduction being the difference between the average grade and the ground elevation. As noted in the above table, the greatest possible distance between these two elevations would be five feet, meaning that the effective available structure height would be 18 feet rather than 23 feet, and the space to provide adequate ceiling heights in a two-story home would be substantially reduced.

However, staff believes that such a reduction is highly unlikely. For this maximum possible reduction of five feet to occur, there must be a difference of 10 or more feet in the ground surface elevation from one side of the house to the other. In the Mountain Fire Zone hillside area, such a dramatic difference in elevation would trigger the application of the hillside development standards, where height is determined by a different method (both under existing standards and under the proposed standards that will be coming to the Council in the near future). In areas other than the Mountain Fire Zone, the number of lots with such an extreme elevation difference is extremely limited. While staff does not have a means of providing exact statistics on the number of lots that would be effected, staff notes that even lots in the lower hillside areas above Glenoaks typically have level building pads on which the house is built. Even where streets are steeply sloped and the grade difference between abutting lots is several feet, each individual lot still has a relatively level building pad for the house. Staff notes that the average grade is determined at the perimeter of the house on the level pad, not at the four corners of the lot as in other zones.

In uncommon situations where the building pad is not entirely level, the grade difference from one side of a house to another is likely to be no more than one to three feet, with an effective height loss of six to 18 inches. Staff believes that the very limited number of situations in which this decrease in height would be a factor is not significant enough to warrant special consideration in the Zoning Ordinance. Further, special consideration to allow increased height would allow the height on the higher elevation side to exceed 23 feet, which would result in increased impacts on neighboring properties on that side. Staff notes that if it is important for a homeowner to utilize the full 23 feet in building their home, there is nothing to prevent them from making the first floor level even with the ground elevation on the low side, and sinking the floor below grade on the higher elevation side through the use of a short retaining wall. This would allow the homeowner to utilize the full 23 feet while still measuring the height from the average grade.

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 D-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. 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 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 D-3). The proposed height limits would also allow for a variety of roof pitches and would not overly restrict roof design (Exhibit D-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 vertical inches for every 12 horizontal inches, 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. The Planning Board considered this specific issue, and voted to recommend retaining a separate height standard for the top plate in addition to the overall height standard.

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 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.

City Council Input: 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 recommended that this interim standard be adopted as permanent. On April 5, the Council directed staff to further lower the FAR below 0.45 and establish a list of incentives that homeowners could incorporate into their homes to raise the FAR back up to the 0.45 level. To compare with past development trends, the City Council requested that staff provide information about the number of homes over 3,000 square feet that have been built in Burbank in the last five years. Staff provided this information in a memo dated April 11, 2005, which is attached hereto as Exhibit E-1.

Planning Board Recommendation: In response to City Council direction on April 5, staff proposed to the Planning Board a decreased base FAR of 0.35, with an incentive program to achieve up to 0.4 or 0.45, depending upon the number of incentive design features provided. The Planning Board believed that the base FAR of 0.35 was too low, and that 0.5 was a more appropriate maximum FAR to allow homeowners to better maximize the use of their property. The Board voted to recommend a base FAR of 0.4, with higher FARs of 0.45 and 0.5 possible through the provision of incentives. Based upon the Council�s direction on April 5, staff believes that a 0.5 FAR is too high, but concurs with the Planning Board�s concern that a base FAR of 0.35 may be too low. As such, staff is now proposing a base FAR of 0.4, with the possibility of achieving 0.45 through the provision of design feature incentives. Staff believes that this proposal provides balance among Council direction, staff�s proposal, and the Planning Board�s recommendation.

Rationale/Reasoning: A 0.4-0.45 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.

As noted above, staff is proposing a base FAR of 0.4, and has developed a list of eight incentives to allow homeowners to achieve 0.45 FAR by incorporating five of the design feature incentives into their house project. The complete list of proposed incentives is found on page 6 of the proposed draft standards, attached as Exhibit C-1. In developing the proposed incentives, staff avoided architectural style, design, and other such subjective issues. Because the �looming� of second stories over neighboring properties and their impacts on perceived privacy are the issues most frequently raised by the community, staff sought to address these issues in the incentives.

