Appel/alit: Status ofAppel/am: Applicallt: Status ... - City of Glendale

TO: Board of Zoning Appeals
PREPARED BY:
Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044
DATE OF HEARING: March J9,2007
TYPE: Standards Variance
LOCATION: 3635 EAST CHEVY CHASE DRIVE
GENERAL INFORMATION
Appel/alit:
Status ofAppel/am:
Applicallt:
Status ofApplicam:
Propel'ty OWIler:
Lisa Wong
3601 East Chevy Chase Drive
Glendale, CA 91206
Proj ect neighbor
Efrain Olivares
221 Allen Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201
Architect
Barry Blackmore
3635 East Chevy Chase Drive
Glendale, CA 91206
Requested Action: The appellant is requesting to overturn the Zoning Administrator's approval
of a variance to allow construction ofan accessory building (containing a two-car garage and
guest quarters) which is twenty-one (21) feet, ten (10) inches in height. The City's Zoning
Ordinance allows accessory buildings to be a maximum oftwelve (12) feet in height, or fifteen
(15) feet, where a minimum roof pitch ofthree (3) feet in twelve (12) feet is provided.
Legal Description: Portion ofLot A, Sicomoro Canon Tract and a portion ofLot 2, Tract No.
27330
Zone: "RIR" - Restricted Residential Zone; Floor Area Ratio District III
Land Use Element: Low Density Residential
Lot Size: Thc subject property is approximately 44,000 square feet in area.
Existing Site Chal'acteristics: The subject property slopes down from the street. It is developed
with a single-family dwelling.
Circulation Element: East Chevy Chase Drive is classified as a community collector
street in the Circulation Element ofthe General Plan. It is improved with a 30-foot wide
roadway in a 50-foot wide right-of-way.

Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive 2
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The surrounding area is zoned Rl R and developed with
single-family dwellings.
History:
October 12, 2006 - Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044 was filed.
Applicable Regulations:
December 6, 2006 - The public hearing on Variance Case No. PVAR
2006-044 was conducted.
January 16,2007 - Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044 was approved by
the Zoning Administrator.
January 29, 2007 - The subject appeal was filed.
Glendale Municipal Code (G.M.C.), Title 30, Chapter 30.43, provides the
rules and procedures for variances.
G.M.C., Title 30, Chapter 30.62, provides the rules and procedures for
appeals before the Board ofZoning Adjustments.
G.M.C., Title 30, Chapter 30.11.030 Table 30.11 - B, requires that no
accessory building shall exceed a height oftwelve (12) feet, or fifteen (15)
feet, where a minimum roofpitch ofthree (3) feet in twelve (12) feet is
provided.
Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the
neighborhood and other public services are currently provided to the project site and
vicinity.
Environmental Documentation: This project has been determined to be categoricalIy
exempt from environmental review.
Public Notice: The City Clerk's Office published and posted notice as required by the
City Code for the Zoning Administrator's public hearing. All parties expressing an
interest in the case were notified ofthe Zoning Administrator's decision in a letter mailed
on January 16, 2007. Notice ofthe hearing before the Board ofZoning Appeals was
mailed on February 13, 2007.
The agenda for the Board ofZoning Appeals' hearing is posted outside the City Hall on
or before the Friday prior to the meeting ofthc Board.

Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive 3
Files Availablefor Review: All tiles and exhibits relative to Variance Case No. PVAR
2006-044 have been available for review in the Zoning Section ofthe Planning
Department, are available at this hearing, and by this reference are hereby made a part of
the record.
ANALYSIS
Arguments in Favor ofthe Zoning Administrator's Decision:
The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory building at 3635 East Chevy Chase
Drive which is twenty-one (21) feet, ten (10) inches in height. The Code allows
accessory buildings to be a maximum of twelve (12) feet in height or fifteen (15) feet
when the roofpitch is a minimwn of three (3) feet in twelve (12) feet.
The Zoning Administrator and the applicant argue that complying with the maximum
height limits for accessory buildings, as prescribed in the Glendale Municipal Code, is a
hardship because the subject site has a substantial number ofoak trees, the canopies of
which cover a large portion ofthe site. As proposed, the garage/guest house is a twostory
structure located in an area with no tree canopy. Two separated buildings (one
garage and one guest house) could be built, however, because ofthe on-site oak trees and
their canopies, the structures would be located within the root/drip line ofthese trees.
The proposed location and two-story configuration ofthe structure will not interrupt the
existing house configuration, have the least impact to the existing oak trees, require
construction offewer retaining walls, minimize removal oflandscaping and avoid
excessive grading. IfCode limitations were strictly observed, the requirements would
unduly restrict the proposed project from meeting the changing needs ofsuch use. The
height requested in the variance request is the minimum necessary to achieve the owner's
intent.
The Zoning Administrator and the applicant cite that the irregularly-shaped lot, unique
topography and configuration and thirty-eight (38) oak trees as the exceptional conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone
or neighborhood. The difference in the ground elevation and the slope ofthe site is very
substantial. The location ofthe proposed garage/guest house in combination with the
slope ofthe property and oak tree coverage make the site and the proposed building not
visually seen from Chevy Chase Drive.
According to the Zoning Administrator and the applicant, granting the variance to allow
the proposed accessory building to be higher than otherwise allowed would not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property. The proposed garage/guest
house will not be visible from the public right-of-way and only minimally visible from
the adjacent property. The proposed building is visible from the existing single-family
residence. Significant site grading, damage to existing oak trees and construction of
retaining walls to accommodate the proposed building is avoided with this proposed
design and location ofthis building. The style ofthe proposed garage/guest house will be

Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive
4
complimentary to the existing residence on the site. The request is reasonable and no
significant detriment or injury to other properties is expected.
The Zoning Administrator and the applicant state that granting the variance would not be
contrary to the objectives ofthe Code as the proposed building is consistent with the style of
the existing residence and compatible with similar buildings in size and height within the
neighborhood. The objectives ofthe Code include promoting the public's health, safety and
welfare, and allowing reasonable development and use ofproperty. The project blends in
with the existing natural setting and built environment. It will be tucked into the existing
slope and will appear as a one-story buildmg at the rear and as a two-story building in the
interior ofthe property. The location ofthe structure preserves un-graded land and
landscaping and reduces the need for substantial grading and the visual prominence. The
variance is the minimum necessary to afford the highest and most efficient use ofthe
property for the function that the owners would like to have.
Please refer to the attached decision letter for complete findings.
Arguments Expressed by the Appellant in the Appeal:
The appellant contends that no hardship exists in allowing the proposed accessory
building containing a garage and guest house to exceed the height limit contained in the
Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator cited the proposed location ofthe building as
the best for a number ofreasons previously discussed; however, the appellant believes
that no substantial evidence was presented at the hearing to support the justifications
listed in the variance approval letter. The appellant also questions what hardship would
be created by requesting the applicant to built separate structures containing the garage
and guest house. The appellant believes that there is nothing unique about the
topography or configuration ofthe subject lot, cited by the Zoning Administrator as
justification for granting the variance and further believes that construction ofthe project
will have a substantial impact on her. The appellant cites that the proposed structure will
be very visible from the bedrooms in her home and from her backyard, particularly from
an existing sitting area below a giant oak tree.
The appellant correctly states in her Notice ofAppeal application that the proposed 528
square-foot guest house exceeds the 500 square-foot maximum allowed in the Municipal
Code. It was never the applicant's intent to request a variance from this requirement, and
the plans currently before the Board ofZoning Appeals accurately reflect the design of
the guest house with a l\1aximum of five hundred (500) square feet. Additionally, for
clarification purposes, the initial variance application submitted by the applicant
requested variances from both height requirements as well as setback requirements. As
first proposed, the garage/guest house building was to be located five (5) feet from an
interior property line. Minimum interior setback in the 'RIR' zone for new buildings is
ten (10) feet. Since the public hearing regarding the project, the applicant has relocated
the proposed building outside ofthe setback area and no variance is necessary for this
facet ofthc project.

Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive
5
The appellant's arguments are further expressed in the variance application and appeal
(copies attached).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision. A motion
is attached. If the Board is inclined to reverse the decision ofthe Zoning Administrator,
an alternate motion is attached for the Board's convenience to assist the Board members
in fonnulating a proper motion with findings and conditions.
e;~~lYlZ::'0J
Roger Kiesel
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Wolfgang Krause, Principal Planner
WPJK:RAK:sm
EXHIBITS
Location Map-Exhibit A
Copies ofPhotographs-Exhibit B
Standards Variance Applieation- Exhibit C
Zoning Administrator's Decision Letter ofJanuary 16, 2007-Exhibit D
Notice ofAppeal to BZA-Exhibit E
Minutes ofthe Zoning Administrator's Hearing ofDecember 6,2006- Exhibit F

Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive
6
MOTION
Moved by Board Member , seconded by Board Member , that
upon review and consideration ofall materials and exhibits ofcurrent record relative to
Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044, located at 3635 East Chevy Chase Drive,
and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that the Board ofZoning
Appeals hereby sustains the Zoning Administrator's decision APPROVING said
Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044, in accord with the findings sct forth in
the decision letter ofFebruary 13, 2007.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:

Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive
7
MOTION
Moved by Board Member
, seconded by Board Member
_______, that upon review and consideration ofall materials and exhibits of
current record relative to Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044, located at 3635
East Chevy Chase Drive, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter,
that the Board ofZoning Appeals hereby reverses the Zoning Administrator's decision
and DENIES said Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 2006-044, located at 3635 East
Chevy Chase Drive based on the following findings pursuant to Article VI, Chapter
30.16, Title 30, Glendale Municipal Code:
a. The proposed use will/will not be consistent with the various elements and
objectives ofthe general plan in that:
b. The use and its associated structures and facilities will/will not be detrimental to
the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment in that:
c. The use and facilities will/will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses
or impede the normal development ofsurrounding property in that:
d. Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking
spaces and traffic circulation measures are/are not or will/will not be provided for
the proposed use in that:
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:

Crr\' UF CLENllALE, CI\LlJ;UJIN1A
]'];lrJIJlll!:: 'llC!JdlllI1CIlI
():::-; L

I0c.284?7
~8

I. ._.._._ .. _. ~X~TING ?STORY RESIDENCE
, - _.~.------- - -- - -,---
l
AREA OF PROPOSED
GUEST HOUSEl GARAGE "1
PAVING STONES AREA
NOTE: SEE PLOT PLAN FOR LOCATION OF PHOTO.

.;,ir'if'"
\
)
,"ITIAlS
~
x
~
"~
u;
-3
~
~
" o
"o o
>';",;r~,~
".
\ ,
\ \
!"t\"'~
\. ,,
/
\
\
J
Ii
i,'
/,!
--
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Ii
. ,
"I!
iiii
--~\ \\ \
\. \ \
\' \
\\ \
'\\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
If
~~
I
I
I
I
//
//
/
/
/
,/
,/
, /0,0,
~
/f
~.t?'C)
, "
•
~
'0"
// ~
x
~
"
~
'"
ro,

'" 0
W
0
Garage
~----_....-=-
- - - --:ro~ FSLOP~
--
I I I I
-,-,-,-
-,-,-,-
:1-'-'­
:-n:
-,-,...,-
-,-,...,-
:1-,""­
:-n:
-- 2~'-lI'
-----
10'-4'
,
"
~
~
~
;;:
iil
'"&
iii
g;

~
_
,
APPLICATIOhl FOR VARIANCE
Submit three (3) cDpie~ of this application to the Building S· Saiety Section :ACT LEGAL DESCRIPTIOI,
'1reet Address
See c,J+C\Ghv-ne,l~
_c. ..
P,Ii:": -~
=- _
Zone(s),' Dlslricl(s)
.APPLlCA,"T:
E.-rrGlln 01 IVQ res AlA
Name'
'2. 21 Allen Ave.
Address:
b\endoIe. , CA q 1'2..01
Phone:
~1~-501-1602
DOwner
oArchitect
D Builder/Developer
___ 0 Other _
PROJECT DESCRIPTlor,
aHCAcJWy\en+5
----='------
-----_.-----------_._----------------~-------- ---------
M'f'LlC~;~-T-RE-C!-UES~~S~- __,~S_'e-_':.--_()J_-~_- -=CA=-S--~\,,-.'fY\--e.n b U
..
-----
_________c , • ••• • • _
-----------
.---.----------- ---- -------------_._-------------------------------
------- ----_.--._---- -------------- .c _

