Cities Index.
PowerPoint Presentation - Applicant

Burbank City Council
February 28, 2023

Document
PowerPoint Presentation - Applicant
Meeting
February 28, 2023
Body
Burbank City Council
Original file
487 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on burbank.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

1521 E. ALAMEDA AVE.

Project No. 22-0007424
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1 Background
Personal
• 33-year resident of Burbank (since I was four years old) • Grew up around the corner from the subject property, on the same block • Miller Elementary, John Muir Middle, and Burbank High Schools • Excelled in academics, cross country, track & field
• Married and blessed with a beautiful family. Trying to build our “forever home” • House hunted for 5 years, hoping to find something “move-in ready”. Ultimately settled on building on this lot Project Timeline (25 months and counting)
2 January 2021
Purchased property
August 2021
Submitted SFDP application
Dec 2021 - Apr 2022
Zone text amendment process
May 2022
Submitted CUP application
November 2022
Planning Commission hearing
February 2023
City Council appeal hearing
2021 2022 2023
Objectives
• Trying to build our “forever home”
• Quiet, hard-working family that loves to spend time with our parents and loved ones • Very sustainable, energy efficient home
• Insulation
• Ventilation system
• Solar
• Timeless design
• “Prairie” style immortalized by Frank Lloyd Wright
• Part of the Arts & Crafts movement
• Low-profile by definition – total building height is just 24’ 8” compared to 30’ maximum allowed height
3 Project is Aligned with Bubank2035 Stated Goals
• Clean Air & Climate Smart – “Looking ahead to 2035, Burbank will transition to clean, efficient energy and transportation choices…Buildings and infrastructure will be energy efficient and comfortable.” • Sustainability – “Policy 2.6: Design new buildings to minimize the consumption of energy, water, and other natural resources.”
• Applicant: We plan to build with a super-tight building envelope and double the required insulation levels to achieve extreme energy efficiency and reduce our impact on the environment. The current structure is incredibly “leaky” and it would be exorbitantly expensive to retrofit to these standards. Our HVAC system will be less than half the size of conventional HVACs for comparably sized homes, significantly reducing Greenhouse Gases
• Fire Protection – “Policy 4.6 Reduce fire hazards associated with older buildings, multi‐story structures, and industrial facilities.”
• Applicant: The current structure is a tinder box. Our design will have fire resistant wood-like, fiber- cement paneling and mineral-wool-based exterior insulation that can withstand heat in excess of 1,800º F, making the structure much more resilient in the event of fire 4Source: “Burbank2035: General Plan” (2013)
Zone Text Specifically Allows for Our Request
• In the R-1 building standards, 10-1-603 C. Height specifically reads (emphasis added):
• The existence of this provision is, in and of itself, evidence the city anticipated that the 20’ top plate height limit will not work for all lots
• The use of the term “average grade” strongly implies the CUP provision is specifically designed for sloped lots such as ours – flat lots would not need averaging
• What we are asking for is not a variance – it is a provision built directly into the zoning code specifically for lots like ours
5 With approval of a Conditional Use Permit, height may be measured from the average grade in lieu of being measured as described above. In this instance, average grade shall be the average of the highest and lowest finished ground surface elevations at the perimeter of the structure, whether or not the finished ground surface is higher than the existing ground surface.

Our Second Story Stepbacks Far Exceed Requirements
6 Zoning Requirements Proposed Plans
>40 percent of the second story is set
back 4 feet from the first floor
South side: 100% of second story is set
back 8 feet from the first floor
North side: 100% of second story is set
back 25 feet from the first floor
-- OR --
>30 percent of the interior side of a
building is offset a minimum of 5 feet in
depth from the primary wall
-- OR --
45º inclined plane from 12 feet above the
finished grade at the side property line
We are WELL within the space allowed
by the 45º inclined plan
• The second story on our proposed home is significantly inset from the first floor, far in excess of what the zoning standards require
36 neighbors signed petition supporting the CUP
• 43% of the homes on the block
• In 5 trips going door to door, we heard ZERO
opposition to our project
• Many non-signers were either not home or
wanted to first speak with their spouse
• Plenty of outreach
• Discussed our plans with the neighbors at
1515 E Alameda for over an hour
on Oct
20th (prior to Planning Commission meeting)
• They raised no concerns whatsoever
The Neighborhood Supports our Project
Subject Property
Signed in Support
7 Planning Commission Unanimously Approved the CUP
• The Planning Commission heard from all concerned parties and unanimously approved the CUP • They thought the opposition was so frivolous that they asked Planning Division representatives whether they could refund our CUP fees, which is practically unprecedented 8 I’m shocked that we’re even here, to be honest with you.

This is not, in my opinion, what we should be doing with our time. I know that you have the right to appeal but the code is SO clear and the buffer is HUGE!
“
”- Christopher Rizzotti, President of Planning Commission If the lot was ever so slightly different, we wouldn’t even be here tonight…let the family have their house!
“ ”- Samantha Wick, Member of Planning Commission
9 APPENDIX
The Issue at Hand – Top Plate Height
• City tried to change the top plate height limit from 20’ to 22’ in 2022 as part of the Zone Text Amendment process
• Planning Commission approved and recommended the change to City Council • City Council acknowledged the need for this change, particularly for properties on sloped lots such as ours • They only struck it from the ZTA because of concerns it would allow homeowners on flat lots to build taller homes
• Council asked the Planning Department to modify the provision to limit its applicability to only those properties that need it (e.g. properties that have sloped lots) 10 If Council had approved the proposed change to 22’ back in March 2022, we’d be nearly done with construction by now

← All documents from this meeting