APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2005-84 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PURPOSE:

To consider two separate appeals of the Planning Board�s decision to uphold the Community Development Director�s decision to conditionally approve Project No. 2005-84 Development Review, a request by Mr. Varoozh Saroian to construct a 15-unit, three-story, multi-family project at 1014 and 1018 Omer Lane.  Appealing the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve the project are Ms. Laura Dietz and Council Member Dr. David Gordon.

BACKGROUND:

Property Location: The subject property is located at 1014 and 1018 Omer Lane [Lots 21 and 22, Tract 12483; MB 258-47-48].  The property is located south of Alameda Avenue, west of Lake Street, east of Victory Boulevard, and abuts Spazier Avenue to the rear (with no current or proposed vehicular or pedestrian access to Spazier Avenue).

Zoning: The subject property is zoned R-4, which was titled Multiple Family Medium Density Residential when the application was deemed complete on July 27, 2005, prior to the new multi-family development standards being effective on August 15, 2005.  The R-4 zone is now the High Density Residential zone.  (Exhibit A-1)

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

Property Dimensions: The property is irregularly shaped, but is generally square with a rounded frontage, as it is located near the head of Omer Lane, a cul-de-sac street, with a total lot area of 17,015 square feet.

Street Classifications: Omer Lane is designated as a Local Street with a 40-foot right-of-way (28 feet paved with six foot sidewalks and no parkways).  The cul-de-sac portion of the street has a 35-foot right of way radius (29 feet paved street radius with six foot sidewalks and no parkways).  Spazier Avenue (to the rear) is designated as a Local Street with a 40-foot right-of-way (29 feet paved with five feet of sidewalk on the south side and six feet of dirt on the north side).  The subject property is shown, as required by the Public Works Department, as dedicating six feet along the rear property line that abut Spazier Avenue.

Current and Past Development of the Site: The two lots are each developed with a duplex and a two-car garage, all proposed to be demolished, originally constructed in 1944, and in serious disrepair.  No significant additions or property improvements are on file with the City since the construction date.

Project Description: The applicant has requested approval to construct a 15-unit, three-story apartment building with five flats on each floor.  The semi-subterranean garage is shown with 33 open parking stalls and access from Omer Lane; storage lockers for each unit; trash/recycling facilities; and, the base of the building�s elevator.  Plans include a landscaped interior courtyard with benches, and building facades with a heightened level of articulation and architectural interest. (Exhibits B-1 and B-2)

To date, no tract map application has been filed on the property to request that the project be considered for condominium purposes.  This could occur in the future and the proposed plans meet current code requirements for a condominium conversion. 

During Planning Board deliberations, access to the site was questioned (discussed in greater detail further in this report).  Therefore, plans had been created for the Planning Board meeting showing a garage plan with egress onto Omer Lane and ingress from Spazier Avenue.  Due to the additional ramp, the garage was pushed to the rear/Spazier Avenue property line and tandem spaces were required to meet the minimum parking requirements.  Those plans, which are not the set as approved by the Community Development Department Director, and are not preferred by either Traffic Engineering or Planning staff, are included for your review as Exhibit B-3.

Municipal Code Conformance: The proposed project meets or is conditioned to meet all code requirements for a multi-family residential project that is not located within 500 feet of a single family residential zone.  Again, this project was deemed complete on July 27, 2005, and is not subject to the new multi-family development standards that became effective on August 15, 2005.  The chart below therefore lists code items that are applicable to this project, and not to applications that have been deemed complete after August 15, 2005.

Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements (abridged version)

Development Review Process:  As the project is proposed or conditioned to be compliant with or exceeds all City codes and regulations, the only required land use action is Development Review approval.  Upon the mailing of public notices to property owners and tenants within 300 feet (Exhibit A-2), posting of a sign on the property, and review of the project plans by City Departments, the Community Development Director approved the subject application on September 22, 2005.  The approval is subject to conditions, comments, and corrections as listed by each reviewing department and are attached to the Development Review Approval Letter.  No departments submitted comments or recommended conditions or restrictions other than existing code requirements. (Exhibit C) 

On October 5, 2005, Ms. Minerva Solano appealed the Community Development Director�s decision to approve the project, due to increased traffic and safety concerns. (Exhibit D-1)  The public notice mailed for the appeal hearing is attached as Exhibit A-3.  The Planning Board ultimately denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director�s decision to approve the project.

On February 14, 2006, Ms. Laura Dietz appealed the Planning Board�s decision to approve the project and on February 24, 2006, Mr. Joseph Brown also appealed.  This appeal was withdrawn on April 4, 2006.  On March 1, 2006, Council Member Dr. David Gordon appealed the Planning Board�s decision to approve the project. (Exhibits D-2 through D-5) The Appellants reasons for appeal are discussed further below.

Public Correspondence: Staff has received opposition and support letters for the project (Exhibit E).  At the Planning Board meeting of December 12, 2005, one member of the public spoke in favor of the project, and at the Planning Board meeting of February 13, 2006, three members of the public spoke in favor of the project, and two members of the public spoke against the project, besides the appellant.

ANALYSIS

Surrounding Neighborhood: The subject property is generally surrounded by other R-4 zoned properties.  Property across Alameda Avenue to the north is zoned C-2 Limited Commercial.  Adjacent and abutting properties are improved with one-story duplexes similar to the existing buildings on the property, with one other property on this block having a second floor, at the southeast corner of Alameda and Omer Lane.  Properties across Alameda to the north are two- and three-floors above grade.  There is generally ground level parking.  Bruce Lane to the east is developed similarly to Omer Lane, with primarily one-story duplexes.  Properties to the rear, across Spazier Avenue, are developed with higher density multi-family structures, two to three stories above grade.

The subject block of Omer Lane was zoned for medium density residential uses, and the property was zoned for up to 22 units, prior to August 15, 2005.  The new R-4 High Density regulations (effective after August 15, 2005) would allow 12 units, three less than the proposal (one unit for each 1,400 square feet), or eight more units than exist on the property currently.   However, the new code continues to allow a three story building and 70 percent lot coverage because of the distance from R-1 zoned properties.

Department Comments:  The Planning Division held a Development Review meeting on September 15, 2005, which was attended by other City Department representatives.  Conditional approval was given on September 22, 2005.  Department comments of note include:

• Park, Recreation and Community Services Department: Art in Public Places Development Fee applies and a Tree Report is required, as the Applicant will have to pay for the value of any large trees removed on site.

• Police Department: Exterior entrances shall be shown with a Knox box.  

• Public Works Department Engineering Division: Five foot easements along the northwest, northeast, and southeast property lines to be shown with required clearances.

Traffic Engineering: Applicant shall dedicate six feet along Spazier Avenue for street purposes (addressed in plans, Exhibit B-2).

• Burbank Water and Power Department: Show pad-mounted transformer with required clearances.

No other City Departments or Divisions had comments that would significantly change the appearance of the project or the site layout, with the exception of the Spazier Avenue dedication, which has been accommodated in current plans and does not cause significant changes to the exterior appearance of the building.  These comments are attached to the Development Review approval letter, Exhibit C.

Issues Raised by the Appellant and Staff Response in Italic: On February 14, 2006, Ms. Laura Dietz appealed the Planning Board�s decision to deny the initial appeal and approve the project based on �new traffic will over burden the already congested streets.� (Exhibit D-2)  Ms. Dietz called the Planning Division office on March 9, 2006, stating that she has met with the developer and is no longer concerned about parking issues, and would have wished to withdraw her appeal, however, she will not as she wants this opportunity to address the City Council regarding the appeal and project.   Her concerns, however, are still discussed below.

