APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2006-126 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council approve Project No. 2006-126 Development Review, a request by Avjet to construct an aircraft hangar with office space at the Bob Hope Airport.  The project was denied by the Planning Board on appeal, and the applicant has appealed the Planning Board�s decision and revised the design of the proposed project in response to concerns raised by the Board.

BACKGROUND:

Project History:

On August 31, 2006, the Community Development Director approved Project No. 2006-126 Development Review.  The application was processed as a ministerial application per the requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code.  The project included two stories of office space and indoor aircraft storage space.  The proposed hangar would be used to store privately owned aircraft and would not be used to store commercial carrier aircraft.  The proposed office space would be to provide support functions related to the general aviation services provided in the adjoining hangar.

On September 15, 2006, Burbank residents Philip and Carolyn Berlin filed an appeal of the Director�s decision.  The appeal was based upon the appellants� belief that the requirements of Ordinance No. 3702, approved by the City Council on August 8, 2006, were applicable to the subject application.  The basis for the appeal and staff�s response thereto are described fully in the Planning Board staff report, attached as Exhibit 1.

At the Planning Board hearing, the appellants stated that after reviewing the staff report, they agreed with staff�s assessment that Ordinance No. 3702 did not apply to the subject application.  The appellants then orally presented an entirely new argument that was not presented in their written appeal to the Planning Board.  The appellants argued that the subject application should not be approved due to the zoning of the project site and the terms of the Development Agreement between the City of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.  The site is partially zoned AP Airport and partially zoned M-2 General Industrial.  The appellants argued that the office proposed to be located in the M-2 zone constitutes an airport use, which is prohibited in the M-2 zone.  The appellants further argued that the proposed project constitutes an expansion of the general aviation area at the Airport, and as such is not permitted under the terms of the Development Agreement that governs the use and development of the project site.

Planning Board Deliberations:

The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the application and the appeal on November 6, 2006.  Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit 2.  Because the appellants abandoned their initial grounds for appeal, most of the Board�s deliberations focused on the issue of the M-2 zone and the Airport Development Agreement and whether the office portion of the project as proposed is permitted in the M-2 zone, and whether the entire project is permitted under the terms of the Agreement.  The Board asked questions of the applicant�s representative related to the operations of the proposed hangar and office space, and the interior configuration and uses of the office space, in an effort to determine the exact nature of the office use and its relationship to the hangar proposed to be located in the Airport zone.  The Board considered whether the office portion of the project should be considered an office use and therefore permitted in the M-2 zone, or considered an airport use incidental to the hangar, and therefore prohibited in the M-2 zone.

Several Board members believed that adequate information was not available from the application package or the applicant�s representative to provide a basis for a decision.  Several Board members were also uncertain about the terms of the Development Agreement between the Airport and the City.  The Board voted 3-2 to uphold the appeal and deny the application (Exhibit 3).  The two dissenting Board members, Thomas and Petrulis, indicated that they believed they did not have adequate information on which to make a decision.  They sought additional details about the interior configuration and use of the office space before making a decision.

Appeal:

On November 13, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision (Exhibit 4).  Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant submitted revised project plans in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Board.  The revisions to the plans are discussed in the analysis section below.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning:

The original plans submitted for Development Review showed a portion of the proposed structure located within the M-2 zone.  Any portion of the structure in the M-2 zone could not be an airport use, because airport uses are prohibited in the M-2 zone.  The original plans submitted with the Development Review application showed a portion of the office space and a very small portion of the aircraft hangar area within the M-2 zone.  Prior to the Planning Board hearing, the applicant submitted revised plans that clearly separated the portion of the structure located within the M-2 zone from the aircraft storage area located within the Airport zone.  With this modification, the only uses located within the M-2 zone were office and storage areas.  For zoning purposes, staff considered the office to be an office use permitted in the M-2 zone, even though it was physically connected and related to the adjoining aircraft hangar.

While staff�s assessment was that the proposed structure was allowed in the M-2 zone as office and storage uses, members of the Planning Board were concerned that the office and storage areas could be considered an airport use due to their proximity and relationship to the hangar use.  During the public hearing, the Planning Board sought more specific information about how the interior office space would be configured and about the anticipated operations of the hangar and related office space.  Staff acknowledges that the interior configuration of the office space and the nature of how it is used in relation to the hangar could be important in making the determination about whether the use would be permitted in the M-2 zone.  The Planning Board generally believed that the information available from the plans and the applicant�s representative was not adequate to make this determination.

