APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2006-146 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 approve Project No. 2006-146, a Development Review (DR) application to construct a two-story, 24�-11� tall commercial/office building with one level of at-grade parking and one level of subterranean parking at 1701 West Verdugo Avenue and 211 North Reese Place. A DR application for the project was approved by the Community Development Director on November 20, 2006, and was appealed on December 5, 2006 by Ms. Deanna Hughes. The appellant resides at 215 North Reese Place, which is an R-2 property that is immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. The appeal was denied by the Planning Board, on February 12, 2007, upholding the Director�s decision to approve the project.  The appellant then appealed the Planning Board�s decision to City Council on February 23, 2007, as allowed by Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) 31-1907.3. (Exhibit 4)

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description:

The project consists of a DR for the construction of a 24�-11� tall commercial/office building with one level of at-grade parking and one level of subterranean parking at 1701 West Verdugo Avenue and 211 North Reese Place. There are two parcels that comprise 1701 West Verdugo. The total area of the project site is approximately 17,963 SF. There are a total of 51 standard parking spaces proposed. The subterranean parking lot will consist of 35 standard parking spaces as well as ten additional tandem spaces that are not included in the parking calculations. The at-grade parking area which would be beneath the second floor and behind the retail portion of the proposed building includes 16 standard parking spaces. The parking provided is based on the code requirement of three spaces per 1,000 SF of office space and 3.3 spaces per 1,000 SF of retail use. The retail portion of the building is a single 4,881 SF commercial/retail tenant space. The second floor consists of 10,315 SF of office space. The total office square footage differs from the number shown on the plan in Exhibit B-2 of Exhibit 1, due to the fact that an additional five foot setback of the second floor was required by code. This resulted in the loss of approximately 605 SF of office space.

Project History:

In 2005, the applicant applied for a DR and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction of a three-story, mixed-use development that included retail space on the ground floor, office space on the second floor, and residential condominiums on the third floor. The project required a CUP due to the proposed residential component. That project was denied by the Planning Board on January 23, 2006, primarily due to concerns about traffic, height and massing, and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant appealed that decision, but ultimately withdrew the appeal. The applicant later submitted a DR application for a different project on the site. The new project is the commercial/retail building described herein and is the subject of this appeal.

The Code requires that there be a community meeting for projects that require DR prior to the Community Development Director�s decision. Notices with the project name, number, and description were mailed to all occupants and property owners within a 1,000� radius of the site ten days prior to the community meeting. (BMC 31-1909.1) Approximately eight residents attended the community meeting for this project. (Exhibit A-7 of Exhibit 1) Several of the residents in attendance were opposed to the project due to concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety, parking, privacy, length of the construction period, and overall compatibility with the neighborhood.

The DR application was approved by the Community Development Director subsequent to the community meeting and was then appealed to the Planning Board within the 15 day appeal period that follows the Director�s decision. The Planning Board denied the appeal at it�s meeting of February 12, 2007 and upheld the Director�s decision. The project was then appealed to the City Council by Ms. Hughes on February 23, 2007.  The stated reasons for the appeal were that the, �development is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood and poses safety risks to the community. Neighborhood concerns remain unaddressed.� There was also a nine page explanation of the reason for the appeal, which included photographic exhibits. (Exhibit 4)

This appeal was essentially the same as the one that had been previously submitted to the Planning Board. The main issues listed in the appeal are: compatibility, environmental concerns, �documentation issues� (having to do with comments from another City department about the project), land use �restrictions� (use restrictions the appellant would like to have placed on the property), and construction requirements, which the appellant stated should be agreed upon prior to DR approval.

The appellant summarized her appeal with the following statements. The statements from that summary are quoted and italicized below, and are followed by staff�s response.  Staff has made some assumptions about what the appellant is referring to based on what is said elsewhere in the appeal as well as at the community meeting and Planning Board meeting.

The project is too big for the area.