On February 24, 2006, Mr. Joseph Brown appealed the decision to approve the project based on �there is not enough parking available on this street and there would be too much traffic.  Also there was no guarantee that this project would be condominiums and not apartments.� (Exhibit D-3)  Mr. Brown withdrew his appeal on April 4, 2006, stating that he is having medical problems and because of the pain, he can not concentrate on this appeal. (Exhibit D-4)  Although the appeal is officially withdrawn, Mr. Brown�s concerns are discussed below.

In response to the concern about traffic and overburdened streets, the Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the project proposal and conducted traffic counts on both Omer Lane and Spazier Avenue.  There are no recommended additional traffic measures as a result of an additional 11 units being constructed on Omer Lane.

The project, which is proposed to be constructed with parking spaces that meet current and past code requirements, is replacing four units that are not parked to code.  The existing four units on the two lots would be required, by today�s code, to have nine parking spaces (two per unit and one guest space).  There are two garages providing a maximum of four covered parking spaces for the two units.  Therefore, the proposed project would replace units that are not parked to code.  In addition, the project is not changing the availability of street parking.  There will be 11 more residential units built on the street, and those new residents would be as entitled to park on the street as any other resident.  It is the intention that the secured parking would be a first choice.  The parking condition on this street already exists as a result of the older development that is not parked to code, and possibly to overcrowded units.  This project will not rectify that situation.

In regards to the project being apartments or condominiums, Mr. Brown is correct in stating that there was no guarantee that the project would be condominiums and not apartments.  However, the code does not differentiate between these two types of multi-family projects, and all code sections have been addressed and met, regardless of rental or ownership units.  The Environmental Information application form, submitted with the project, states that additional related permits include �subdivision process� and that �after completion the units will be offered for sale.�  However, a Tract Map application has yet to be filed, and the units can not be legally offered for sale until a tract map is recorded.   If and when that application is submitted, it will be processed according to code, which requires a 21-day, 1000� mailing radius.

On March 1, 2006, Council Member Dr. David Gordon (appeal signed as David W. Gordon) appealed the project �in order to bring the matter in front of the entire Council and to be certain that an appeal is heard.  The whole Council should discuss the following issues: compatibility with neighborhood; landscape screening/buffering with adjacent properties; effects on adjoining/abutting properties; impacts on neighborhood character.� (Exhibit D-5)

Development Review approval of multi-family projects requires that ten findings be supported.  Included in these findings are: neighborhood compatibility, with regards to height, size, massing, proportions, etc�(Finding 4); on-site landscaping screening (Finding 8); and, that the project characteristics are designed to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood � (Finding 10).

Neighborhood compatibility is not necessarily determined by what development exists in a neighborhood, but by what is envisioned and intended by the General Plan.  There is a dilemma when the General Plan encourages and the Zoning Code allows for development that may have not yet occurred on a particular block, but what is intended to occur over time.  In that this property owner assembled two properties, this project is automatically different from other properties on this block dominated by one lot, single-story duplex development.  Couple that with this property being located more than 500 feet from a single family residential zone, which permits up to three stories and higher densities, and this project will be different in size and scale than its immediate existing neighbors on Omer.  That does not mean that this project will always be the oddity on the street, but may encourage additional redevelopment in an area where higher densities are encouraged by the General Plan and the Zoning Code.

Although this project differs in size and scale from its existing neighbors on Omer Lane, the Architect has proposed a project that incorporates current architectural style, with pitched roofing and stucco siding, similar to adjacent buildings.  And although up to 22 units and 70 percent lot coverage is permitted, the Applicant proposed 15 units with 59 percent lot coverage.  In contrast, under new code, 12 units and 70 percent lot coverage is permitted with the same height and number of stories as proposed.

With regards to landscape buffering, the project is shown with six foot wide landscaped side yards, and a landscaped rear yard along Spazier Avenue.  The project is required to be shown with a minimum of 15 percent landscape coverage, and 24 percent is shown; 14 trees are required, and 46 are shown.  Staff believes that the proposed landscaping provides a buffer for neighboring properties.

