PROJECT NO. 2006-037 VARIANCE

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve Project No. 2006-37 Variance. The appeal was received from the applicant, Michael Heaven, who resides at the subject property. Mr. Heaven states that the conditions imposed by the Planning Board significantly limit his project.

BACKGROUND:

Property Location: The subject property is located at 515-517 South Shelton Street (P M 266-90 LOT 1).  The property is located on the West side of the street near the end of a cul-de-sac and North of Alameda Avenue.

Zoning: The property is located within the R-4 Residential Multiple High Density zone. Adjacent and abutting properties are zoned R-4 and R-1 (Exhibit A-1).

General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element designates the property for Multiple Family Medium Residential.

Property Dimensions: The property is rectangular in shape with a street frontage width of 50 feet and a depth of 135 feet. The total lot area of the property is 6,750 square feet.

Street Classifications: Shelton Street is designated as a Local Street with a 46 foot right-of-way (36 feet paved with 5 foot sidewalks on both sides of the street).

Current Development of the Site: The property is currently improved with two (2) units totaling approximately 2,765 square feet, constructed in 2000. Each unit has a two (2) car garage.

Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Variance to encroach into the 20� rear yard buffer zone between the subject multi-family property and the abutting single family residential properties (Exhibits B-1 � B-3). The property is zoned R-4 and consists of two (2) units; each are approximately 1,382 square feet. The applicant lives in the rear of the two (2) units and would like to add a recreation room with a � bath (toilet and sink) consisting of approximately 640 square feet attached to the back of his unit. The proposed structure is 20�x32� and would be accessed from the exterior as well as the interior. Interior access provides an addition to the rear unit and could technically be used as an additional room. This addition would maintain a 5� side yard setback to the north, and a 13�-0� side yard setback on the south. As proposed, the addition would maintain a 10� rear yard setback to the west. Portions of the addition to the north, south, and west setbacks encroach into the 20� buffer zone between a multi-family zoned property and a single-family zoned property.

The Planning Board approved the project with a 15� buffer instead of the requested 10� and on June 29, 2006, the applicant appealed this decision. The Planning Board�s conditions and the appeal are discussed in detail later in this report.

Municipal Code Conformance: BMC Sec. 31-628 (f) requires a 20� buffer area be provided in any side or rear yard that abuts or is adjacent to a single family zoned property. Because of the unusual lot configurations on the block, the property requires a rear yard buffer in addition to partial side yard buffers because of the R-1 property lines. Therefore, 390 of the 640 square foot addition encroach into the buffer area (Exhibit B-4). The proposed addition encroaches into the side and rear buffer. The existing building was constructed in 2000 and therefore conforms or is legal non-conforming with all other code requirements with the exception of required side yard trees, which were removed prior to construction of a wall.

Public Correspondence: Staff did not receive any public comment on the proposed project before the Planning Board public hearing.  However, at the hearing, the applicant submitted a letter from the property owner to the north in support of the project (Exhibit G).

ANALYSIS:

Surrounding Neighborhood: The subject property is surrounded to the north by Residential Multiple High Density (R-4), to the east by Rancho Commercial (RC), to the south by Residential Multiple High Density (R-4), and to the west by Single-Family Residential (R-1) (Exhibit A-2).  The subject lot is near the end of a cul-de-sac.

Project Characteristics: The subject addition is proposed to be located in the rear and side yard buffer setback. The proposed 640 square foot recreation room would encroach into the 20�-0� rear and side yard buffer. The property is surrounded by multi and single-family units; the property to the south consists of 20 residential units, and the property to the north consists of five (5) residential units. Photos submitted with the application indicate trees planted along the southern property line, which no longer exist. The applicant shall replace the trees along the property line with or without Variance approval as these were code required trees when the units were constructed in 2000. 

Planning Board Deliberations and Decision

On June 12, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider a request by the applicant to build an addition that encroaches into the 20� rear and side yard buffer. This request requires the approval of a Variance application. The Board voted 5-0 to approve the Variance with a 15� rear yard setback instead of the required 20� rear yard setback (Exhibits E-1 and E-2). The code would permit a 250 square foot addition if all setbacks and buffers were maintained. The applicant requested a 640 square foot addition and the Planning Board approved a 480 square foot addition. They felt this was an appropriate compromise. They compared it to the 15� rear yard setback required for single family residences. The applicant requested a � bath (toilet and sink) in the addition and the Planning Board conditioned the project to remove that element. The Board also conditioned the project to have the exterior access removed.

