PROJECT NO. 2006-047, Development Review

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this staff report is for the City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2006-047, Development Review application 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. The access to the alley was removed, and relocated to Evergreen Street because the Public Works Department would not support access to Magnolia Boulevard. Comments from the Transportation section of the Planning and Transportation Division indicate that the originally 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 Magnolia Park Commercial General Business (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 contemporary whereas the surrounding neighborhood reflects more traditional design styles. Some residents indicated at the community meeting held on June 19, 2006 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 of particular concern to them because they believe that the building should be no 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 Meetings:

On June 19, 2006, a community meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. during which neighbors expressed their concerns about the project. Approximately 24 residents came to the community meeting. Many of the residents in attendance were opposed to the aforementioned components of the project, as they did not want occupants of the building utilizing the alley adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood which they believed 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 by 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. Two people who attended the community meeting were in favor of the project as they believed the proposed project would benefit the area and bring economic vitality to the surrounding neighborhood.

After the community meeting on June 19, 2006, staff asked the applicant to modify the building design. The architect removed the roof-top terrace and access from the easement to the alley in the rear. However, no changes were made to the design to make it consistent with the Magnolia Park development standards. Therefore, the project was again denied by the Director.

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

The Planning Board denied the three-story project at the appeal hearing, which is discussed later in the report. The applicant then appealed the decision and requested another community meeting which was held on March 7, 2007 at 3:00 p.m., during which five neighbors expressed additional concerns regarding the revised two-story office building. The residents were in continued opposition to the height of the building, which went from 35� to 27� to the top plate of the second-story office floor, and 35� to the top of the architectural features. They were also opposed to the size of the building and believe that there is an insufficient number of parking spaces provided for the proposed project. The residents still believe there will be an increase in the number of cars traveling on Evergreen Street as a result of the proposed office building, which will then lead to a decrease of safety for pedestrians and children that play in the alley and on Evergreen Street. Additionally, the residents believe it would be unsafe for people exiting the office building from the subterranean parking garage onto Evergreen Street. The applicant is willing to add mirrors or a drop arm, which would require cars to stop before exiting the parking garage. Lastly, the residents were in continued opposition of the subterranean parking garage, as they believe it to be unsafe and that grading and construction of this parking garage would damage homes and structures in close proximity to the proposed office building.

Another community meeting was held on April 2, 2007 at 5:00 p.m., which was requested by a local resident who could not attend the previous meeting that was held during working hours. Approximately six residents attended this community meeting. The neighbors were in continued opposition to the height of the building, which was reduced from 35� to 27� to the top plate of the second-story office, and 35� to the top of the architectural features. One resident stated that the building height should have been reduced by one-third, which would be approximately 24� high. Additionally, a resident was concerned about the zero setback along Magnolia Boulevard, and more importantly, along Evergreen Street. The MPC-3 design/development standards require that the ground levels of all structures be built at the front property lines for a minimum of 80% of the linear frontage of the structure, which includes front and side-street property lines. A majority of corner buildings along Magnolia Boulevard and residential streets are built at a zero setback with ingress for parking along the residential side street (Exhibit 8). The residents disliked the zero setback requirements and did not believe it to be appropriate at the subject corner. Staff explained that the intent of buildings constructed at a zero setback is to promote a pedestrian friendly and walkable street with building fronts located on the property line and close to the street. Additionally, some residents had concerns that the grading activities for the proposed subterranean parking garage would damage their homes. The subject property is approximately 65� from a single-family residentially zoned property. There is a home located directly behind the subject property, which is a legal, non-conforming single-family home on a commercially zoned property. The public has provided additional correspondence opposed to the project (Exhibit 9).

Planning Board:

On October 23, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider a request by the applicant to construct a three-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 three-story building was inconsistent with the surrounding commercial neighborhood where most buildings are only two stories in height. Staff recommended approval of the project as the applicant had changed the design of the building following the Director�s denial of the original Development Review application.

During the Planning Board hearing, 10 people spoke on this matter. 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 would 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 about which the applicant stated 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 regard to air quality and noise, and impact the adjacent properties with regard 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 California Environmental Quality Act (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 concerns noted above as well as not being able to make the findings required for a Development Review (Exhibit 2). On November 1, 2006, the applicant appealed this decision.

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 and an increase of the first and second floors for a total net decrease in 4,782 square feet less than the originally proposed building, and an additional three parking spaces. The applicant also again modified the design, but is still proposing to meet the Magnolia Park design standards and will be required to provide landscaping and variation in building color (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.

 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 currently proposed plans.

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, setbacks, and required dedications. He further stated 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. At the community meeting of March 7, 2007, it was suggested that there be additional landscaping as a means of softening the edge of the building. The applicant has agreed to add landscaping on and around the building. Staff has recommended that the applicant incorporate a more varied color palette on the building as well as a variation in the exterior building materials included in the conditions of approval. The applicant does not need to apply for any variances as the proposed project falls within code limitations. The appellant is therefore requesting that Council approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Board�s decision to deny the Development Review request.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the appeal, overturning the Planning Board�s decision to deny, and approving 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 of Planning Board�s decision 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 and revised plans submitted by the applicant for City Council

Exhibit 8           Photographs of properties along Magnolia Boulevard with buildings at a zero

                          property line on residential streets

Exhibit 9           Public correspondence received by the Planning Division

go to the top