The impact on character of the neighborhood, which is single level 50-year old duplexes, will be to update the street.  The project is located at the head of the cul-de-sac, near other multi-level multi-family buildings along Spazier, where it will have the least impact on the neighborhood�s existing character.  It is not located mid-block and will therefore not create a break on this short streetscape.

Planning Board Deliberations:  The Planning Board first heard Ms. Solano�s appeal on December 12, 2005.  (Exhibit F-1) Ms. Maria Martinez spoke for Ms. Solano and said that parking is overcrowded on their narrow street.  She believed the increase in traffic would create a safety hazard for the many children living there.  The Board suggested that having a secondary access from Spazier might alleviate some traffic issues.  The Board voted to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to respond to the suggestion of taking access off of Spazier.  The Board also requested additional information regarding traffic counts on both Omer and Spazier.

The continued hearing was held on February 13, 2006.  (Exhibit F-2)  The Architect prepared alternatives to the garage access showing the ability to have one-way access from Spazier, exiting onto Omer or this could be switched from Omer to Spazier. (Exhibit B-3)  Revised plans required the removal of a landscape buffer from the rear of the property, along Spazier Avenue, and 16 of the 33 parking spaces being in tandem pairs, which is allowed for projects of fewer than 20 units.  Staff stated that this proposal was code compliant, however not preferred because of the loss of landscaping at the rear and the creation of tandem parking.

Staff also presented the results of the traffic counts conducted at the Board�s request.  (Exhibit F-3) The Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Division conducted traffic counts on both Omer Lane and Spazier Avenue on December 14 and 15, 2005, and January 13, 2006.  Counts show that in a 24-hour period, Omer Lane currently has 107 ingress trips and 131 egress trips.  Spazier Avenue is shown with 165 ingress trips and 400 egress trips.    Both Omer Lane and Spazier Avenue have 40-foot rights-of-way.  Omer Lane is a cul-de-sac and Spazier Avenue ends into the Los Angeles Flood Control Channel.  These numbers are not considered unusual for either residential street.  An additional 11 units as proposed by this project would create an additional 74 daily vehicular trips on Omer Lane, again, not considered unusual for a residential street and not warranting additional traffic control measures.  This would increase the total number of vehicular trips on Omer Lane to 312.

In addition to the traffic counts, staff calculated the number of dwelling units that are present and possible under current code on both Spazier Avenue and Omer Lane.  Spazier Avenue currently has 79 dwelling units.  The chart below shows the highest number of units that could be added to Omer Lane should each lot be developed, and the number of units that could be permitted if adjoining lots were to be combined, under maximum scenarios and new code densities. 

            * Daily trips from 68 units are 457, which is still less than existing daily trips on Spazier.

The Board reviewed all of this information and heard public testimony.  Two Board Members stated they were leaning toward Staff�s recommendation on the project and one Board Member stated he was having difficulty meeting the findings.  Between the two Board meetings, the Board had been reduced to three members.  It takes an action of all three members to overturn the Director�s decision to approve the project and the Board stated concerns over preserving the appeal rights of the appellant.  The City Attorney representative explained to the Board that they could pass a minute order, rather than a resolution, so they would not have to unanimously support or deny the appeal, and than this would preserve the appeal rights.  But after further discussion, the Board voted 3-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director�s decision to approve the project. (Exhibit F-4)

Environmental Status: The project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act, pertaining to infill development.  A Public Notice of Environmental Determination (PNOED) was posted on August 19, 2005, stating this exemption. (Exhibit G)

CONCLUSION

It is staff's assessment that this project meets or is conditioned to meet all of the applicable code requirements and that approval of this Development Review application for a 15-unit multiple family residential project can be made.

Requirements for Approval of a Development Review Application for a Multiple Family Residential Project: BMC Sec. 31-1912(b) requires that the following findings be met prior to approval of a Development Review application for a multiple family project:

1. All provisions of this Code will be satisfied.

The proposed project complies with all requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) subject to compliance with all comments and conditions attached to the Community Development Director�s Development Review approval letter.