Effect: Exhibit E-2 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. 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 0.40 without the garage included would allow a house of 2,700 square feet, while an FAR of 0.45 would allow 3,038 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 when incentives are provided.

Staff believes that the proposed incentives are practical and reasonable for homeowners seeking to build homes up to 3,000 square feet. In conjunction with the proposed lot coverage limitation of 50 percent (see below), it would be possible to build a single-story house at 0.40 FAR. With the 50 percent lot coverage limitation, a 0.45 FAR would only be possible to achieve with a two-story house on most lots. Because of this interaction with the lot coverage and because of the additional impacts of two-story homes, most of the design feature incentives proposed by staff are directed at mitigating the impacts of two-story development.

Although staff believes that the proposed incentives would not be difficult to incorporate into a house project, staff notes that for some homeowners, it may not be worth the time, money, or effort to try to incorporate the incentives for the benefit received. On a standard size lot, the difference between a 0.4 and 0.45 FAR is 338 square feet. For comparison, a typical two-car garage is 400 square feet. Staff is concerned that this additional square footage may not be an adequate benefit for some homeowners to undertake the additional cost of providing the required incentives. Some of the incentives, such as increased second story setbacks and steeper roof pitch, may result in higher materials and construction costs, and higher design costs as architects must ensure that certain features are incorporated into their design. Staff believes that the additional setbacks and other incentives could have substantial benefits to the community through the construction of two-story homes that have a reduced impact on their neighbors. However, staff notes that the number of people opting to provide the incentives may be relatively low due to the moderate increase in square footage that it would allow. Staff looked at alternative methods that would have provided a greater incentive for homeowners to opt for the incentives. However, any such method would result in an FAR greater than 0.45 and closer to 0.5, which staff believes is contrary to previous City Council direction.

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 previous 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 F-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. None of the cities that staff surveyed utilize an incentive program with a sliding FAR as proposed by the City Council.

City Council Input: With the proposed FAR reduction from 0.6 to 0.45 and the increase in the rear yard setback, there are substantial limitations on the ability of a homeowner to entirely cover their lot with structures. One concern previously 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. Staff believed that removing the lot coverage limitation would eliminate this concern by allowing the first floor to be built as big as desired within the confines of setbacks and FAR.

However, some City Council members expressed their belief that it was important to strike a balance between encouraging single-story development and not allowing the entire property to be covered with structures. Council directed staff to retain the lot coverage limitation and to decrease it below the current limit of 60 percent to require that more of a lot be open and not covered with structures.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the lot coverage standard as proposed by staff based on City Council direction.

Rationale/Reasoning: As noted by the City Council, it is important to balance the need for lot area to expand a single-story home with the desire for open area between and around structures. Staff believes that the proposed 50 percent limitation appropriately balances these competing interests. As noted below, staff believes that the proposed lot coverage would work effectively with the proposed FAR range to allow sizeable one story homes while requiring the largest homes to be two stories and preserve yard area.

Effect: As noted above, the 50 percent lot coverage limitation would allow for a single-story house with a 0.40 FAR and a garage on a standard size lot. Homeowners providing additional incentives to achieve 0.45 FAR would be required to build a two-story home to remain within lot coverage limitations. However, staff notes that non-enclosed covered structures such as portes-cochere and patios would not be counted toward lot coverage per Council direction. As such, it would still be possible for a homeowner to cover most of their back yard with a patio structure.

Community Input: Meeting attendees did not indicate a general consensus specifically about staff�s original 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.

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 original 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, consistent with the current proposal. 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).

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend that the existing front yard setback standard be retained as proposed by staff.

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. While staff is not proposing a required additional setback for the second floor, such a setback is included on the list of proposed incentives to allow an FAR higher than 0.4.

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.

City Council Input: Staff previously proposed a rear setback of 25 feet, with lot coverage limitations within the rear yard area. 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 believed 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 to a proposed 10 feet. On April 5, some Council members believed that the reduction to 10 feet would result in too small of a rear yard, and directed staff to increase the setback either to a fixed number or to a certain percentage of the lot depth. As a compromise between 10 and 25 feet, staff is now recommending a 15-foot setback.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the rear yard setback standard as proposed by staff in response to Council direction.