Staff is assuming that the appellant is referring to both the height of the proposed building as well as the overall size. The proposed retail/office building is 24�-11� measured from the top cornice and 24� in height to the top of the plate with an architectural element at the front elevation that is proposed to be 29� to 30� in height. The proposed building complies with all setback requirements including a buffer between the building and the adjacent R-2 property that is 20� on the first floor and 25� on the second floor. (See table on Page 4.) The overall retail and office square footage of the proposed building is 15,196 SF.

Will increase traffic and is a safety hazard for the community.

New commercial construction can sometimes have the effect of increasing the number of vehicle trips in a given area. However, the applicant has proposed the exit for the subterranean garage to be on Verdugo Avenue rather than on North Reese Place which will reduce the number of vehicle trips on Reese Place. The applicant will be required to place a right turn only sign on the Reese Place exit to divert traffic away from the residential portion of the street. Planning Board has required the applicant to work with Public Works Department Traffic Engineering to see if a physical barrier enforcing only right turns can be installed at the exit to Reese Place. The line of site from the parking lot on Reese Place will be preserved by the provision of a 7�-4� setback along Reese Place. Visibility for vehicles exiting the subterranean area onto Verdugo Avenue will be preserved by a five foot setback from the property line.

The development requirements have not been met and must be addressed.

The proposed retail/office building is an entirely code compliant project. All height, setback, landscaping, parking, and other requirements have been complied with. The appellant mentioned in her appeal a comment staff received from Burbank Water and Power (BWP) regarding the proposed location of the pad mount transformer. The applicant had proposed that it be located in one place and BWP required that it be located elsewhere on the site. Staff is assuming that this BWP comment is what the appellant is referring to in her appeal. Comments such as those submitted by BWP require modifications to the plans before they will sign off for the issuance of building permits. Sometimes conditions that other departments impose are negotiated between the department and the applicant to be sure that the needs of the City are satisfied and that the applicant is able to proceed with the project. 

The community�s health and well-being must be protected.

Staff is assuming that the appellant is referring to construction related safety issues as well as traffic related safety issues. All code required construction mitigations will be observed during construction. These requirements are enforced by the Building Division. The proposed building complies with other Building Code requirements such as the location of subterranean garage ventilation away from property lines. In this case it will more than comply with the minimum ten foot distance requirement. Shoring and grading plans will be checked by the plan check engineers in the Building Division and inspected by City building inspectors. Traffic related safety concerns have been addressed by measures to direct traffic away from the residential portion of Reese Place. The applicant has also proposed placing the egress for the subterranean parking at Verdugo Avenue thereby reducing the number of vehicles trips on Reese Place. Setbacks along both Reese Place and Verdugo Avenue will preserve the line of site for vehicles exiting parking areas. This will improve the visibility of pedestrians as well as oncoming bicycles and automobiles.

The development is incompatible with area.

The proposed retail/office building is a code compliant, two-story commercial structure in a commercial zone and is surrounded on the south, east and west by commercial uses. The proposed architecture is a traditional design and is not something that would stand out as unusual in the area. The proposed building is two-stories. Other buildings in the immediate vicinity are similar or the same height. The CVS pharmacy directly across the street is an example of such a building. The appellant listed 68 commercial uses in her appeal that she believes should be excluded. (Exhibit 4) Some of the uses listed are permitted or conditionally permitted in the C-2 zone; others are limited by their adjacency to residential, the amount of traffic they would generate, and parking requirements. As discussed elsewhere in this staff report, the Planning Division is required to sign off on business licenses as a means of monitoring and controlling commercial uses and ensuring that the uses requested are allowed in the zone.

The community is opposed to the development.

The original appeal form submitted by the appellant contained the names of five residents besides the appellant. (Exhibit 1) There was also a petition in opposition to the project that was submitted prior to the Director�s decision date. The petition was signed by 17 residents. Four residents spoke in opposition to the project at the Planning Board hearing. There were also several email letters received indicating opposition to the proposed building. (Exhibit 1)

Traffic will be negatively impacted.

The uses allowed in the building will be limited to those that do not result in the generation of more than 50 new peak AM or PM vehicle trips. The project as proposed and conditioned is not anticipated to generate more than 50 new peak hour trips. Furthermore, the amount of parking provided will limit the retail uses to general service and retail uses and will not accommodate a higher traffic generating use such as a restaurant.

Municipal Code Conformance:

Office and commercial/retail are permitted uses in the C-2 zone. The maximum height in the C-2 zone is 35�; with a further limitation of one foot of height per one foot of distance from any part of the structure to R-1 or R-2 residential properties. The applicant has proposed 20�-25� rear setbacks. The required number of parking spaces for this use at this location is 49. The proposed project will provide 51 standard parking spaces.

Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements

Planning Board:

On February 12, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director�s approval of Project No. 2006-146.  The Planning Board determined that the findings for approval of the proposed commercial/office building could be made. The Planning Board therefore denied the appeal and upheld the Director�s decision to approve the project. Planning Board required some additional conditions of approval having to do with the height of the wall separating the proposed building from the adjacent R-2 and its setback from the sidewalk, landscaping, the design of the windows and doors on the street facing elevations. Several conditions regarding the parking structure and vehicular ingress and egress were also required by Planning Board.

Planning Board also required a condition that directs staff to work with Public Works to determine the feasibility of installing a physical means of directing traffic exiting the at-grade parking on Reese Place to make a right turn only. Planning Board also attached a condition that the at-grade parking be reserved for the retail customers only. Members of the Planning Board discussed the fact that the applicant has certain rights to build and that the applicant was not requesting any variations from the Code. Planning Board also stated that requiring the subterranean parking to exit on to Verdugo would help alleviate traffic concerns. Planning also directed staff to be diligent with regard to business permits so that the 5,000 SF retail tenant space would remain as a single tenant.

Appellant: The appellant, Deanna Hughes, stated in her presentation to the Planning Board that she is opposed to the project because it is not compatible with the area. She mentioned that the traffic generated by the project would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and that soil samples should be taken prior to making any decision on the development. The appellant also raised concerns about liquefaction and suggested that also be analyzed where subterranean parking is proposed. The appellant stated that she believed that the site of the proposed commercial/office building was different from the CVS pharmacy property directly across the street because CVS does not abut residential property. (The building does not, but the parking lot does. In fact, the parking lot is zoned R-1.)

Applicant: The applicant, Giovanni Uriu stated to the Planning Board that the proposed development complies with the zoning and is the end result of several redesigns due to the concerns of the community. Mr. Uriu mentioned that he addressed privacy concerns by raising the window ledges on the north side of the building to six feet. He further stated that the proposed eight foot wall between the proposed building and the adjacent R-2 property would provide additional privacy. The applicant also noted that the height of the building was ten feet less than the building originally proposed for the site and is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area (25�). He clarified that the at-grade parking is within an enclosed garage behind the retail space and below the office space. The applicant agreed to the conditions of approval requested by Planning Board.

Public Hearing: During the Planning Board hearing, four people spoke on this matter. All four people spoke in opposition to the project. They opposed the proposed building primarily because of concerns about construction activity (particularly having to do with subterranean parking), traffic, parking, balconies on the rear elevation that were no longer part of the proposal, building height, and a perceived lack of a sufficient buffer between the proposed building and the R-2 property immediately adjacent.