Issues Raised by the Appellant

The appellant explained in the appeal that the addition, as the Planning Board approved (from 640 square feet down to 480 square feet with a 15� setback) is not big enough to store the things he needs to store. He claims his R-4 neighbors have 3� and 5� rear yard setbacks, and he is being asked to provide a 20� (15� as Planning Board approved) setback. He says he has not had any objections from his neighbors on the proposed addition. The applicant said he needs to encroach 10� into the rear yard setback in order to adequately to meet the needs of the intended use. He also said the project would not be economically feasible if he can�t build his addition to the proposed size of 640.

The appellant is requesting that Condition #3 in Planning Board Resolution be removed, which says the applicant shall re-install trees along the south property line in accordance with the Burbank Municipal code. The appellant states that the trees were weeds, and were growing between an existing fence and a wall that were uprooted and falling over. The tree-lined (as required by a Development Review approval) southerly property line is now maintained by a 6� high block wall.

Lastly, the appellant would like to install a roll-up door at the rear of the addition. The Planning Board (in conditions of approval #1) asked the applicant to remove all exterior access to the addition to ensure the addition would not be used as another rental unit. The appellant requests a garage-like roll-up door to allow him to move objects that cannot pass through a normal sized door. The applicant did not object to removing the � bath.

Department Comments: The subject application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment.  Traffic Engineering asked that an additional foot of concrete paving be constructed to achieve the minimum 24 foot back-up distance from the garages (Exhibit C-1) to make it easier to access. However, the Board did not make this a required condition since the project was recently approved as constructed. Also, Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department asked that landscaping be included to provide a buffer to adjacent properties (Exhibit C-2). The Board felt the 15� setback was an adequate buffer.

Environmental Status: The project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15305 (a) pertaining to minor setback variances and 15301(e) of the State Guidelines pertaining to additions of less than 2,500 square feet (Exhibit D).

CONCLUSION:

When the project was heard by the Board, staff was unable to make two of the required four findings for approval of a Variance. However, with the conditions imposed by the Board, it is staff�s assessment that all four findings can be made.

Requirements for Granting of a Variance

(1)   There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of use in the same vicinity and zone.

The lot is a typical rectangular lot in the City of Burbank (50� x 135�).  There are exceptional circumstances with this property that are not applicable to other properties in a multi-family zone that abut a single family zone. It is a little unusual that the rear of the property is surrounded by R-1 on all sides; usually it is just the rear. This area provides usual open space, whereas 10� is not as inviting, but still meets open space requirements. The lot is long enough that the applicant does not need more space to build an accessory structure. According to Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Section 31-628(f), a 20-foot area must be provided in any side or rear yard that abuts or is adjacent to a single family zoned property. If the applicant were to add an accessory structure that did not encroach into the 20� buffer area on both the rear and sides, it could only be approximately 100 square feet (Exhibit B-4). As it is proposed, out of 640 total square feet, about 390 square feet encroaches into the buffer area.

(2)   The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question.

The right for the proposed accessory structure to encroach into the 20� buffer area is a right possessed by other property owners but not under like conditions and not a necessity of the applicant to have an accessory structure. The adjacent properties on either side of the subject property have buildings that encroach into the 20� buffer area, but these were constructed prior to current code requirements. The 20� buffer area requirement shall be fulfilled by all applicants with multi-family properties that abut single family properties. As designed, the recreation room can easily be seen as a new bedroom for the rear unit, which is already a reasonable size for a living space.

(3)   The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

Staff believes that the granting of this Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and that it would not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.  The purpose of the code requirement for 20�-0� front and side yard setbacks is to maintain a buffer zone between multiple-family and single-family zones. The accessory structure encroaches 10�-0� into the rear yard setback, 15�-0� into the northerly side yard setback, and 7�-0� into the southerly side yard setback, which will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The applicant has provided an aerial view of the surrounding properties, and it appears that other multi-family properties on the same block have buildings that encroach into the 20�-0� rear and side yard buffer areas.

(4)   The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.

The subject property and surrounding properties are classified as Multiple Family Medium Density Residential, permitting multiple units on each lot. The 640 square foot addition will not conflict with the objective of the classification.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board decision to approve Project No. 2006-37 Variance with all conditions imposed by the Planning Board.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit             A-1      Zoning and Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map

                        A-2      Aerial

Exhibit            B-1      Application Package

                        B-2      Plans

                        B-3      Photographs provided by the applicant

                        B-4      Building encroaching into 20� buffer

Exhibit            C-1      Burbank Public Works Department Comments

                        C-2      Park, Recreation and Community Services Department Comments

Exhibit             D         Public Notice of Environmental Decision

Exhibit             E-1      Planning Board Resolution No. 3028

                         E-2      Planning Board minutes dated June 12, 2006

Exhibit              F          Appeal application

Exhibit             G          Letter from John Montag (property owner to the north of the subject

                                     property at 511 S. Shelton St.)

go to the top