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 15 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 recommends against basing the rear setback on a percentage of the lot depth. Most of the single family lots in the City vary in depth from about 120 to 150 feet. A logical percentage would be 10 percent, meaning that required rear yards would vary from 12 to 15 feet. Staff believes that fixing the setback at 15 feet for all lots provides consistency and allows for more simple administration and understanding by the public.

Effect: The proposed setback would prohibit the main dwelling from being within 15 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 15 feet addresses this concern.

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. Several of the cities surveyed use lot coverage limitations within rear yard areas or otherwise require minimum rear yard areas, similar to staff�s original proposal.

City Council Input: At the April 5 study session, several Council members suggested that side yard setbacks should be based upon a percentage of the lot width rather than a fixed number, such that wider lots would require wider setbacks. The suggested amount was 10 percent, with a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 10 feet. Staff continues to recommend that side yard setbacks be fixed at five feet, except for lots of substandard width as noted in the above table. The vast majority of single family lots in the City are 50 to 60 feet wide. Therefore, most required setbacks would continue to be in the five-foot range, with the largest setback on most lots at six feet.

Staff believes that varying the setback based upon lot width would result in inconsistencies across the City and would be difficult for homeowners to understand and for staff to administer. Further, staff is concerned about the number of lots that would become nonconforming if the side yard setback were increased. Many lots in the City are already nonconforming with three-foot side yard setbacks. Many of the lots that actually provide a five-foot setback are larger lots that are wider than 50 feet. By increasing the side yard setback to a percentage of lot width, these lots too would become nonconforming, which would have implications when the homeowners desired to add on the house.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the interior side yard setback standard as proposed by staff, using a fixed number rather than a percentage of lot width.

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 nonconforming 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: As proposed by staff, the setback requirement of five feet will not change, and the recently adopted ordinance prohibits extension of a nonconforming 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. While staff is not proposing any additional required setbacks for the second story, additional second story setbacks are provided on the proposed incentives list to allow FARs in excess of 0.4.

Several attendees at the 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 as was suggested by the Council. 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.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the street-facing side yard setback standard as proposed by staff.

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 portes-cochere, 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.

City Council Input: Staff originally proposed that the second floor of accessory structures be set back five feet from the property line to reduce the perceived encroachment into adjacent yards. Several Council members requested that the setback for second stories be based upon a setback plane so as to require an additional setback and further step the structure back from the property line.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the accessory structure setbacks as proposed by staff, including the setback plane suggested by the City Council. Regarding accessory structure size, the Planning Board believed that the staff-proposed size limitation of 500 square feet was too high, and voted to recommend a lower threshold of 400 square feet. While the Board appreciated staff�s argument that the standard should be consistent with the second dwelling unit size limit (explained further below), some Board members noted that the requirement for an additional parking space serves as a limitation for second dwelling units and sets them apart from accessory structures. The Board noted that 400 square feet is the size of a two-car garage, and that the recommended standard would allow a second floor to be built over a garage without the need for a discretionary permit.[8] While staff appreciates the Board�s recommendation, staff continues to recommend that a limit of 500 square feet be used so as to be consistent with second dwelling unit requirements, as explained further below.

The Board was also not supportive of staff�s proposal that accessory structures over 500 square feet be subject to an administrative approval process. Although such an administrative process would include public notice and the ability for appeal, the Board was more comfortable retaining the existing conditional use permit requirement, which would require a public hearing. While the Board noted that the proposed requirements for raised windows and balcony setbacks address the privacy concerns that are typically considered through the conditional use permit process, some Board members commented that they were uncomfortable allowing accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet with only administrative approval. Because the proposed administrative permit process would include public notice and the ability to file an appeal and request a public hearing, staff continues to recommend that accessory structures over 500 square feet be subject to an administrative approval process similar to an administrative use permit.

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 plane 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 be required to meet the standard five- and 15-foot side and rear setbacks 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 accessory structure permit, similar to an administrative use permit, 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.

Staff recommends changing the entitlement type from a CUP to an administrative approval as an opportunity to reduce demands on staff resources and reduce the caseload of the Planning Board. Staff notes that the required findings would be similar to a CUP but tailored to the specific type of project, and that public notice would still be provided to the neighborhood. 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 administrative 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 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.[9]

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.