2. The environmental document prepared for this project was considered prior to project approval and satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (�CEQA�) or the project is exempt from CEQA.

The project was determined to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to infill development.  This exemption satisfies the requirements of CEQA.

3. The project, as conditioned, will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; or, that any remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations as provided by CEQA.

The proposed project will not result in any significant adverse effects on the environment.

4. The following features of all structures on the site, including parking garages, fences, and walls, are reasonably compatible and consistent with the project site itself and with existing residential properties and structures in the surrounding neighborhood: height, size and massing, proportions, articulation, elevations, pedestrian entry locations and circulation, roof style and pitch, locations placement and orientation.

The 17,015 square foot property is permitted to have a maximum of 22 units, one for each 750 square feet of lot area, and 15 units are proposed. [BMC Sec. 31-645(c)]  The subject property is not located within 500 feet of the R-1 Single Family Residential zone, which allows for a 35 foot structure height (roof and architectural features may exceed this height to 50 feet) and 70 percent lot coverage.  The 35 foot height and 59 percent lot coverage are code compliant. [BMC Secs. 31-645(d)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)]  As shown on the submitted plans, the code required setbacks are met: 15 foot front yard; six foot interior side yards; and, six foot rear yard. [BMC Sec. 31-645(e)]

Every dwelling unit is required to have a minimum of one wall from a primary living area (living or dining room) which contains at least eight feet of transparent material fronting onto either a public street or at least 20 feet of on-site open space. [BMC Sec. 31-645(h)]  Each of the 15 units, five on each of the three floors, is shown meeting this requirement.

 

A minimum of 50 square feet of private open space, with a minimum depth of five feet, is required for each unit. [BMC Sec. 31-645(j)]  Each unit is shown with private balconies, meeting minimum area and dimension requirements.

 

Developments in R-4 zones shall include a trash storage area with enclosures on three sides a minimum of four feet high. [BMC Sec. 31-1107]  A trash and recycling room within the garage meets this requirement.

 

Multiple family projects are required to include entries that establish the character of the project, through massing, courtyards, and enriched materials, colors, and landscaping, with decorative paving for all entry walks within exposed yards. [BMC Secs. 31-1113(b)(5) and (6)]  Plans show a six foot deep by 24-foot wide entry alcove at the front elevation leading to an interior courtyard with access to all units.

 

Building facades are required to contain elements designed to provide visual variation, such as floor breaks, balconies, and recesses.  A minimum of 25 percent of each upper floor elevation is required to have an additional setback of five feet, with no wall surface exceeding 36 feet without a significant break. [BMC Sec. 31-1113(f)]  All elevations meet these requirements.

 

Additional architectural requirements include four-inch minimum depth for wall opening recesses for windows or doors, a minimum of six-inch trim around windows and doors, multi-paned windows, and recessed building entries that are visually articulated by using semi-circular, parabolic, or flattened archways, edge moldings/bands, or pilasters.  Ventilation grills are prohibited on front facades, unless screened by landscaping.  Code requirements with regard to the building fa�ade are met. [BMC Sec. 31-1113(f)]

 

BMC Secs. 31-1113(2) requires that rooftop equipment be surrounded by screening, which is met by four foot high interior parapet walls and proposed roofing.

 

BMC Sec. 31-1302 requires that no wall, fence, or hedge within the 15 foot front yard exceed a height of three feet, or eight feet behind the front yard setback area.  This item will be verified at plan check for neighborhood compatibility and code compliance.

 

Development Review Finding 4, and BMC Sec. 31-1113(t), require that multiple family residential projects provide balance, scale, completeness, and style, and blending with the neighborhood in terms of design and appearance.  Surrounding properties on Omer Lane are developed with one- and two-story duplexes, and have stucco and wood siding materials.  The architectural style on the block is consistent, appearing to have been developed at the same time. 

