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:

City Council Hearing & Deliberations: On October 10, 2006, at the City Council Public Hearing, the City Council was presented with an appeal of project 2006-1 by two separate appellants. (Exhibit I)  The City Council decided to continue this project to November 21, 2006 to allow the applicant to propose a modified project design. Council deliberations included comments that the size of the pool room may be too large. The City Council was also concerned that the photovoltaic panels would be obtrusive and wanted more information on the design of the trellis cover.

Amended Plans for 3 Skyline Drive: The applicant has amended the plans to reduce the size of the pool house, limiting the structure to a large bathroom. (Exhibit II)The size of the pool house has been reduced from 254 SF to 103 SF.  This proposed bathroom has been shifted towards the eastern side of the property. This design layout will place the structure farther away from the neighbor at 4 Skyline as compared to the original design. However, the structure still maintains a three foot setback in some locations. These amended plans also show that the photovoltaic panels have been relocated to the roof of the bathroom, and the patio cover attached to the bathroom. This change will attempt to reduce the photovoltaic panels� visual impact on the backyard elevations.

Public Correspondence: Since the City Council hearing on October 10, 2006 staff has not received any public correspondence.

CONCLUSION:

Staff believes that even with proposed plan modifications, the 103 SF pool house is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is still 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. However, 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              I           City Council Staff Report for Appeal of Project No. 2006-1 for October

                                     10, 2006

Exhibit              II          Amended Plans for 3 Skyline Drive & Photovoltaic Panel Details

go to the top