City Council Input: The City Council had a considerable amount of discussion about the parking issue. At least two Council members expressed their opinion that bedrooms were the driving issue behind parking, and that the number of required parking spaces should be based upon the number of bedrooms in the house rather than just square footage. They pointed out that it is common today for large homes to have a relatively small number of bedrooms due to the increased square footage devoted to kitchens, family rooms, and other common areas. A threshold of five or six bedrooms was suggested as a trigger to require three off-street parking spaces. At least one Council member was supportive of basing the required parking on square footage. Some Council members were not supportive of staff�s original proposal to require all parking to be provided in an enclosed garage, rather than giving the option of a carport, and the proposed standard has been revised accordingly.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board was not supportive of staff�s proposal of 3,000 square feet as a threshold for providing three spaces. Some Board members noted that the driving force behind the proposed revisions to the single family standards is to reduce the structure mass on single family properties. They believed that requiring a three-car garage or carport for a house of only 3,000 square feet would add massing back to the property and would be contrary to the bigger goal of reducing mass. Some Board members believed that parking demands for single family homes in general are fixed, and do not vary substantially with building size as they do in multifamily or non-residential areas. The Board voted to recommend that the current code standard of 3,600 square feet be retained as the cutoff for requiring three parking spaces. The Board recommended that square footage rather than number of bedrooms be used as the basis for this standard. For the reasons discussed below, staff is recommending a compromise threshold of 3,400 square feet.

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 around 3,000 square feet on most lots in the City. To address the Planning Board�s concern of not adding unnecessary mass to a property, staff looked at the largest house that could be practically built on most standard lots. The largest standardized tract lots in the City are about 7,750 square feet. On such a lot, a 0.45 FAR would allow a house of about 3,488 square feet. Although there are some lots that are larger (aside from those in the hillside area, some of which are considerably larger), staff believes that this represents one of the largest houses that could be accommodated on most R-1 lots in the City. As such, houses over 3,400 square feet would be among the largest in the City. Staff believes that this would be an appropriate threshold at which to require three parking spaces, since it would add structural mass only to larger lots that would better be able to accommodate the additional required parking area. Further, the burden of providing a third parking space would be placed only upon those building the largest houses.

As recommended by the Planning Board, staff continues to recommend that the number of required parking spaces be based upon square footage rather than the number of bedrooms. Although the Building Code provides guidance as to what is considered a bedroom, staff is concerned that some applicants may disguise bedrooms as other types of rooms (libraries, dens, etc.) to avoid having to provide an additional parking space. This brings an added problem; rooms other than bedrooms do not have to provide the same emergency exiting as bedrooms. Staff fears that bedrooms disguised as something else may not be built to Building Code safety standards because of attempts to avoid providing additional parking. Staff believes that basing parking on square footage is the most simple and straightforward approach to parking.

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 3,400 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 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 originally proposed change to a 3,000 square foot limit. As suggested by some Council members, 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 originally proposed threshold reduction from 3,600 square feet to 3,000 square feet was too drastic, and that a 3,000 square foot limit was 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 side by side 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.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the front yard and driveway standards as proposed by staff.

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 or turnout areas 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.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board discussed the proposed hillside standards at a continued public hearing on May 9, 2005. Because of the short period of time between the Planning Board meeting and the publication of this report, the minutes from the May 9 meeting were not complete and are not attached. As such, staff has included below a detailed account of the Planning Board�s deliberations and recommendations in lieu of attaching the meeting minutes. The Board�s discussion is organized topically; all items that were formally adopted as recommendations from the Board are listed separately at the end.

One Board member questioned whether the threshold of 3,000 square feet before discretionary approval is required is intended to include the garage, or only the house itself. Staff�s intent with this requirement is that only areas included in the floor area ratio would be counted toward the threshold. The proposed language in the standards has been clarified accordingly.

Two Board members questioned whether the 3,000 square foot threshold is intended to apply only to new homes, or also to additions to existing homes. Staff�s intent with the proposed regulation is that both new homes over 3,000 square feet and additions resulting in homes totaling more than 3,000 square feet would be subject to discretionary review. The proposed language has been revised accordingly to provide this clarification.

