PROJECT NO. 2006-047, Development Review

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2006-047, Development Review to construct a three-story office building on a 12,500 square foot lot, over three levels of subterranean parking. The Planning Board denied the project due to outstanding concerns as well as not being able to make the findings required for a Development Review (Exhibit 2). The appeal was received from the applicant and architect, Hamlet Zohrabians, who states that the proposed project meets all zoning and building codes including density, height, floor area ratio, setbacks, design compatibility, and parking spaces (Exhibit 4). After the Planning Board meeting, the applicant revised the plans including the elimination of the third story, and reduced the total building square footage (Exhibit 7).

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description and History:

Development Review:

The applicant originally requested Development Review approval to construct a three-story office building on a 12,500 square foot lot, over three levels of subterranean parking. Original plans included access to and from the rear of the property across an easement on the abutting property through to the alley adjacent to the R-1 zone (Exhibit 5). Residents were concerned with traffic along the alley and asked the applicant to limit access to the building to Magnolia Boulevard. However, this request cannot be supported by the Public Works Department, who required that access be from Evergreen Street. Additionally, comments from the Transportation Planning Division indicate that the previously proposed 19,393 square feet of proposed office use is not expected to generate more than 50 peak hour trips in the AM or PM peak hour and is a typical use for the MPC-3 zone.

Original plans also included a roof-top terrace, which created privacy concerns for adjacent property owners and building elevations that were not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood or with the Magnolia Park standards (Exhibit 5). The plans initially submitted proposed an exterior that is not typical of the type of office building found in the area. The design was more of a contemporary design whereas the surrounding neighborhood reflects more traditional design styles. Some residents indicated at the community meeting and/or via email a preference for a more Mediterranean design which they believe is more consistent with the area. The terrace also gave some residents the impression that it would function as a fourth floor. This was a particular concern to them because they believed that the building should not be taller than two stories in the first place. Nevertheless, three-story buildings are permitted in the MPC-3 zone.

The Community Development Director denied the Development Review application as the project did not comply with the development standards in the MPC-3 Zone. These MPC-3 standards require placement of the building in such a manner as to promote pedestrian activity and maintain continuity of the streetscape. This section also pertains to the building style, materials and colors. The style and texture of new buildings are to be consistent and compatible with surrounding buildings through the use of the predominant materials found in the area.

Community Meeting:

On June 19, 2006, a community meeting was held during which neighbors expressed their concerns about the project. The surrounding residents were opposed to the aforementioned components of the project, as they did not want occupants of the building utilizing the alley that was adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood which would cause more traffic on Evergreen Street. Residents were also opposed to the proposed three-story office building and roof-top terrace as they believe a three-story building, although allowed in code, is out of character for the neighborhood. Furthermore, they were opposed to the original design of the proposed office building as they believed it to look very modern and out of character with the existing area that appears predominantly Mediterranean-style in design.

After the community meeting, staff asked the applicant to modify the building design. He removed the roof-top terrace and access from the easement in the rear to the alley. However, no changes were made to the design to make it consistent with the Magnolia Park development standards. Therefore, the project was denied by the Director.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the Director�s decision and provided revised plans for a 3-story office building consistent with the design of the surrounding neighborhood to meet the code and findings for Development Review approval (Exhibit 4 and 6).

Planning Board:

On October 23, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider a request by the applicant to construct a 3-story office building on a 12,500 square foot lot, over three levels of subterranean parking (Exhibit 1). The applicant met all of the setback requirements in an MPC-3 Zone, however, the Planning Board as well as the adjacent neighbors stated that the 3-story building was inconsistent with the surrounding commercial neighborhood where most buildings are only two stories in height.

There were 11 people who spoke during the hearing. Of those people, nine were against the project as they felt the three-story building was incompatible with the neighborhood and too massive for the lot. Residents believed the project would negatively impact the street parking and nearby homes would be negatively impacted and damaged from the excavation. Some neighbors were afraid that their homes would no longer have sun exposure. They believe that the increase of traffic will pose dangerous risks to the children and pets in the neighborhood. An adjacent property owner was in support of the project. The property owner stated that he had worked with his architect to address all of the needs of the community and that his project would create jobs and bring revenue to the City of Burbank.

During the Planning Board deliberation, the excavation for the subterranean parking was an issue to which the applicant confirmed that the plans had been reviewed by structural engineers to ensure the impact would be kept to a minimum and would not harm nearby homes. The Board raised questions about the building height, square footage, and parking. Staff confirmed that the maximum building height in an MPC-3 Zone is 35�. The proposed building square footage is allowed in code, and the parking met code requirements for the intended use. The Planning Board had concerns that the project would impact the neighborhood with regards to air quality and noise, and impact the adjacent properties with regards to shade and shadowing. Staff confirmed that the project would not have significant impacts to air quality, the project would be subject to the standards within the noise ordinance, and the CEQA exemption required no further analysis regarding shade and shadow analysis. The Planning Board thought that three stories was too much for the site but agreed that the site was in need of development. The Board members thought the project to be an asset to the neighborhood, but did not believe it fit with the community because of its height and massing. Lastly, the Board requested that there be another community meeting held so that the surrounding neighbors know what is being proposed (Exhibit 3).

The Planning Board denied the project 5-0 due to outstanding concerns as well as not being able to make the findings required for a Development Review. On November 1, 2006, the applicant appealed this decision (Exhibit 2).  

Following the October 23, 2006 Planning Board meeting at which the project was denied, the applicant revised the project to address the concerns of both the Planning Board as well as the community members who spoke at the public hearing. The current changes to the plans include the elimination of the third floor, which was 6,602 square feet, a second story comprised of 10,156 square feet, a first floor consisting of a total of 8,136 square feet, which is 4,782 square feet less than the originally proposed building, and an additional three parking spaces (Exhibit 7). The proposed office building will consist of 18,868 square feet, and will require 57 parking spaces, which will be provided. There is currently a vacant 580 square foot commercial building on the subject property that will be demolished.

Issues Raised by the Appellant:

The appellant explained in the appeal form (Exhibit 4) that the proposed project meets all zoning and building code requirements including density, height, floor area ratio, and setbacks. He further states that he changed the building style to be compatible and match the existing buildings in the neighborhood. The proposed project meets parking requirements and the parking configurations and access meet all engineering standards. The applicant does not need to apply for any variances as the proposed project falls within code limitations. The appellant is therefore requesting that the Council approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Board�s decision to deny the Development Review request.

Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements

*Applicant reduced the amount of lobby and circulation area square footage in project proposed at Planning Board and applied that square footage toward office area for recent proposed plans.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2006-047 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1           Planning Board staff report dated October 23, 2006 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution #3059 dated October 23, 2006

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from the October 23, 2006 public hearing

Exhibit 4           Appeal form submitted by Hamlet Zohrabians, Architect

Exhibit 5           Initial plans submitted by the applicant for Development Review

Exhibit 6           Revised plans submitted by the applicant for Planning Board

Exhibit 7           Final revised plans submitted by the applicant for City Council

go to the top