 

While the proposed project will be one to two stories taller than existing properties on the block, the level of architectural will improve the appearance of the block.  Architectural detail is provided on all elevations of the proposed project, with divided light and arched windows; barrel tile roofing; decorative wrought iron railings, and roof corbels.  Elevation plans show an attractive building.

 

Typical block parking and pedestrian location and access are at-grade and accessed from the street. The proposed project has semi-subterranean parking with access from the street.  These access areas are consistent with nearby properties.  However, it appears as if Omer and Bruce Lanes were developed with duplexes that have common shared driveways leading to rear yard garages.  The Applicant has shown on plans that an access easement will be granted to the property to the east to allow for a ten foot wide driveway to access the existing garage on that property.

 

The proposed pitch and design of the roof are consistent with nearby properties, whereas the barrel tile roofing differs from nearby properties with composite roofing material, which staff believes is consistent with an attractive architectural style.

5. Parking areas and their access points are located and arranged so as to be compatible and consistent with existing residential properties and structures along the block in which the project site is located, except where inappropriate or undesirable due to vehicle or pedestrian safety or circulation issues.

BMC Secs. 31-645(g) and 31-1401 require a minimum of two parking spaces for two-bedroom units and a guest parking space for each five units, with minimum parking space dimensions of eight feet six inches wide by 18 feet in length.  The project is shown with 15 units that are two and three bedrooms, requiring 30 unit parking spaces with three required guest parking spaces, for a total of 33 required parking stalls.  Plan Sheet A-1 shows 33 parking stalls located within the semi-subterranean garage, with minimum dimensions met.

 

Other properties on the block have at grade parking with access from the street.  The proposed project has parking access from the street, located and arranged so as to be compatible and consistent with existing residential properties along the block.

6. Vehicle circulation areas and access points are located and designed so as to minimize hazards to pedestrians and to vehicles traveling on public streets and alleys, and to minimize interaction between vehicles and pedestrians using public sidewalks, entering or leaving the project site, and entering or exiting the parking area.

One garage access point is located at the front of the project, minimizing hazards to pedestrians and vehicles traveling on public streets and alleys.

7. Tenant and guest parking spaces are located and arranged so as to be readily accessible and easily useable by tenants and guests so as to discourage the use of on-street parking.

Tenant and guest parking spaces are readily accessible to tenants and guests from one access point at the front of the project.  BMC Sec. 31-1407 states that required parking spaces are required to be kept free from storage of materials to allow for their use as vehicle parking.  Separate storage lockers are shown on plans, which will assist in compliance with this code section and discourage the use of on-street parking to the greatest extent possible.

8. The on-site landscaping provides adequate screening and buffering between the project site and adjacent and abutting properties.

BMC Secs. 31-645(k) and 31-1113(e) require that a minimum of 15 percent of the 17,015 square foot lot be landscaped, or 2,553 square feet for the subject property, with a minimum of one tree for each 40 linear feet of yard.  Approximately 4,133 square feet of landscaping is shown, meeting code.  A minimum of fourteen trees are required, spaced throughout the yards, with a minimum of one front yard tree 48-inch box size, and remaining trees a minimum of 24-inch box size.  The 2,250 square foot common open space area shall be shown with a minimum of four trees, with two 24-inch box size and two fifteen-gallon size.

 

Planting areas are required to be a minimum of 18 inches deep and two feet in their smallest dimension, and tree planters are required to be a minimum of three feet deep and four feet in their smallest dimension. [BMC Sec. 31-1113(e)(1)(E)]  BMC Sec. 31-1113(s) requires the preservation of existing on-site trees when possible, or their replacement elsewhere on the site.  Those trees preserved on-site may count towards required yard trees.  Existing trees, those to remain and be removed, are required to be listed and shown on plans. 

