PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 06-0201641, a variance and second dwelling unit. The appeal was received from the applicant, Andy Ferrera, who resides at the subject property. Mr. Ferrera states that two of the five members of the Planning Board based their decision on inaccurate information and believes that updated and correct information would result in approval of the variance and second dwelling unit.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description and History:

The applicant has requested approval to legalize a 420 square foot converted garage and accessory structure and build a new 20� x 18�-3� garage, which would be substandard in size, attached to the proposed second dwelling unit. The applicant also requested a variance to not provide the additional car parking space required for the second dwelling unit, for reduced side and rear yard setbacks for the second dwelling unit, and a new garage with substandard dimensions.

The Planning Board denied the project because the applicant could not meet the parking requirement for a second dwelling unit, side and rear setback requirements and because two of the four findings required for a variance could not be made.

The applicant appealed this decision on April 22, 2007.

Planning Board Deliberations and Decision:

On April 9, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider a request for an approval of a Second Dwelling Unit, which is currently an un-permitted guest house/garage conversion. (Exhibit 1) The applicant also requested a variance to be exempt from requiring the additional parking space required for a second dwelling unit, as well as a variance for side and rear yard setbacks, and a substandard garage width for a proposed new garage for the primary dwelling. The property is located at 2221 Manning Street in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zone.

One of the major issues presented addressed the legitimacy of the renovation made to the garage/storage room structure. (Exhibit 3) Staff clarified that there were no permits found for the work done on the guest house/garage conversion. The appellant informed the Board members that the surrounding neighbors, with the exception of 2217 North Manning, signed a petition in support of the project. The appellant further emphasized, that on the subject of tenant parking, he advises the renters that they should park on the street in front of the house. Staff affirmed that if the project was to be approved, a special inspection would have to be scheduled to make sure that all construction was up to code.

The Board voted 3-2 to deny the variance application. (Exhibit 2) The Board did not find any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with the project that did not apply to other properties within the vicinity and zone. Additionally, the Board believed that the variance was not essential for the preservation or enjoyment of the applicant�s property right. While some believed the finding could be made for not having an additional parking space, they did not support the substandard garage request. Two of the Board members felt they could make the findings and it would be a hardship to request the appellant to rebuild the structure back to its original state since he�s been using it for more than 17 years.

Current Appeal:

The appellant stated, in his appeal form (Exhibit 4), that two of the five Planning Board members based their decision on inaccurate information. Since he did not go into much detail regarding his explanation for appealing the Board members� decision, staff then requested a second letter to provide the appellant an opportunity to provide additional information. In the letter, the appellant stated that there is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance applicable to the subject property. Without the secondary income that results from the second dwelling unit, the appellant believes that he has to take �exceptional and/or extraordinary action� to remain as a homeowner. (Exhibit 5) The appellant stated that he purchased a home that included, to his understanding, a legal guesthouse. The appellant also states that the property�s existing footprint and proposed new garage make it difficult to add the required additional parking space for the second dwelling unit.

The right to not have to provide the additional parking space for the second dwelling unit, is not a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions. Most of the homes on the block have garages located at the back of the property with minimal side and rear yard setbacks which limits construction to the rear portion of the property.  In preparing this staff report staff researched the 11 homes that were mentioned by the appellant to clarify if they had any known variances. There were no variances found for those given addresses, nor were they legal non-conforming guest houses.

Ultimately, the appellant believes that given the opportunity to convey the information he believes to be correct to the City Council, the Council would overturn the Planning Board�s decision. Additionally, the appellant reaffirms that the second dwelling unit/ garage structure will conform to the current Burbank Municipal Code once an approval is obtained from the Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

Without approval of the variance, the second dwelling unit application must be denied.  Code requires an additional parking space for second dwelling unit and that all second dwelling units must comply with the development standards. Staff believes that the finding required to approve the second dwelling unit could be made if the variance was to be approved and if Mr. Ferrera brought the property up to code. Staff, however, is in agreement with the Planning Board that two of the four required variance findings (findings 1 and 2) cannot be made. Constructing a new garage with substandard dimensions is not an extraordinary circumstance.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 06-0201641 a variance and second dwelling unit.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

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

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution # 3083 dated April 9, 2007

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

Exhibit 4           Appeal form and letter submitted by Andy Ferrera

Exhibit 5           Second letter submitted by Andy Ferrera

go to the top