One Board member asked whether the requirement for discretionary approval for a structure over 24 feet tall would apply for re-roofing an existing house, changing the roof pitch of an existing house, or adding dormers to an existing house. Staff�s intent with the proposed regulation is that discretionary approval would be required when adding square footage, height, and/or volume to an existing house. A permit to re-roof an existing house without changing the pitch of the roof or adding height would not require discretionary approval. However, changing the roof pitch or adding dormers in a way that would increase the height or volume of the roof and potentially block views from neighboring properties would be subject to discretionary approval through the hillside development permit process. Staff has modified the proposed standards accordingly to clarify this issue.

Several Board members questioned the proposed standards for front and rear setbacks, and questioned what if any standards would apply in situations where the primary view from a house is from a side yard, such as looking over the top of a downhill neighbor�s house. Staff acknowledges that the proposed standards may not provide protection in such a situation. The proposed standards would allow a house up to 24 feet in height without any discretionary review required. Depending upon the grade difference between lots, a house of 24 feet or less could potentially encroach into the view from the neighboring property. One option to address this situation would be to require discretionary review at a lower height threshold. However, staff notes that a lower threshold would begin to encroach into a homeowner�s ability to build anything other than a single-story house without approval of a discretionary permit. One Board member expressed concern about the proposal to limit the by-right height to 24 feet, although the member ultimately voted in favor of the proposal.

One Board member expressed concern about the appeal process and the amount of time that may be required to take a hillside development permit application through the public hearing process if the administrative decision is appealed. The Board member was especially concerned about the money and effort that may be required to redesign a project, have new plans prepared, and attend multiple public hearings before a decision is reached. Staff is not proposing any required timelines as part of the proposed ordinance. While the Zoning Ordinance contains specified timelines for hearings and decisions in some cases, staff finds that such timelines are sometimes difficult or impossible to meet due to process steps, applicant delays, and other extenuating circumstances. As such, staff does not support imposing timelines and deadlines in the Municipal Code for planning project applications. However, staff notes that both the state Permit Streamlining Act and the California Environmental Quality Act impose deadlines on the City to make decisions on projects within certain timeframes. These state-mandated timelines can provide certainty to applicants about the latest possible date that their project would be heard. Despite any mandated deadlines, staff always strives to process all project applications and appeals in a timely and equitable manner.

One Board member questioned whether previously approved Parcel and Tract Maps in the hillside area (specifically the Cayman tract) would be subject to the new standards, or would be exempted from further review as would be the case under the current hillside standards. Staff proposes that previously approved subdivisions and conditional use permits for hillside development be subject to the existing hillside and R-1 standards under which they were originally approved, and not the new hillside standards, in cases where the houses have not yet been constructed. The language in the proposed ordinance has been drafted accordingly.

At least two Board members believed that view protection is an issue in areas other than the defined Mountain Fire Zone, specifically in sloped areas above Glenoaks Boulevard. The members recommended that a �transitional area� be defined that would not be subject to regulations as stringent as those in the hillside area, but would be subject to some special standards that would address view protection in some capacity. This recommendation was not supported by the Board as whole, and was expressly opposed by two Board members. As an alternative approach, one Board member suggested that residents in the area between Glenoaks Boulevard and the hillside area be given the option through surveys or voting of being voluntarily included in the hillside area, or a special area otherwise subject to view protection regulations.

Staff believes that the proposed boundaries for the hillside area, as defined by the existing Mountain Fire Zone, provide the best and most easily defined boundary between true hillside properties and properties that are built on sloped foothill areas but not in the hillside. Staff believes that attempting to define any area other than that already defined by the Mountain Fire Zone would be a difficult and arbitrary process. It could be argued that any properties above Glenoaks, and even some below Glenoaks, have views of the City that should be protected. Some residents that live in non-hillside areas place value in their upslope views of the hillside itself, and it may be argued that those views should also be protected. Staff is concerned that there is no point at which to draw the line in a logical way other than as proposed. The proposed hillside standards are intended to address view protection and related issues as they pertain to areas with steep slopes and other unique lot conditions. The vast majority of lots outside of the Mountain Fire Zone are typical tract homes on standard rectangular lots. Finally, staff is not supportive of allowing residents to determine for themselves whether their neighborhood should be subject to hillside or view protection regulations. Staff recommends against any expansion of the proposed hillside area.

The Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the hillside standards as proposed by staff, subject to each of the following recommended modifications. Staff�s response to each recommendation is included with each item.

Staff believes that such a provision would be appropriate to add to Chapter 27 of the Municipal Code, which deals with subdivision requirements, rather than the Zoning Ordinance chapter. Staff will further study the recommendation and determine how best to incorporate such a requirement into the existing Code requirements. Because the requirement would deal with defining view corridors, staff believes that it may be more appropriate to address in conjunction with the third phase of the view protection ordinance, which is the definition of viewshed and actual view protection requirements. Staff will also study the possibility of including this requirement as a policy in the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan. In the meantime, staff can, as a matter of policy, require building envelopes to be defined through conditions placed upon Parcel and Tract Maps. Staff notes that the number of map applications received for properties in the hillside area is minimal, with as little as one application being submitted every few years.

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.

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 administrative process. The proposed hillside development permit, similar to an AUP, would be approved (or denied) administratively by the Community Development Director, which would result 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 would be provided as with a CUP, and any person could appeal the Director�s decision, which would result 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 from 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 a discretionary permit 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 or Tract 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 go through a discretionary review 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.

One letter from residents of the hillside area regarding the proposed hillside standards was provided to the Planning Board at the April 25 hearing. A copy of the letter is attached as part of Exhibit B.

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 hillside development permit requirement. Malibu requires increased levels of review for homes taller than 18 feet.

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

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 a discretionary process to provide options for homeowners in unique circumstances to enjoy the same development potential as other single family homeowners where appropriate.[11]

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 permit findings as listed in the attached draft Code text (Exhibit C-1). 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. Further, the incentives that would be required to be provided to achieve a 0.45 FAR would be very difficult or impossible to provide on such a small lot. Similarly, it would be difficult to build a decently sized house and garage within the 50 percent lot coverage limitation. 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 a discretionary permit, namely that the proposed house would be compatible with surrounding houses and neighborhood character and would not have a detrimental impact on nearby properties. Although the permit would be approved administratively, notice would be provided to all nearby property owners and tenants, 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.

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.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the FAR, lot coverage, and height standards as proposed by staff, which included the above provisions for the applicable special circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 consistent with the existing neighborhood.

Staff has found that 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 height and FAR 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 seven months since the IDCO was adopted.

As noted at the beginning of this report, the IDCO will expire on June 30, 2005. By the terms of the City Charter, an ordinance becomes effective on the thirty-first day after its summary is published in the newspaper. If the City Council adopts the proposed standards following the public hearing on May 24, the second reading could occur as early as May 31, and the ordinance summary could be published as early as Saturday, June 4, 2005. This would result in an ordinance effective date of July 5, 2005, just after the expiration of the IDCO.

Staff recommends that the Council allow the IDCO to expire on June 30, and to have the new standards apply to all projects submitted for plan check on or after July 1, 2005. All projects submitted for plan check on or before June 30 would comply with the height and FAR standards set forth in the IDCO. The new standards would take effect for all plan checks submitted starting the following day. No project submitted for plan check between July 1 and July 5 would be ready to have a permit issued before July 5 when the new ordinance would become effective. Therefore, although there would be a gap between the IDCO and the effective date of the new standards, there would be no gap in the applicability of standards to plan check submittals and no permits would be issued for a project that did not comply with either the IDCO or the new standards. Building permits could not be issued using the new standards prior to their effective date. However, the standards could be applied retroactively to plan check submittals since the actual permits from those submittals would not be issued until after the effective date of the ordinance.

Staff further recommends that the new standards not be applied to projects that have received CUP or variance approval prior to the effective date of the ordinance. However, CUP and variance applications still in process as of the effective date would be subject to the new standards. The two types of CUPs most common in the single family zones are for accessory structures and hillside houses. As proposed by staff, neither of these types of projects would require a CUP under the new standards. Accessory structures exceeding 500 square feet would require an accessory structure permit, and certain hillside area houses would require a hillside development permit. Both of these new permits would be approved administratively and would be subject to different findings than the existing CUPs. As such, staff believes it is appropriate that any applicants in the middle of the process be required to re-apply for the appropriate type of permit as applicable under the new standards.

