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

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.