'--~~_~_c__'_~ ...
2. VVhE:l1:i~:,_lInique,:j,L),CJU,I_'nle.'rlrUpL'rIYIrrvolved Or tl'ielnl01IcJE::cJ ,USE~ en de\"(;;lo'prrj'enl [)f n-I~' propC'ny (ao, reli:llE~d lCJ 1110 V~lrI{H1C:2 1'~~1U~~~;II"
,"\Ce::":'Ci\+t'(j, ':::: h n~\,""-n1- .. ._-,-' _
_
, -----------
~~_._-_._-----
oj -thi:' Vi;lrIi:lIIC::C' fl(Ji U(J df~inl1l8nlal ItI thE,~ pUI:>lic '\l\ItltClf8?
~, I I I I .
___~""" '-~-' L_~~I~'-;-(:1,< ii-i i/\/~i.._~~:-l-'l-- .. . .,,_.~ .__.
, "",,"--
,---------~-----~'----'-----'-'--
~. VVi, y ~illgiantl~~;r the vanancebe In keeplngWlththeotJjectlve(sf()f111~ap;;II~~ble regulation!c)?
-,---,---,-,--... SCe-.,. D++OcoJK-J@en",T",·,'.,: ..... ·'·.'.:v .'" .. ,.,'.... '"
;",,:.",'
---------_._~~---_._.~
Sta1em-2hl 01 additiDnal iacts r81at0d 10 variancE:' request'
~ C'. • =- \ ? ~/\ n.l-L~'I \ ,{v '-..'"1 (r " \~~ 1 \~Y p ~--'--\ I
1.
·~---._._-
"",:._-
Properly Owner's Signature (s) (Required) '/ . :~,
.6b35 C//&tl'(·· . {3!1-A.:.6-e-~< ::::', /
Pr-opertyDwner's Address if not applicant..-
"" :.-,c.;;~·I.:E,(j~~,'ri:~[',;~. ,(->!~,., " Ir i 2"'L~-:;:;:'
~_c__'_----'------'------'--~ ~~~_~ . __
PJqpe~y: -Q.~~ner',s Addressjf nq1, applIcant
3
-----_.,._._-~,~_.~,:~
.• >----,,-----' ._,
Prop",-,rly O\.'\Jner:s p,ddressiJ no1 applicant
._.~_ .._--~
Date
I
FOF: OFFiCIAL USE OI~lY 1.7c(·. _
iE[ ?,~.I[)· ,~ __~~~ ,_...
I
I..
o\(:
_'_ c'
I .J

Attachment
Pag", 1
Project Description: New construction of detached garage vI,Ilth gUt-st house above
Applicant requests:
Set back of 5' HI lieu of 10' ,,,,qulr,,,d
Height ofJ'"' In lieu of~,if as allowed by code for accessory bUilding
I -,
'7(>01
/.... I
/':7
Present use:
S,ngle family dwellmg
Side 2
1. What are the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships (related to the property)
associated with your project?
This property is practically covered by a canopy of oak trees. This limits the locations wllere
a guest house and garage can be built CDde allows for single structures to be bUilt, however,
these structures would be located within tne root I drip Ime of the existing oaks. The proposal Is
for a single two story structure located at the one area where no trees would be Impacted
The structure will be tucked into an existing slope The two story portion will be on Iy visible from
the eXisting Single family dwelling on site.
2. What is unique about the property involved or the intended use or development of the
property ( as related to the variance request)?
Tile location of ttle existing 38 natural oaks limits the construction of the proposed structure
The oaks and the drrp lines In cornbination With the sloping terrain does not allow for constructlCln
In any otller area than as proposed.
The natural terrain IS a canyon With a live stream alld natural vegetation. The site slopes down
flOm Chevy cr,ase and IS not Visually accessible
00012 vati"mce 8PPlic

3. Why will granting of the variance hot be detrimental to the public weHare?
The proposed structure IS not visible from the public way and the additional height IS only
vIsible from tile eXlstmg residence. It will not Impact the c,,,stlng oak trees
The proposed structure IS nor near any pUblic way and IS anot visible from the public way.
4. Why will granting of the variance be in \(eeping with the objective(s) of the applicable
regulation(s)?
The granting of the vallance will be in I(eepmg with applicable ordinances because tile height
and setback Will not be visible from or near a public way
The proposed structure will be tucked into the eXisting slope and will appear as a one story
element on the re3r and as a two story structure to the interior of the property.
The neW structure is designed to be complementary to the eXisting residence which was recently
remodeled. The colors, details and finishes will be the same as the existing residence.
Statement of additional facts related to variance request:
We have met and consulted with Mr. Bill McKlnlley ,of Parks and Recreation, and he concurs with
the proposed location of the structure. It was mutually recognized that there were not alternatives
for building ·slJch a structure.
The proposed project will maintain all of the existing oaks and it does not appear as though any
root systems will be impacted.
:';0'
,.~, :

CITY or GLENDALE, CALlHJIU"IA
J'lilllldnr, lJ~lhJ.Illn(;nt
(i:';:~ r.L1~;1 J;J(ladw;I), ItUUlll J{lj
CJl'nd,llr:, Calif0lfllil 1)"]:.'..(1(,--1:',1\:\
I~]~~) :\..'U;-:'.'.J40 (l1:Ic;) ;,-;n:-~]44
(E'II-l) ~-;,j?;_~(IJ~; ]"il~: ((;'] H) :!A{J·{J::~J2
.I mllillry J (", 2UU7
Lfrain Oljvares
221 Allen Avenue
Glellclillc, CA 0] :WI
Dcar fAr. Olivme,,:
RE: STANDARDS VARIANCE CASE NO. I'VAR 200G~044
3(,35 EAST CHEVY CHASE DRIVE
On Decemher 6, 2006, the Zoning Admimstrator conducted and closed ~ public hearing.
pursuanltu the provisions of Glendale ,Municipal Code, Title 30, Chapter 30 Article V, on
your application for a Standards Variance to al10w the construction of a new detached 528
square·foot garage with a 528 square-foot guest room above the garage, which is setback five
(5) feet from the interior property line and is twenty"oile (21) feet, ten (10) inches 111 heIght in
the "RIR" - Restricted Residential Zone, Floor Area Ratio District l1I, located at 3635 East
Chevy Chase Dnve, described as a POl1ion of Lot A, Sicomoro Canon Tract and a PortlOn of
Lot 2. Tract No. 27330, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles.
CODE REQUIRES
Standard~Vanance
I) In the "R IR" - Restricted Residential Zone, no ac:c:essory building shall e>.ceed a hcighl
of twcJ ',Ie (J:2) feet or fifteen (] 5) feet, where a minimum roofpitcb of three (3) feet in
twelve (] 2) feet is provided.
2) In the "IU.R" ~ Restricted ResidentiaJZone, buildings shalJ be set buck a minimum of ten
(10) fect from an interior propcliy line.
AI'I'LICANT'S I'HOPOSAL
Sli\l1c1aEcls '{ari unc,':
]) Allow the conslructiOlI of an accessory building,whicl] is twenty-one (21) ket, tcn (] 0)
inches 111 hei~hl.
2) Allow construction ofa building, which is set back five (5) feel from the interior p,."pcrty
]inc,
ENVJR(jNMENTAL IZECOMi\1END/lTiUN. Exc:nlpl