Finally, staff recommends that lots previously approved for development through a Parcel or Tract Map application be allowed to develop under the existing standards as originally approved as part of the subdivision, so long as the environmental analysis conducted for the subdivision anticipated the development of the lots. This issue was raised by a Planning Board member during the May 9 public hearing specifically with regard to the Cayman tract, which still has some remaining vacant lots yet to be developed. Once the lots are developed, any future expansion or modification to the houses would be subject to the new standards, consistent with other R-1 lots in the hillside area. The initial development, however, would be subject to existing R-1 standards and not required to go through any discretionary processes for hillside development or meet other new hillside or R-1 standards.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared to examine the potential environmental impacts of the proposed zone text and zone map amendments. The Initial Study concluded that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed amendments, and a Negative Declaration was prepared accordingly (Exhibits H-1 and H-2).

The Planning Board considered the proposed zone text and zone map amendments at a public hearing on April 25, 2005 and May 9, 2005. The Board did not have adequate time to consider the proposed hillside development standards on April 25, and continued that discussion to the meeting of May 9. The draft minutes from the April 25 meeting (not yet approved by the Board as of the publication of this report) are attached as Exhibit I-1. The minutes from the May 9 meeting were not complete as of the publication of this report. As such, the Board�s deliberation from the May 9 meeting was documented in detail in the hillside standards discussion earlier in this report.

The Board�s recommendations on each of the proposed standards were discussed throughout this report. After considering and making recommendations on each of the issues discussed in this report individually, the Board voted 3-1 on April 25 (with Board member Jackson dissenting and Board member Thomas absent) to recommend approval of the proposed standards, subject to the modifications discussed throughout this report, and the proposed elimination of the R-1-E zone (Exhibit I-2). After considering the hillside standards separately on May 9, the Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed hillside standards, subject to the modifications discussed earlier (Exhibit I-3).

Aside from the issues already covered throughout this report, the Board had a discussion at the April 25 meeting about the advantages and disadvantages of design review to address concerns about design and neighborhood compatibility. The Board expressed its concerns about the subjectivity of a design review process and the idea that design review does not often achieve its desired goals of good design. The Board voted to recommend against the use of design review, and voted to support the continued use of conventional development standards as presented in this report.

In an effort to promote good design and share examples of the type of homes that are desired in Burbank, the Board suggested the creation of design guidelines with accompanying diagrams. Such guidelines would not be mandatory, but would include suggested and encouraged design features that would promote neighborhood compatibility and reduce the impact of homes on neighboring properties. While staff is not opposed to the creation of such design guidelines, staff notes that such an endeavor would require substantial dedication of staff resources, and/or funding to hire an outside architect to assist staff in the preparation of guidelines and diagrams.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adopting the proposed standards would likely have minor fiscal impacts on the City in the form of increased staff resource demands to administer the new standards, at least immediately after adoption. The proposed standards are substantially similar in scope to the current standards, and in the long term would probably not require any additional staff resources to administer. In the short term, some additional staff time may be required as staff adjusts to the new standards. 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 and the use of an administrative approval process as an alternative to a CUP. The creation of the new special development permit for substandard lots and other unique situations as described above would result in increased staff work to process those applications, which do not currently exist. However, the number of those types of applications, and the corresponding impact on staff resources, is expected to be minimal.

Staff expects that there would be long-term increases in demands on staff resources to administer the hillside development standards. The proposed hillside standards would require discretionary approval through an administrative process in many situations 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 hillside permit applications. Further, each hillside permit application would require staff review and analysis of a view protection study, which is expected to be a complicated and time-consuming process. Some of this additional demand would be offset by the fact that all discretionary approvals in the hillside area would be through the administrative hillside permit process rather than the CUP process, as is currently required for some projects. CUPs require a greater amount of time and work to process, so requiring an administrative permit in lieu of a CUP would provide savings in staff resources. However, it is also likely that the rate of appeal of hillside applications will be higher than for other types of administrative approvals due to the sensitive and controversial nature of hillside development. This would then require additional resources to take appealed hillside development permits through the public hearing process.