 

Final landscape plans are required to be prepared by a registered landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review.  These plans shall clearly indicate and show all required landscaping and trees, in addition to the landscaping and trees required for the common open space, as discussed in Finding 9.  This plan shall indicate that all planting is designed and installed in such a way as to ensure that the landscaping shall reach maturity within five years of its planting, pursuant to BMC Sec. 31-1207.  Additional code requirements related to the amount of allowable ground cover and shrub sizes can be found in BMC Sec. 31-1113(e)(4).  Submitted plans show that landscaping requirements are met.

9. The common open space areas and amenities of the project, including but not limited to common balconies, decks, patios, and courtyards, are located and arranged so as to maximize and encourage use by project residents, and so as to minimize detrimental effects to adjacent and abutting properties including those related to noise, privacy, light, and views into the open space areas from the adjacent and abutting properties.

A minimum of 150 square feet per unit (2,250 square feet) of common open space is required, with at least 80 percent open to the sky (1,800 square feet), convenient access, decorative pavement, and minimum dimensions of ten feet by 20 feet.  Plans note an approximate 51 foot by 57 foot interior courtyard, with 1,840 square feet open to the sky. [BMC Sec. 31-645(i)]

 

BMC Secs. 31-1113(e)(1)(F) and (e)(2) require a minimum of 15 percent, or 338 square feet, of landscaping for the common open space, with pots and planters having a minimum depth of 18 inches and two feet diameter.  Planters supporting tree growth shall have a minimum depth of three feet, with a minimum three foot six inch diameter.  All planters are required to be permanent, with an irrigation system.  Plans shall show a minimum of one tree for each 600 square feet of required common open space, or four trees, with a minimum of two of those trees being 24-inch box size, and the remaining trees permitted to be 15-gallon size.  Landscape plans shall show that trees will not be planted underneath building overhangs, which will limit their growth.  Finally, all pavement must be brick, tile or other comparable quality permanent, decorative treatment, which is not shown on plans.  The building complex shall be oriented to maximize sunlight for the common open space area, which is shown with the open area. [BMC Sec. 31-1113(c)]

 

BMC Sec. 31-1113(d) requires a project amenity, and benches are shown.  Although additional amenities are not required, staff suggests a fountain, or a table, chairs, and barbeque be located at the center of the courtyard.  Given that the open space and amenities are located at the center of the project surrounded by the building, it does not appear as if noise, privacy, light or views from will be detrimental to nearby properties.  Code requirements related to common open space are met on plans.

10. All of the project characteristics discussed within this Subsection are located, arranged, and designed so as to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood; and so as not be detrimental or injurious to the quality of life of residents of the project and of nearby properties; or to the public peace, interest, convenience, health, safety, or general welfare.

The project, as conditioned, is consistent with all City codes and standards regarding the size, location, and types of these items. The project design is as compatible with surrounding properties as is practicable, given the size and the amount of units being requested.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Board�s decision to approve the project and deny the appeal, affirming the Community Development Director�s decision to approve Project No. 2005-84 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A-1 - Zoning and Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map

A-2 - Public Notice for Director�s Decision

A-3 - Public Notice for Planning Board Appeal Hearing

A-4 - Public Notice for City Council Appeal Hearing

Exhibit B-1 - Development Review Application Package (Inc. site and area pictures)

B-2 - Project Plans (Attached)

B-3 - Alternative Garage Plans (Not Approved Plans)

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

Exhibit D-1 - Planning Board Appeal Form and letter, Ms. Minerva Solano

D-2 - Appeal Form, Ms. Laura Dietz

D-3 - Appeal Form, Mr. Joseph Brown

D-4 - Letter from Mr. Joseph Brown withdrawing appeal

D-5 - Appeal Form, Council Member Dr. David Gordon

Exhibit E - Public Correspondence

Exhibit F-1 - Planning Board Minutes from December 12, 2005

F-2 - Planning Board Minutes from February 13, 2006

F-3 - Traffic Count Charts

F-4 - Planning Board Resolution No. 3019 dated February 13, 2006

Exhibit G - Public Notice of Environmental Decision (PNOED)

go to the top