Sl'll\dmu~. Variall{:(; C;I~l' )'h pVl,1I. ]Ul!(,-l!4

Swmliu'(h, Val'ia\lGt: CI!>J.; 1,](, l'VAJI. ~()O(,,·(14JI
:I()].'; blSI CIH.:vy Ch,lSC DIlW'
j]l
lV,
The grantmg ufthe variance will not be materially detrimental to the pubhc welfare
or injurious to the proy)(jl1y or improvements in such zone or neighhorhood in which
Ult propeliy is located ill that the proposed detached ganlge witb guest house over
It, with the added height, wi]] not be substantially visible hom adjacent properties
nor vu;ually Seel] or accessible "li"cml thee street. The garage and driveway will
continue to provide the necessflry and required parking and ingress-egress on the
site. '] 'he existing house location and conJigLlration will not be changed. Similar
conditions exist within tl)e area and the community and have not proven 10 be
c1etnmen1ulto the neighborhood. Ill" m:ed iell signdieant site hTuding, ex1en,ive
damages 10 e"i~ling trees fmel additionallngh retaining wulls to accommodate" new
two-story slructure is avoided with this desib'll solution, The request is reasonable
and no significant detriment or injury 10 other properties is expected. This project
will he bcne!icialto the publjc and the resielents anel will not conflict or adversely
atIect adjacent residential uses.
Tbe granting ofthe variance will not be contrary to the objectives Dfthe ordinance
in that the addltion is consistent with the existing house and is compatible with
similar structures in size and height within tl1e neighborhood. The request is still
within the objectives ofthe ordinance The location and design Dfthe detached
garage enable the applicant to maintain and provide required parking spaces and the
project, as located and sited, is consistent with the goals of the ordinance. The
objectives of the Code are intended to promote the public's health, safety and
welfare, and to allow reasonable development and use ofpropeliy. The proposed
project has been designed to blend in with the existing house, the natural setrmg,
slope and built environment, TI1e proposed design preserves uni,'Taded land and
landscaping, reduces the need for substantial grading and visual prominence of the
building, The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe Glendale
Municipal Code and with the Land Use Element oftl1e General Plan adopted by the
City Council. "TI1e variance is the minimum necessary to afford highest and
efficient use of the propeliy and the stmctures for the fullction the owner would like
to have. This variance will continue to pruvide needed spaces for guests and
parking whid) wm address the changing needs of the propel1:y owners and will be
consistent with the area and theGomlrmnity.
AJ'I'ROVAL ofthis Standards Variance shall be Sllbj"ct t.o the lClllowing conditions:
1,
2,
Thal the development sha]] be in substantial accDrd with the plans submitted with the
apphcalJon and prcsented at the heming excepl fell' any modifications as may be
required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein as
approved by the Zonin g I'1.dministrator
T.ll~'~ 'u' J '1CCC,,:,rar'J 1)p'-'1·'~ t" C' 1~ '"'11 bp. nl-,t"1'11"d C1"'1'] ',-1, p D '-"'''''~1]'t (,' f-'~ •. \}~ "'-~(' ( .... '·''-It "'," ,'J',ld ',l]
LoLl. I .,1 .. ~,~, .J l vJJ ,J oJ ul.l'... , .... V!.J u. ....,.. ,L u I. J,,-, J '-'AU LJ~.-. \ .~....,u '-~'--'~ ~....,~ ~
consLmelion shall be in cOJ))phance WiOl the Glcnda1c Dnilc1ing Code Find ,,11 otllcr
applicable rcguliltions.

~1'1l1(l'-' ~o",l(l I"V AF :W()(,_{)44
_~(,J:', bl:-;I C:1\~v\' Chase Unve
4
Tha1 DesIgn Rn'icw Board approval shan be obtaint:d prior V) tht; is~:uan~t. uf [j
budding pt;nnit.
~.
,.
• .1.
That if any buildings j
sidcv,'alks\ curb or gut1.er, 'fencing OT land~~cape an~~\s., ClL:_,
adjacent to the site are damaged during the GOur,e uf GUnstructi on on puh]jc or
private property, the damage S]1311 be repaired to the satisfaction oftlJe Zoning
AdministntiOT for j1nvaie property and the Director of Public .Works for public
properl)'.
Thai the prernises be maintamed in " c1l'311 and cirdc:rly t:lindiiiCJll. free of ,V(jeds,
trash, and grafliIi.
6.
7
8
9.
That 'm)' e1'])o.nsion or modification ofth(; detachcd 'uaraee/I'uest hou'e structure or

~;\i\l1d:II"1.j:. Valiilll\;\: OILt.: J'b. I'Vi\1( :..J.UO/,··(J'\4
J6J:'1 b~~l C1H.~\'y ChaNt Drivc
5
Section 30.64.02,0 - Revocatill1] - The Zoniu[; Administn.tor shall have cont'"llin[;
jurj~dietion over an "HrianLes~ cond.itional use pCrlnits find adrninistrative
exccptions. To consid~r the revoultion, the Zoning Admini"lra(or shall hold II
public hcaring :lfter giving notiee by the ,ame procedure 1I~; for CllllSidcl,,,ti.on of"
v"ri"ncc at least 10 days lloti~(, by lr",il to the llpplkant or pcrmittee.
Sholild yOll have 'Illy questions regarding this is~;uc. please do not hesitate to GOntact the
unclerslgned. .
EMF:sm
cc: City Clerk; Pem1it Services (Howai'd Mahs); Fire Dept. (D. Nickles); City Engineer;
Dir. ofPublic WorLs; Dir. of Glendale Water & Power; Dir. ofParlcs, Recreation, &
Community Services; Neighborhood Services Admin; Inle,,'Tated ,Vaste lVlanagernenl
Admin; Street and Field Services; Maintenance Services Admin. ;Traffic &
Transp011atiol1 Admin; Steven Lee; Alan & June Lindsey; Ken & Peggy Marlmet; Dick
Murray; Maria Noel; J'Aargaret Mateueher; Susan Schmitter & Lisa Powell; and Lisa
Wong.