With a total of four community meetings, staff believes that adequate public outreach has been conducted and that adequate input has been received. Staff believes that the Council has all of the information necessary to take action on the proposed standards. 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 solidified and focused, which facilitated more direct and detailed input from the community. The standards presented in this report have been further refined based upon input received at the April 5 Council study session and the recommendations received from the Planning Board on April 25 and May 9.

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 conventional 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 continues to recommend against design review. At the April 5 study session, the City Council reaffirmed its previous direction that it is not in favor of implementing a design review process at this time. As noted above, the Planning Board also voted at the April 25 hearing to recommend against a design review process.

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 or her property to meet living space needs.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve the zone text amendment and zone map amendment presented in this report to amend the single family residential development standards and delete the R-1-E zone.

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

Exhibit E-1 - Memo regarding house sizes in the past five years dated April 11, 2005

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

[1] Staff notes that the proposed format of the interpretive policies is somewhat different from the proposed �policy manual� document that was presented to the Planning Board. After further consideration following the Planning Board hearing, staff modified the policy document and moved some of the proposed policies into the draft Code text as required standards to ensure that they could be administered and enforced as intended.

[2] Most of the information presented in this report is the same as that presented to the Council at the April 5 study session. Because some of the proposed standards have been modified in response to input from the Council and the Planning Board and because of the need to share the Board�s recommendations on each standard with the Council, staff believed it important that all of the proposed standards and related information be included in this report.

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

[4] Floor area ratio is the ratio of the area of the house to the area of the lot. For example, a 3,000 square foot house on a 6,000 square foot lot would have an FAR of 3,000/6,000 = 0.5. To determine the maximum house size that could be built using a certain FAR, the lot area is multiplied by the FAR. On a 6,000 square foot lot, a 0.45 FAR would result in a house size of 0.45 x 6,000 = 2,700 square feet.

[5] Under current Code standards, a new 3,650 square foot house would actually require a three-car garage, but the area of the third parking space is not included in lot coverage or FAR calculations per Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-614(g).

[6] The 0.6 FAR standard was adopted as part of the 1995 �Mansionization Ordinance.� The ordinance also established the maximum lot coverage of 60 percent and the height standard of 27 feet and 35 feet. Prior to the 1995 ordinance, there were no limitations on lot coverage or floor area ratio for the R-1, R-1-E, and R-1-H zones. The maximum permitted height was 35 feet, measured to the top of the structure; there was no maximum height imposed for ceilings.

[7] Lot coverage is the percentage of the lot area that can be covered with structures. Unlike FAR, which looks at the total square footage on all stories, lot coverage considers only the footprint of the structure, regardless of the number of stories. On a 6,000 square foot lot, a lot coverage limit of 50 percent would allow building footprints on the lot totaling up to 50 percent of the total lot area, or 3,000 square feet. Also unlike FAR, which is proposed to exclude garages up to 600 square feet, lot coverage includes all enclosed structures on the lot including garages.

[8] Staff notes that with the proposed 45-degree setback plane, it will no longer be possible to build a second story with the same footprint and size as the garage below, unless the garage is set back several additional feet from the side and rear property lines beyond the minimum three-foot setback.

[9] Staff notes that the proposed changes to size limitation that were presented to the public are somewhat different from those proposed in this report. However, as noted, no public input was received regarding the proposal to alter the entitlement requirements for certain sizes of structures. Meeting attendees seemed to be concerned with accessory structure height and setbacks, but not size.

[10] A view study would consist of a detailed analysis of views from neighboring properties and provide documentation about the extent to which the views would be obstructed by a proposed project. This information would be conveyed through methods such as three-dimensional drawings and models, photo montages, computer generated visualizations, and the installation of �story poles� on the project site to physically demonstrate the location, footprint, massing, and height of proposed structures.

[11] Staff notes that special setback requirements for lots of substandard width were addressed earlier in this report, and such setbacks would be allowed by right without the need for discretionary approval.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

FISCAL IMPACT: