Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Agenda Item - 3

 

 

 
 

 

DATE: September 11, 2007
TO: Mary J. Alvord, City Manager
FROM:

Susan M. Georgino, Community Development Director

via Greg Herrmann, Chief Asst. Community Development Director/City Planner

by Laurie Yelton, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:

PROJECT NO. 07-000-0882, Development Review

1014 & 1018 Omer Lane

Applicant/Property Owner: Mr. Varoozh Saroian/Mr. Bob Kunert

Appellant: Ms. Patricia Lake

 

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. 07-000-0882, Development Review application to construct a 12-unit, two-story, multi-family project at 1014 and 1018 Omer Lane. The project has been appealed by Ms. Patricia Lake, property owner of 1017 Omer Lane, who states that the proposed project is too dense for the neighborhood (Exhibit 4).

 

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

 

Project Description and History:

 

Development Review:

 

The applicant originally requested Development Review approval to construct a 12-unit, two-story, multi-family apartment building with six units on each floor with a semi-subterranean parking garage consisting of 26 parking spaces. The Community Development Director approved the Development Review application as the project met all code requirements and complied with the development standards in the R-4 High Density Residential zone.

 

Community Meeting:

 

On April 2, 2007, a community meeting was held during which neighbors expressed their concerns about the project. Approximately nine residents came to the community meeting. Seven of the residents in attendance were opposed to the project, as they believed the project to be too large in scale for the neighborhood. They believed the project would create more traffic and therefore, posed a safety hazard along Omer Lane. Two people who attended the community meeting were in favor of the project as they believed the proposed project would benefit the neighborhood and increase property values.

 

Approval:

 

The Community Development Director approved the subject application on April 6, 2007. The approval is subject to conditions, comments, and corrections as listed by each reviewing department and is attached to the Development Review Approval Letter (Exhibit 1).

 

Appeal:

 

On April 20, 2007, the appellant, Ms. Patricia Lake, submitted an appeal to the Director�s decision due to concerns about increased traffic, parking, and safety concerns. She believes 12 units is too dense for the subject properties (Exhibit 1).

 

Planning Board:

 

On July 9, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider an appeal of the approval of a 12-unit, two-story multi-family building on a 17,015 square foot lot, over a semi-subterranean parking garage consisting of 26 parking spaces (Exhibit 1). The applicant met all of the development standards required for multi-family projects including setbacks, height, lot coverage, parking, open space, common and private open space, landscaping, etc. Staff recommended approval of the project as the project met all code requirements.

 

During the Planning Board hearing there were several people in the audience; and three people, including the appellant, spoke on this matter. These neighbors were against the project as they felt the 12-unit project is too dense for the area. One neighbor raised concerns with the quality of life, off-street parking, current traffic on Omer Lane, and the increased amount of traffic this project will bring to the neighborhood. Another resident raised concerns about the proposed project being too big for Omer Lane as well as parking issues. Lastly, the appellant stated that a smaller scale project would fit the neighborhood better due to issues with parking and traffic. She realizes the project is in compliance with codes; however, she believed this project would increase traffic and worsen parking issues on Omer Lane.

 

The architect stated that he has designed the project to meet all of the code requirements necessary for the proposed multi-family residential project and even scaled down the project from what code would allow.

 

During the Planning Board deliberations, the Board members expressed their thoughts and concerns about the project. They were in favor of the proposed project with regards to the size of the project being reduced since the previous application, which proposed 15 units, and the project�s consistency with multi-family code requirements. Additionally, the Board did not believe it was fair that this developer take the burden of the existing street problems as his project meets parking requirements for the proposed project (More historical background provided in Exhibit 1).

 

During the Planning Board deliberation, the Board members expressed their thoughts about the neighborhood. They were able to make the Development Review findings and understood that the project was consistent with the multi-family code. The project has already been scaled down from what code allows from the previous proposal. The Board members realized there are parking and traffic issues on Omer Lane, but stated that the proposed project actually meets the off-street parking requirement unlike the other buildings. A majority of the Board members preferred a project that was of a lower-scale, but understood that the project met current multi-family code requirements and has already been scaled down from the previous application submitted for 15 units (Exhibit 3).

 

The Planning Board approved the project 5-0 as it met all code requirements and findings required for a Development Review (Exhibit 2). On July 19, 2007, Ms. Patricia Lake appealed this decision.

 

Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements

                                        

Development Standard

Code Requirement

Project Compliance

Land Use

 

Multiple Family Dwelling is permitted. Sec. 31-627.

Complies

Lot Area, Dimension, and minimum area per Dwelling Unit

6,000 sq. ft.; 50� by 100�; and one unit for each 1,400 sq. ft.

Sec. 31-628

17,015 sq. ft.; meets minimum dimensions; 12 units proposed

 

Complies

Structure Height

>500� from R-1 zone

35� maximum with roof and architectural features to 50�.

Sec. 31-628

27� with 35.5� to roof peak

 

Complies

Setback Requirements

    Front Yard Setback

    Side Yard Setbacks

    Rear Yard  Setback

 

15� minimum and 17� average.

 5� minimum and 7� average.                   

 5� minimum and 7� average. 

Sec. 31-628

 

Complies

Complies

Complies

Lot Coverage

70% when not within 500� of R-1.

Sec. 31-628(c)

61.56%

Complies

Off Street Parking

 

 

 

Parking Space Dimensions

 

Bicycle Parking Spaces

 

 

Parking within Multiple Family Residential Zones

2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space for every 5 units. Sec. 31-628(i)(j)

 

 

8�-6� Minimum width.

Sec. 31-1401

 

5% of the total number of required off-street vehicle parking spaces. Sec. 31-628 (i)

 

No opening for direct vehicular access from the street that exceeds 20� in width.  Sec. 31-1416

Required = 26

Proposed = 26

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

1 space required

 

Garage entrance width is 13�.

Complies


 

Open Space Exposure in Dwelling Unit

8� of transparent material from a primary living area. Sec. 31-628(k)

All units show compliance, overlooking balconies and courtyard.

Common Open Space

150 sq. ft. per unit (1,800 sq. ft.); outdoors with 80% open to the sky (1,440 sq. ft.); min. size of 15� by 20�; convenient access; decorative pavement. Sec. 31-628(k)

Requirements met with 1,800 square foot interior courtyard.

 

Complies

Private Open Space

50 sq. ft. per unit; no dimensions less than 5 ft.  Sec. 31-628(k) 

 

 

When at ground level, enclosed by a 42� high opaque enclosure.

Sec. 31-628(k)

Patios and balconies meet minimum size and dimension requirements.

 

Complies

Minimum Landscaping Requirement

 

Landscaping: Trees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preservation of Trees

 

 

 

Landscaping

 

15% of the lot (2,553 sq. ft.)

Sec. 31-628(n)

 

For every 40 linear feet of yard provide one tree, with at least one tree in the front yard 48� box size;  remaining trees 24� box size.

Sec. 31-628(n)(7)(a-d)

 

For every 600 sq. ft. of common open space provide a tree, one-half of which shall be 24� box size, the remaining 15 gallon.

Sec. 31-628(n)(8)(c)

 

Existing trees to be preserved or incorporated when possible; or move or replace. Sec. 31-628(o)

 

All landscaping required of multiple family residential projects shall be designed and installed to reach maturity within 5 years.

Sec. 31-628(n)(14)

23.26% (3,761 sq. ft.) proposed.

 

14 trees required, 46 trees proposed (total): 1-60� box size, 10-48� box size, 29-24� box size, and 6-15 gallon.

 

4 trees required, 7-24� box size proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies as conditioned.

 

 

 

Complies as conditioned.

 

 

 


 

Trash and Garbage Collection Areas

 

Trash area must be at least 7�x8� and enclosed on three sides with a masonry wall that is at least 6� high. Sec. 31-628(v)

 

 

Trash enclosure exceeds required dimensions and is located within the garage.

 

Complies

Entries � Front

Every building must have pedestrian entry on the street which shall be identified in a manner to establish the character of the project; enriched paving shall be used for all entry walks in the front and exposed side yards of a project.

Sec. 31-628(t)

Distinctive entry feature; 6� deep by 24� wide alcove with decorative pavement shown on Sheets A-2, A-5, and A-6.