The applicant has responded to the concerns raised by the Planning Board about the permissibility of the office use in the M-2 zone by modifying the project design.  Following the Planning Board hearing, the applicant submitted revised plans showing a modified project layout that locates the proposed building entirely out of the M-2 zone (Exhibit 5).  The revised design, which is now before the City Council for consideration, places the building entirely within the Airport zone, including the office and aircraft hangar components.  No portion of the building would be located within the M-2 zone.  This eliminates the need to analyze how the proposed office is configured or operates in relation to the hangar.  Per the terms of the Airport Development Agreement, �aircraft hangars� and �general aviation facilities and incidental commercial uses normally and traditionally associated with general aviation services (including, for example, passenger and pilot lounges, and offices)� are interpreted as being permitted uses within the Airport zone.  Therefore, the proposed project in its entirety, including the aircraft hangar and office components, is permitted within the Airport zone.  In addition to the revised plans, the applicant submitted a letter and Power Point presentation documenting the changes to the project design and providing additional details about the intended operations of the project that were sought by the Planning Board (Exhibit 6).  The applicant intends to show the Power Point presentation at the City Council hearing.

The revised project design differs from the previous design as shown in the following table.  Staff notes that while portions of the previous design were required to comply with the development standards for the M-2 zone, the building is now proposed to be located entirely within the Airport zone, where no development standards apply.  This means that the proposed structure is not required to comply with any development standards including setbacks, height, or parking.

The only improvements related to the proposed project that would be located in the M-2 zone are landscaping, a driveway leading from Clybourn Avenue to the parking area, and a pedestrian path from the sidewalk and parking area to the front door of the building.  The proposed landscaping would satisfy the landscaping requirements of the M-2 zone, including landscaped area and the number and sizes of trees and shrubs (notwithstanding uncertainty as to whether such requirements apply to a structure located entirely within the Airport zone).  Although the driveway and pedestrian path are being used to access an airport use located in the Airport zone, the improvements are not considered �uses� for zoning purposes and are therefore allowed in the M-2 zoned portion of the property.  Further, the pedestrian path is required by the Building Code to provide an accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way to the building.

Development Agreement:

At the Planning Board hearing, there also was discussion about the terms of the Development Agreement pertaining to the area allowed for general aviation purposes at the Airport.  Section 3.8(d) of the Agreement provides as follows:

The Authority shall not increase the cumulative gross square footage of Airport property allocated to general aviation uses beyond the area shown on Exhibit 20.

Exhibit 20 is a map that indicates the area allocated by the Agreement for general aviation purposes.  As shown on the map (Exhibit 7), the project site is included within the area identified in the Agreement for general aviation.  Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the area for general aviation uses beyond that identified in the Agreement and is consistent with Section 3.8(d) of the Agreement.  As noted above, general aviation facilities and incidental commercial uses are permitted under the Agreement within the Airport zone.  Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the terms of the Agreement.

CONCLUSION:

The subject application must be acted upon through a ministerial process as provided by the Burbank Municipal Code.  As a ministerial application, the City Council may not exercise any discretion over the application, and may not impose any conditions of approval on the project.  If the Council determines that the proposed project complies with the zoning and with the terms of the Development Agreement, the Council must approve the application.

With the revised design now proposed by the applicant, the proposed hangar and office structure would be located entirely within the Airport zone.  The entire project, including the hangar, office areas, and related parking, is permitted in the Airport zone.   The improvements proposed in the M-2 zone are not considered uses and are permitted in the M-2 zone.  The project is consistent with the terms of the Airport Development Agreement, and the project site is located within the area designated in the Agreement for general aviation uses.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the application for Project No. 2006-126 Development Review, as revised by the applicant.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1           Planning Board staff report dated November 6, 2006 and all exhibits thereto

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution No. 3063 dated November 6, 2006

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from November 6, 2006

Exhibit 4           Appeal form submitted by applicant

Exhibit 5           Revised plans submitted by applicant

Exhibit 6           Letter and Power Point presentation submitted by applicant

Exhibit 7           Map of general aviation areas (Development Agreement Exhibit 20)

go to the top