APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2006-82 VARIANCE

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve a variance for an extension of a substandard width driveway.  The applicants, Razmik and Leigh Boghoussian, have appealed the Board�s decision as they would like to request a change to one of the conditions of approval regarding minimum width of the driveway.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description and Planning Board Deliberations:

An application was submitted to extend an existing dwelling to create an expanded kitchen and new laundry room.  By doing so, this will extend the existing legal non-conforming driveway which requires a variance. (Exhibit 1)  Zoning code requires driveways to be 10� wide and the applicant submitted plans that showed the existing driveway to be 8�9� wide when measured from the property line to the existing wall of the home.  Although not a requirement for a variance application, staff requested the applicants to have a survey conducted when the application was submitted.  The applicants, however, did not want to expend the costs for a survey until they were sure that the project would be approved.  Therefore, they estimated the driveway to be 8�9� (based on the distance to the existing perimeter wall) and simply requested from Planning Board to continue the existing line of the home.

Planning Board approved a continuation of the existing driveway with a condition that the driveway be at least 8� wide. (Exhibits 2 and 3)  They also required that a survey be performed to ensure this minimum driveway width.  Condition #3 specifically reads as follows:

The applicant shall have a survey prepared confirming the home expansion will be a minimum of 8� from the side property line.  If it is not, the applicant shall adjust the home addition to ensure a minimum width of 8� is provided for the driveway.  This minimum width includes all encroachments such as the gate, wall pop-outs, and other features.

The applicant had a survey prepared on the site subsequent to the Planning Board�s decision and discovered that the existing driveway is only 7�9� wide as measured from the home to the property line. (Exhibit 4)  The applicant has therefore appealed the Planning Board�s decision and is requesting continuation of the existing 7�9� wide driveway.  They do not want to adjust the expansion 3�, as required by the condition of approval, in order to maintain an 8� wide driveway.

Appeal Arguments:

The appellants state that requiring the addition to be setback 3� from the existing home would impact the design of the kitchen and laundry area.  They state it would prevent them from being able to fit the washer, dryer, stove, and back door in the proposed new space.  The appellants argue that the intent of the Planning Board condition was to maintain the existing driveway and they intend on maintaining it.  Specifically, the abutting property owners submitted a letter to the applicants stating that they have no intention on moving the existing wall toward the actual property line. (Exhibit 4)  They state that they support allowing the applicants to continue to use the area for their driveway and that if they replace the wall in the future, they will rebuild it in its existing location.

Although having the letter from the neighbors is helpful, there is no guarantee that a future property owner will agree to this proposal.  To be considered, an official lot line adjustment must be processed or a covenant recorded for the property.  Driveway widths, therefore, are taken only from the property line, not an existing fence or wall.

Standard Driveway and Vehicle Widths:

Staff conducted a survey of other cities to determine driveway width requirements for single family properties.  Below is a table outlining the results:

The City of Burbank requirement for a 10 foot driveway is keeping in line with these other cities and the Planning Board�s condition requiring a minimum of 8 feet for the driveway is also consistent with codes in other cities.

Staff also conducted a survey of automobile manufacturers to determine the typical width of vehicles.  For the major manufacturers, vehicles range from 4 � feet to 7 feet wide, including SUVs.  There are some larger trucks that are as much as 8 feet wide.  With a driveway width of only 7�9�, a typical car would be able to make it through the driveway, but it would be difficult.  With this proposal, the situation is even more difficult because there would be further narrowing of this driveway width for the gate posts.  The applicant submitted photos showing the open gate encroaches approximately 4� (labeled as the �right� side) into the driveway. (Exhibit 5)  That would make the driveway, within the subject property boundaries, only is 7�5� wide.  If a gate was required to be placed on the subject property for the �left� side as well, that would be another 4� encroachment for a driveway width of 7�1�.  This width is unacceptable for a driveway.  Staff conducted tests of driveways and anything narrower than 8�5� is difficult and less than 7�9� is near impossible given a typical vehicle.  The applicants provided photographs showing their truck and how it fits within the existing driveway.  The fit is tight, but it is acceptable.  But this shows the driveway at 7�11� wide (given a 10� encroachment for the gate on both sides). (Exhibit 5)

CONCLUSION:

The abutting neighbor submitted a letter that they have no intention of moving the existing wall and will allow their neighbor to use the space for driveway area.  Staff, therefore, is recommending a condition of approval that the neighbor sign a covenant stipulating this permitted easement for the subject property.  This will allow the driveway to remain at 8�9� wide (and 7�11� wide at the gate).  This is an acceptable driveway width to meet the variance findings.  It is staff�s assessment that the findings the Planning Board were able to make are appropriate and can be made given the modified conditions of approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Appeal of Project No. 2006-082 Variance and approve the project with the revised conditions of approval.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit  1         Planning Board staff report dated August 14, 2006 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board minutes from the August 14, 2006 public hearing

Exhibit 3           Planning Board Resolution #3034 dated August 14, 2006

Exhibit 4           Appeal form including letter from neighbor and site survey

Exhibit 5           Additional plan and photographs submitted by applicant

go to the top