Board and Staff Q&A: Staff clarified the single tenant parking requirement and the multi-tenant parking requirement for the Planning Board. Staff explained that business licenses are required to go through Planning Division for sign off. Applications for business licenses are checked against zoning as well as any resolutions that may have been approved for the site.  Planning staff also clarified for Board Member Jackson that if the adjacent R-2 property were zoned R-1 the owner would be permitted to build up to 30� in height with a side yard setback of five feet.  Staff also explained that the tandem parking spaces in the parking garage would not count toward the required parking and that in order for them to be used for required parking an application process and likely a public hearing would be required.  Staff agreed at Planning Board�s direction to work with Public Works to see what could be done about directing exiting traffic out of the at-grade parking on Reese Place toward Verdugo Avenue including required �right turn only� signage and physical barriers to direct traffic away from the residential portions of North Reese Place. Planning Board made it a condition of approval that these modifications would be made to the project as feasible. These changes have not yet been made to the plans but will be required to be shown on plans prior to final sign off for issuance of building permits.

Deliberation: During the Planning Board deliberation there was discussion about the eight foot wall separating the proposed building from the adjacent property. Board Member Petrulis raised concerns regarding construction mitigation and inquired about screening to protect the neighbor from dust during construction. Board Member Gabel-Luddy expressed concern that it might impede visibility from the adjacent residential driveway to the north. Ms. Gable-Luddy suggested that the wall gradually decrease in height as it approached the right-of-way on Reese Place. Mr. Herrman confirmed for Ms. Gabel-Luddy that the wall is already proposed to be set back five feet from the sidewalk. Ms. Petrulis suggested that five feet might not be adequate and that the wall be set back further than that from the sidewalk. (Exhibit 3) The Board briefly discussed the issues of a tree on the project site that was having an effect on the appellant�s driveway. Board Member Mitchell Thomas concurred with the other Board members� concerns.

Mr. Thomas also pointed out that the property owner has every right to develop his property and that he disagrees with the idea that the applicant should be required to make the project a one-story building. Mr. Thomas stated that he would like a condition of approval requiring signs pointing out the parking areas for the retail use as well as the parking area for the office uses. Mr. Thomas concurred with other Board members that there should be an attempt at installing a hardscape element to force a right turn only on to Reese Place.  Mr. Thomas also recommended conditions regarding construction mitigation and the placement of trash containers. Mr. Thomas expressed concern that because the retail space will be limited to one user the doors and windows shown on the plans might be modified. Mr. Thomas suggested a condition of approval that the doors be installed as shown or that windows be installed with architectural elements that provide some variation on the front elevation. Board Member Amy Lawrence concurred with her colleagues and added that the property owner has a certain right to build. Ms. Lawrence also stated that the buffer between the commercial use and the residential use should be maximized. Board Member Greg Jackson stated that he believed that the parking design with some egress on to Verdugo Avenue would adequately handle traffic issues and that the buffer wall should be set back from the sidewalk further than five feet. Mr. Jackson concurred that the landscaping in the buffer area between the proposed retail/commercial building and the R-2 property should be maximized. Mr. Jackson urged staff to be diligent in regard to business license approvals and he expressed some concern over the 5,000 SF retail space being for a single user. Mr. Jackson indicated support for the conditions proposed by other Board members.

The Planning Board added the following conditions of approval:

• A revised landscape and hardscape plan showing a tapered wall from eight feet in height down to 42� beginning at least ten feet back from the property line, increasing the landscape area and adding permeable paving at the on-grade landscape area; and either the repair of the root system of the tree between the properties or replacement of the tree with a 48� box specimen tree.

• Signs segregating the parking for the retail use from the office use and a gate for the subterranean office parking.

• Working with Public Works, the applicant shall design a hardscape element to discourage left turns on to Reese Place, if feasible.

• Modification of the design to include windows and other pedestrian friendly elements should any of the ground floor doors need to be removed.

Planning Board Decision: The Planning Board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and approve the project subject to the additional conditions of approval noted above. (Exhibit 3)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal, upholding the Planning Board�s decision, and approving Project No. 2006-146 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1           Planning Board staff report dated February 12, 2007 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution #3078 dated February 12, 2007

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from the February 12, 2007 public hearing

Exhibit 4           Appeal of Planning Board�s decision submitted by Deanna Hughes, resident     

go to the top