CITY OF GLD~DALE
INTERDEPARTMEIHAL COMMLINICATIOhl
TO: DATE: Oclol:JE,r 26,2006
>: CITy!,TTOF,hJEY x PUFJLlC VVOFU,C: iP,[JIv1II.JIE;-1 FU,TIOI-,)
X COIVlhIlUI"ITY [JEV & HOUSII"G x [1I~III",eri"g
J:
(jf)~
x
)( Housing x Environrnf.:llt81 Man219E:rnent
IlJeigl'lborhuod Services
ICIRE F'F,EVEIHIOI'-!
F'AF-;j

IhiTERDEPARTMENTAL COMII!IUhl~CP,TiOI.j
PROJECT COMMENTS
[~

._~-_.
._~_.
CITV OF GLEf\lDALE
IIHERDEPARTMEIHAL COMMU,'JICAno!\!
TO:
x
CITY )\TI OF~hIEY
CUhfIMUI'JITY DEV
): 1-luLising
/; J-10Ucill,G
DATE: OctubH 26, :20[16
x r"UBLIC VVOI~I(S (!IDIVIIIJlSTrl,L,TIOI'J)
J: EI-'~il1lec-;:rm9
x
cnvironHlental h~andgelTlcnl
.c&.
l[
x l\leighborhLJocJ :::ervlcC15
ICIF:E I"REVEcIHIOH
1:-'/11':110.1 PVAR 2006-044
Condltional Use Permit
\110.
r Tentative I ract/Parcel Map
No
I SR Zone Review I
Design Heview Board C2se 1\lo.! \ Zone ChangelGPA I
--
Environment Inio Form (ElF) "0.1 I Other I
-
1
]
=J
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant IS proposing 10 construct a new detached garage with a
secDnd story guesl house with a 5-100t setback instead oi the minimum required 10-foot sc:tt;ad, and a
\'18;9I'JI 01 2'I ieet, 10 inches instead of the maximum required 15 feet
PLEf',sE SUBIVIIT YOLJR RESPONSE 1,,",r_9,"-.~?,"-_ll,"-O,,,-,,6 _
Y[JlJr' (;(jrnmf:rJl~; ure dn irnporlGlnt cOf]sic1eraiioll and ::;hould addn:s~, vlli/hin your etfeEl of 0uthorify, GOf)CUrT13 Elnd
pDj8nliaily ,';ignifiG';lnl ndver.H;.' physicfll ChCll"Ig(~S tD the (-:,'nvirunmcni you IlCJve regarding t"hr-? pmjf:.'Gl. You miW r:J1~lo
!clentily code requirements appljCiclfJle 10 Ihe project ;:;0 tha/1'/'11? ~Jpplicanl I.s m'onm:d 8

IlHERDEP ARTI\NEh~TAL COMI"jU!~!c)\,TIOO\l
PROJECT COlV'lf\JIEiHS
YuLi rnc!y r-eview curnplel(-;: pJ2lns, maps and 8>dlibitr:; in our ufflce
cunsicl8ration and look forward to your comments
\f\le appreclCllb your"
1 (' ('
I (;.-,T
CODE R.EQUIREIv1EIHS
Yes or Ho

j NTERD EPA RTMEI'iTAL COMM UN} CA '[ JON
l'ROJfi;CT COMMENTS
Yuu lIn,)' ] "Yit,W compkl,e'p]mis,Tnaps and c):J:,i1Jits m (JlIT uJTJee,
cunL:ic1crit1..lon and '·Joo'k fon;valclt6 )f(}ur C01'l'Hl'H:m1.~,:
We ',if:lpnJciate yOUI
CODE PFOUlREMENTS
1, The method of discharge: ()fall onsitedrainage shall be ,appwved b'y the Cijy EIJgj,jeeI' A
dTain,,-ge plan for Eng[lleerlng Di,iision's review and approval shall be submiTted ,and made a
paJi ofthe building plans:' -
2, Separate penuits are Teqriired for all work perfmmed in the public right-elf-vee)', The 3J1plicallt
shaJl1:ieaT aD fees f6;:- the'ile~essaiyperrnits and consiili6tiill1 ihspecti()!ls for \"ork ,',ithill the
public ijght~of-\~,aY.·· --".. _:.,~:-. - .

NOT~CEOF APPEAL
'~:IIcop«P.ll!llllilfthl3 eppiI~c:lIl m· tM ~~ioos~m.G33 E "lis)" ... "\! " .- ..~~ , Ills \lIlll PJlOP
ilia fu" mal P"'P">Iy allaw

.
:1
3
b.
o.
Do you contend that th~ bu.i!Jrd, com"n.1~s;:ion Of" offb 6J{ceacled its authbrity b~' virtu~ of dtly 0, thE! pru\li~i(Jns of }~~
given in nnsWOIf-"1b"? Y",,-S No 0 c&i'41''':1r,
If yow anS\lt.'itr to "'221" /""tps-. indicate W~iCh p~·ov~sions and sti!l.ia~6CiriD3IUYea.ch ;act which was. in &).{csss 01 authority;
(S t::e Iff1./f.[/'I /J1 e IV0
_. ~
Do you cOf'l1sod that the board. commh:,;slon or of5ic6t' talilad to fulfill a mandalory duty by any provision of law given in
anowe' 10 "1 b"? Y".'pi{ r~o Cl
If your answar to ""3a" is ""Yes·, titattl which pro"mcon and llio sp~;::ific dut~r Y/~iich it tailed to exercise:
_
../ . \.
5
lA.
b.
...
b.
Do you c;onlsnd thet the board. cQmrression or offi:er rehmo-d to hlSi3Ir or considsr oer~'3'.in fac1s before rendering its
decision?
Va.ill No D
If your aflSWf.U ~ "4at' is «YEl~ G~atG oaach such fac.1 and fo£" l3iach fact"\-$tate hbW it should have changed Hie act,
det~tmination 0:' ruiing: // . ' )
(SPr .4-/U'-'tC/-I mf-'/V;/
o.
Do you contend that: you ha\l'OMW evidemc$ of l'i13tatiat factt!; ~~ot pre\liously presented, which if considel'ed should
ehangs tnlff a.ct. determinatkm. or ruling? Yes D l\Jo~,
If your anS:'WSif to ""6a." is ~BS". Slate each osw material fact not pi-€t"Jio~:,liy presented to the board, commission or officer,
[and for a~ch fact st.(VlB why it was not al:veUabie or with the f!l~erci$e of reasonable diligence could nat have been
diacov$",d and pr"3antd pmviously by appBll"nlj.
_
Statement 01 add~ional fam. rGlald to the iilpp""':-'--- ---.:'>,-_~_~_~ ."
_
/ ". J
___________--i(~2

ATTACHMI.cNT TO NO'nCE 011 AI'!'EAt
Appellant:
r'\pplicdnt:
Variancc Casc No.:
Casl~ Address:
Lisa V~'ong
Efrain 0 livarcs
l'VAR..2006-044
3635 East Chevy Cha~;e Drj"·/c
Glendale, ell 91:206
Continuation oi'Part C, HenJs 2b~ 3b, 4h, 511" and 6b,
Zoning Admini"trator Edith Fucnl;;:, granted Applicant a variance lo allow construction
ofa 52g sq. f1. ganige vv'ith a 528 sq, fL guest 1'OOlT1 abov'e> in -violation ofthe C0de~s
Jkight Limit Jor ilCCeSS()])' buildings and in violatiuns of the allowable sg uare footage or
an 2iccesso(y building,
In granting the variance in this case, Ms. Fuentes violated Sectiom 30.28.040, 30.28.140 ..
and 30.43:>030 ufthe Glendale Municipal Code as -y·/ell as A-tie-le I, Sections 1 and 7 of
lhe Caiifomia Constitution.
:;... Section 30.28.040 permits accessory living quarters ofguest houses not lo exceed
500 sq. ft. of living space. The applicant proposed 528 sq. ft. on top ofa 528 sq.
ft. garage.
TI1is is a violation ofthis Sectioll. Nu variance reguesl has been made [or this
excess footage d.espite this point having been nmde at the Zorling Adnlli-"1istrator"s
Hearing on DeCC111ber 6, 2006. So~ hovv could this project have been approved?
;... Section 30.28.140 permits an accessory struct Lire to be 12 ft. t.all, and with a roof,
'0 L e a ..·a yo L LJ u~ .~Hl.Ulll
..' ..... V~i" 11. 5 ".u. <
l-a~.
~11
~,....".
't +j-e
~.i
·,
F1.J~~'"',.:.-
];pd 01 ".u.._

2. giv(;J) the size ofthe prOrel\Y~ build the gClrage aBel the gU(;st bous~ as ~CjXLra1.e
buildings and not violate the hcigh1 lirl1lt?
msCOSSEON
The original application was for two exceptions to the Code, one for height and one for
setback.. ] an1 plea:sed that the applican1 S~i\"· fit to anlend his application and ,;riB 110\~1
meet the minimum lOft. set back requirement. Apparently, it wasn't absolutely
necessary to build the building \".ith the 5 ft set back as he had originally stated. If there
had bec;11 no objections on this issue at the Hearing, one wonders if the Zoning
Adnllnislrator \vould giant exception for this as v,rdl
FINDINGS
FinditlQ. #1: The strict aoplication ofthe Zoning Ordinance would result in Dwetieal
difficulties or Ululecessarv hardships incoilsistent ·,vith the Q:eneral purpose aIld intent of
the Orditlance.
The Zoning Administrator found that, "The proposed location ofthe garage/guest house,
is the best location ,7v'ithout interrupting the existing house con.:.+iguration, having the least
impact to rooflines and drip lines ofthe trees, building less retaining walls, least removal
of18.J.ldscaping 3.ud avoiding excessive gradhig." \Vhat evidence is there that this spot is
tlIe best location? There was no substai1tia! evidence presented at the hearing to support
this statement by the applicant or the Zoning Adrninistrator. \f/hat hardship is cTeated by
asking the applicant to create a separate garage and a separate guest house? Ifit is
eCCH10nu.c, it siiU fails to qualify as a hardship.
Finding if.?: There arc exceptional circumstances or conditions aIJplicable to the property
involved or to the intended use or dcvdopn1ent ofthe property tha(do not apDly
tT C"1P -all,;'0 -~11~1" p"'o"'e-ij'ps 1'~ +I~(-' "':-;'l'e ZO'1P or ·le·:nl.~l~~I·"{··od
_ ~ .~l .! L 1J ~l 'v l, tJ 1 ~ ..... ~l.l l- 1" ~~~ l J L ~ ~ 1 l~1.L_!Y 11. I .
The Z.oning Administrator justified ber finding by :;eJty .. neig,hbors and the envjrOl1m;~n1." Let me assure you
that there is nothin.g unique about thisPTODcrt.,r~·s tOiJOEraDhv c.nd cOllfH~Ul'atioil. and it
docs not constitute exceptional cirCUln~tal;ce ~,r cOl~ditiOl~S. ~ A.nJ the iJl~pact on'rne~ the
neighbor~ is not 1111.nin13L it is subSlantial.
2

find ing #3: Th~.....f/ rantint~ (If the vt.~iancc ,A/il] not.be Inateri2llly detrin:l(~nta] 10 the public
~Y~lt4I~..Q1:.. .l1}.i-'~.rjq1-gL1Q"the .DrQJ)f;:;1:~y_.~_~.:jIl1prgye~_:n~,ilt~ illliJJ.~h_ZitILC_9Ll'leigl1bilIh0_QQ,.in
):·.,j.11r;.h_Jh~:._ Rr()P£.I~t.Y_ k~JflG_~~lt; .de-
The Zoning Adrninistrator !cHll1d thaI the structure "will not be substantially visible from
.adja~ent properties nor visually seen or accessible from the street." A..s you can see -fro,m
my attached photos, you can scc iftrom my bedroollls, you can sec ittroll1 the middle of
111\' hackym'd~ and you caD see if 11"0111 THy sittillg area bc10\"l 111y giant oak tree about 20
feet aV'I"ay! JT lS \/ERY VISIBLE.
The Zoning Administrator !i.lJ'thcr states, "Similar eonditk,ns exist 'Nithin the an:a ,md
COl11Jllunity and bavc not proveD detrinlcntal to the ncjghboThood.~' I k:oo\1./ ofno such
similar conditions ami would aeed to ask the Zoning Administrator to explain this point
as jt appears to be one 0fhcr reasons for n12.kil1g Finding #3.
She further stales thaI this pwject will b~ bendieialto the public and the residcnt.
Perhaps she could explain hov,,' it vlil] be beneficial to the public and the residents. Even
iflhis was truc, and it isn't, the Board should know tli"t granting a variance based OJ]
positive design benefits. desirability ofthe proposed project, or vague benefits to the
eomrmmity, is nol sustainable (Orinda Assn. vs. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.
,;.-_.- "Jd jill"::::
l.....lJ-lJ-l. J' ~ ~u.
Finditl£ #4: The grant.ing ofthe variance will not be contrary to· the objectives ofthe
ordinance.
The Zoning Administrator states, "The variance is the minimum necessary to alford
t.:.ighest and effie-ient use Cof the property and the structures for the function the 0 V\'1"ler
would like to have." I fmd that statement illogkal. Clearly, the minimum necessary to
afford the highest and efficient use ofthe property mId the: structures for the function thl';
o'wner would like to have, would be to have two separate buildings, both ofwhich fill!
\vithin the height lirniL He has plenty ofroolll to do that and he shoilld. I-Ie accoll1plishes
V1/112\t he wants 'Vvhich is another garage and a guest hOl..1Se j
and they don ~t i.nconsiderately
il11pac"t his neighbors. By the ,vay ~ he already has a t\-vo-car attf"tched ga]"age~ a covered
Call10Ji and large cienrings in two other separate places where he already parks his rt1uny
cars.
As or January 25, 2007, 'I.(kr my telephone eonversalioJJ with the lkparlment ofP:irks
and Recreation fvir. Bill JAc.Kjnley~ J }eaxned that fvlr. fv1cKinky did not knov\' that' this
ca.sch[~s b~cn appro\!!,~d. HC'. told nlC he had corK:crn~: for the two oaJ.:.. trees on cith..·.r side
ofthe propo~jed sti"Uctnre that they 111a1' be ilegatively iI11pa-:-ted and had asked the
ru-ehikc! (0 show him more details on the location ofhis planned structure. Mr.
lvlcKinley sajd he is 111Qst C0:i1Cerned about the slT:aller oak tree to the south ofthe proj-:::d
site., He ne;:;d~ to rmtk e sure- that the rODt 'vvill not be 100 close to the proposed strudurc
and tllL1ti be put in danger ofeventual danlage. I-Ie said if he: lDlds that the: oc.k trees
~~.r()und this structure lllight have a negati've ilnpact on the trees: th(-;n this rnatter vv"j,ll be
3

turned oyer 10 the environrnental revicvv. 'fo date" the applic{lllt has not yet cornplied
v'/1th J)arks ::U1d F~ecIcalion" s reqiJeSl 10 shov\" drip line ufoat trees \;,,-ithin 50 tL o1't11c
proposed construction area. 1\1r. Bill McKinley said thaL as far as he'5 concerned, he has
no1. approved this proje.:.;t. 1 mYJ ,vondering -"vhy \ then, the Zoning Adn1inistrator ~ 'Ivithout
all ofthe findings, grll!lteclthis case? Thl: cleeision says that I have until J"nuary 31, 2007
to ITi3k~ my appeal. 11 is unihir to li1e thal J am loTced 10 go through the 'f.,!hole trouble of
doing this appeal and paying the $500.00 for it when the ease should not have becn
approved in the first place. Ifthe Board ofZonu1g Appeals finds that there are enol'S in
this initial judgrnent~ I it~el that] should be ref-unded fOT lIlY $500.00.
CONCUJSlON
I have no objection to the appliGant adding a gmage and a gUGst house. His is a huge,
4 L1,750 sq. fL lot. BU1~ 1 du object to his violating, the Code by building a 21 it. 10 inch
stmcture only 10 feet from my b,lC1:yard and in my tflce. He has plenty ofroorn to build
elscvyhere ifhe would shO\~1 consideration to his neighbors. He can build the garage and
guest house separately and not violate the height code. There is no doubt about that.
The buddy system is evident in this case.
I can'l help but notic;e that the hearing was on December 6, 2006, and the decision was
received by me on January 18, 2007, a total ofover 6 weeks and the applicant did not
meet the city ofGlcndale Parks and Recreation's rcqucst ofproducing a detailed plan on
the in1pact ofthe California Live Oaks from the buildit,g ofthis proposed structwe, Clnd
in fitGt, so, blatantly was not even brought up by the zoning admL'lislrator in her fInal
decision. Yet, upon 111)'" receiving the decision on 1/18, I only ha'v'E until 1/31, just 2
weeks to appeal or forever 110 Ie! my peace.
AIso, on or around 1/13, after so n1any weeks of hearing nothing on the case, I contacted
tIle lvlayor ofGlendale, Dave vveaver, and asked hhl1 to check on it for 111e. 1\1yhusband
and 1 met with mayor weave.]' on 1/J 7. He told us the cleGision has been handed clown,
that it i1as ruled against liS. He gal/e 1.15 a copy ofthe dec-isioTl~ even though \ve still had
nol received the original in the. mail. He pOLTll blank lold US Ihal the applicant, aIGhitect
01ivares o is a :6.-iend of his and has vvorked -Vvith "Lhe City on se-\leral restoration projects.
lIe had Galkd Olivares and gotten "hi:; sick of the story," and, without seeing whelher the
rest ofthe findings ,Nere III p1ace~ the ll1f(yor V'las aclvocating fbY his frieild. i-Ie "\vas trying
to persu~de n1)' husband and 111e to accept the dec,isioll and not 1113ke an appeaL
}~,T1d.! gojng bach a c-ol.lpk'- (ifrntJn1h~, ago, \'vhen 1 \AJcnl to the Cily PlannjJ.1.g 01111,',('; to kl(\k
al the blue pr1Hts of this C~SC7 'I ask_ed J\1r. Roger }(jesel, architect in the PhU111Dg
DcparUi-jCnt, hu),\· ddt,Gult arc, these requests 1;') get varimlccs gn:lntcd 1
and he suid~ "'not
difC1cult at aU."
J t1t:vc abo been toId l:~y C3kndak re,s;(k:~n1s, £ina fdl cJ Dl;-- (:)·:.pcrknc!;:·, vr'.i1h the different
depa.rtrnents in the city of GJend,tle ha\;e indicated Lo lTtt', Lhal the City has xn~tde rll