 

Complies

Outdoor Amenities

At least one of the following: spa, gazebo, outdoor cooking/eating area, outdoor play and recreation equipment, and tables, chairs and benches. Sec. 31-628(l)

Plans show three benches, one barbeque, and a fountain throughout the common open space area.

 

Complies

Driveways

Decorative paving consistent with common open space treatment.

Sec. 31-628(i)(10)

Plans show brick ribbons at driveway, similar to the common open space pavement.

 

Complies

Average setbacks and plane breaks.

 

No less than 25 percent and no more than 75 percent of the length of each elevation must be located

behind the average setback plane for that elevation. Such percentage is measured separately for each story of

each structure. Balconies, entries, and porches or portions thereof that are recessed into the building fa�ade may be utilized to satisfy the average setback and break requirements.

Sec. 31-628(g)

Code section met for all elevations.

 

Complies

Rooftop Design and Massing

Roof mansards and parapets, when used, must continue around all building elevations, whether or not

they are visible from the street; All roof mounted equipment shall be screened.

Sec. 31-628(s)

A/C units are located on the interior flat portion of the roof, surrounded by roofing and parapets equal to or greater in height than the equipment.

 

Complies

Balcony Designs

Enclosed non-rail balconies preferred to rail materials; railings with thin wrought iron prohibited unless with more substantial elements.

Sec. 31-628(u)

Decorative railings with stucco-sided balconies shown. 

 

Complies

Master Television System

A cable or connection system with outlets in each unit shall be provided. Sec. 31-628(x)

Conditioned to be noted on plans.

Miscellaneous Encroachments

Eaves, cornices, canopies, may not extend more than 4� into front yard or within 30� of the side and rear yards. Sec. 31-628

 

First floor uncovered porches, patios and platforms may extend into front yard 5�, side and rear yard to allow for safe exiting. Sec. 31-1211(c)

 

Open, unenclosed stairways, handicap ramps or balconies not covered by a roof may project into the front yard not more than 4�.  Not allowed in side or rear yards.

Sec. 31-1211(d)

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Balconies comply. 

 

Issues Raised by the Appellant:

 

The appellant stated in the appeal form (Exhibit 4) that the proposed project is too dense for the area, and poses a safety hazard as the project will bring increased traffic and parking issues on Omer Lane. The appellant is therefore requesting that Council approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Board�s decision to approve the Development Review application.

 

Staff Response:

 

The subject block of Omer Lane is zoned for high density residential uses, and the property is zoned for 12 units (one unit for each 1,400 square feet of lot area). 

 

The proposed project shows a heightened level of architectural detail that staff believes will be of benefit to the neighborhood.  Staff does not believe that an additional 12 units on the block will create a much greater hardship in terms of traffic or parking.  The project is proposed with code required parking, while the four units being replaced are not parked to code.

 

The applicant has chosen to pay the in-lieu fee in order to meet the City�s affordable housing requirement; however, if the applicant had chosen to include affordable units within the project development, he would have been entitled to a density bonus, which would have added more units to the project.

 

Traffic Engineering has reviewed the project proposal and has not noted any additional requirements that this project would be required to address with regards to the street width or length.  They state that requiring a dedication on the bulb of the cul-de-sac on Omer Lane would not improve the situation for drivers on the street and is not warranted for this local cul-de-sac.  The Fire Department states they have no problems providing emergency services to Omer Lane.  They state that an additional turning radius for fire trucks is not warranted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal, and approving Project No. 07-000-0882 Development Review.

 

At the City Council meeting of July 17, 2007 Council Member Gordon requested City Council consideration of an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) and Zone Map Amendment for the subject property and surrounding area including properties on Omer and Bruce Lanes.  The public hearing for the subject application would be an appropriate time for the Council to consider this request.  If the City Council wishes to pursue consideration of an IDCO and/or Zone Map Amendment, staff will schedule a report for the next available Council meeting.  The City Council has received a confidential memo from the City Attorney regarding this issue.

 

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

 

Exhibit 1           Planning Board staff report dated July 9, 2007 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution #3094 dated July 9, 2007

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from the July 9, 2007 public hearing

Exhibit 4           Appeal of Planning Board�s decision submitted by Ms. Patricia Lake