PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to consider a request by two separate appellants (Daniela Haglund and Christopher Boyce) to appeal the Planning Board�s decision to deny without prejudice the previous appeal and uphold the Community Development Director�s decision to approve a pool house, and deck structures and deny an exception to the 40% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to construct an approximately 254 square foot pool house.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Original Hillside Development Permit Project Proposal: The applicant, Masiela Lusha, submitted an application on January 3, 2006 requesting the construction of a 254 SF pool house and a pool with deck structures on a hillside lot with an average of 20% or greater slope. This project includes grading for the new pool house. The total square footage of the living space will be greater than 3000 square feet and requires grading and thus requires a Hillside Development Permit. Additionally, the applicant requests an exception to the 40% FAR requirement as the addition of the pool house will result in a FAR of 45% (Planning Board Staff Report attached as Exhibit 1).

Community Development Director Decision: On June 13, 2005, the Community Development Director approved the applicant�s request for a pool and deck structures but denied the request for a construction of a 254 SF pool house that would create a greater than 40% FAR.  Staff was unable to make the required findings for the exception. The Community Development Director�s decision included conditions of approval for the pool and deck structures. (Exhibit E-1 of Exhibit 1)

Appeal of Development Director�s Decision: The project was appealed on June 28, 2005 by Janek Dombrowa (the project architect). A letter accompanying the appeal addressed the issues in detail and stated that the basis of the appeal was the belief that all the findings can be made to approve an exception to the 40% FAR for the Hillside Development Permit (Exhibit F of Exhibit 1).

Planning Board Hearing & Deliberations: On August 28, 2006, at the Planning Board Public Hearing, the Planning Board denied without prejudice the appeal of the Director�s decision and upheld the Community Development Director�s decision. The Board supported the Community Development Director�s decision to approve the project for the construction of a pool and deck structures and also supported the denial of the exception of a 40% FAR to construct an approximately 254 SF pool house. Board deliberations included comments that the Board may have been able to approve the exception to the 40% FAR if the size of the pool room was reduced to include only a bathroom facility.  Consequently, the Board denied the exception without prejudice as they thought that a smaller pool house that included just a bathroom would be acceptable. (Exhibit 2 & 3)

Appellant 1 Request: The Daniela Haglund is requesting that the original project proposal for a pool, deck structures and a 254 SF pool house be approved by the City Council.  (Exhibit 4) The appellant has chosen not to modify the pool house size as suggested by the Planning Board. This proposed addition would still require an exception to the 40% FAR. This appellant believes that the finding can be made to approve the exception to 40% FAR.

Appellant 2 Request: Christopher Boyce has requested that the City Council not uphold the Planning Board�s decision, and that the entire project request be denied. This appellant believes that the project proposes a type of development that is unlike any other existing property in the neighborhood and contains atypical hardscaping. (Exhibit 5)

Public Correspondence: Since the Planning Board hearing on August 28, 2006 staff has not received any public correspondence other then the two appeals.

Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was prepared and a traffic study was conducted for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Negative Declaration concludes that the construction of a pool, pool house, and deck structures would not have an impact on the environment. (Exhibit G of Exhibit 1)

CONCLUSION:

It is staff�s recommendation that the eight findings required by Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-607 (D) for approval of a Hillside Development Permit can be made. It is also staff�s assessment that three of four findings required by Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-607 (H) in order to grant an exception to code for a Hillside Development Project can not be made.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny both appeals and uphold the Planning Board�s decision to approve Project No. 2006-1 Hillside Development Permit to construct a pool and deck structures and deny the exception request, subject to the conditions of approval.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1 - Planning Board Staff Report for Appeal of Project No. 2006-1

2          Planning Board Resolution No. 3065 adopted August 28, 2006

3          Planning Board minutes from August 28, 2006

4          Appeal by Daniela Haglund of Planning Board�s Decision

5          Appeal by Christopher Boyce of Planning Board�s Decision

go to the top