friends inn::a! cst.:1te developers Hno {:"trGhit(~ets perh;;l.'ps becHuse of its t'UflPY dcvc)opnK:n1
])Tojec'Ls arou'tHJ thc" city, thi..iL, be~ause or this, ·the city is Jeaning hc~.rvily Or! the '
ck\,'dopefs/Hl"chitect's side" 1 l~!as DRi\'C"- (~(t.l.ning into this easel but, k.no\ving 'YVh,E11 f ]UIO,\N
nu:w~ I \-\lonJer ifthi:; "Jiltle gu/) ever had a chance in the first. pldce 'Lo light this case.
JUstkT is supposed to be blind ~(~!::-king equalIty_ 1 hupe 1 can rin~·t.lJy
i.:qualiLy in the appea.b pro(;.e~:1 \vi1h the Board ofZoning Appeals.
find lV.slice' ~1nd
The Zoning A..dIY!.i:n.istrator~s deei~jon 10 allenv this IH:.·.ighbo!' 10 violate, the },1unicipaJ
C()d.e and neg[iL~veJy irnpacting ~l1Y fhrn]ly and 11"le~ his neighboTS\ and is terTibly
clist.n..'ssin:g, 10 us, O\./c.rnight this (~rd!.~al has taken the. tnmquility ~nd hPLppirl!~~SS 'we had of
Iiv ing in this 'beautiful lirroyo in the City ofG!endale. 11 is not \.:onlf{)rling '1.0 1-:110\1·/ that if
is ~o easy to bregl~ the ord-i'nanees that th!~~ City hcuJ set forth to protect (~U..r h0111CS and
neighborhood. Y,-triances sbouJd be granko only in extrCllle c~!ses. This.is nul an
cxtrC111e case. J hope the BOurd nfZoning, Appczds v~,'ill rectify e\'ery v,Tong that has been
111ade in this case.
(/~~7
Date ,
)

, .
o

- -----_..
fiNDINGS: VARIANCE
Exceptional Circumstances
1m
mil
Circumstances cannot apply generally to other
parcels of land.
Emphasis on disparities between properties, not the
treatlnent of a subject property in the abstract.
~ Disparity usually must be based on physical
disparities between properties; however, other
disparities may justify variance such as disparities
caused by state or federal regulations. Craik v. City
of Santa Cruz
BZA July 18, 2005 11

FINDINGS: VARIANCE
Exceptional Circumstances
m
The following are not exceptional circumstances:
o
o
o
o
o
Positive design benefits
Overcompliance with other parts of the Code
Desirability of the proposed project
Economic difficulties of developing project in compliance with
Code
Vague benefits to the community
Orinda Ass'n v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145
EZA July 18, 2005 12

FINDI
s: VARIANCE
Same Zone or Neighborhood
~ Description of zone or neighborhood must be
reasonable. Stolman v. City of Los Angeles
(2003) 114 Cal.App. 4 th 916 (comparison of
property with other variance properties
throughout the City was abuse of discretion.)
BZI\ July 18, 2005 13

FINDI
s: VARIANCE
Unnecessary HardshiQ
lEI
Hardship must be unique to the circumstances
and conditions of the property, not general
hardship caused by compliance with code.
~ Inability to make profit not a hardship.
~ Hardship may not be self-induced.
BZ1\ July 18, 2005 14

flNDI
s
Form of Findings
o Boilerplate or conclusory findings are insufficient.
o Not required to be to the level of a judicial opinion;
however they may not be perfunctory either.
o Findings must expose the mode of decision-maker's
analysis.
BZA July 18,2005 15

IFINDI
s
BZA Findings
E
May adopt Zoning Administrator's findings as
its own.
~ May base decision on its own determination
on findings.
BZA July 18, 2005 16

FINDINGS
Evidence
II Generally, a court will uphold a local agency's
adjudicatory decision if it is based upon "substantial
evid(3nCe" in light of the whole record.
II Substantial evidence: Reasonable in nature,
credible, and of solid value. It must actually be
"su bstantial."
BV, July j 8, 2005 17

j FINDI s
"In light of the whole record"
~ Evidence may consist of:
o
o
Q
o
o
o
o
Staff reports
Written and oral testimony
Project environmental documents, e.g. EIR or MND
Exhibits
Photographs
Diagrams
Personal observations
BZA July 18,2005 18

GLENDALE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2006
633 EAST BROADWAY, ROOM 105, GLENDALE, AT 9:30 A.M.
9:30 a.m.
Edith M. Fuentes, Zoning Administrator opened the hearing in Room 105 ofthe
Municipal Services Building. She outlined the requirements ofTitle 30 for the
pertinent cases and described the provisions for appeal in Article IX ofTitle 30 of
the Glendale Municipal Code as well as the procedures for the conduct ofthe
hearings.
Ms. Fuentes announced that the agenda for the meeting was posted on Decemberl, 2006 at the
City Hall Entrance.
ICASE NO. PVAR-2006-04~
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
3635 EAST CHEVY CHASE DRIVE
Efrain Olivares
Barry Blackmore
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
An application for a standards variance to allow the construction ofa new detached 528
square-foot garage with a 528 square-foot guest room above the garage, which is set back 5
feet fwm the interior property line and is 21 feet, 10 inches in height, at 3635 East Chevy
Chase Drive, in the "RIR" - Restricted Residential, Floor Area Ratio District III, described
as Portion of Lot A, Sicomoro Canon Tract & a Portion ofLot 2, Tract No. 27330.
Case Planner: Roger Kiesel
Exhibits
Location Map I Zoning Map I Elevations I Site Plan I Plot Plan I Demolition Plan I Parking Plan I
Photos.
Comments From Other Departments
Comments are available for review in the case file.
Written Public Input
- Steven Lee
- Alan and John Lindsey
- Ken and Peggy Martinet
- Susan Schmitter and Lisa Powell
- Lisa Wong
Applicant
- Efrain Olivares, architect, 221 Allen Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201, presented the project.
C;xhlblf F-

2
Speaking at the Hearing
- Margaret Hateucher
- Dick Murray
- Maria Noel
- Lisa Wong
The request was taken under submission for detem1ination at a later time.
12/06/06 za mins 2