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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: TO: Board of Zoning Appeals PREPARE
Page 3: Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive
Page 7 and 8: Appeal - 3635 E. Chevy Chase Drive
Page 9: I0c.284?7 ~8
Page 12 and 13: .;,ir'if'" \ ) ,"ITIAlS ~ x ~ "~ u;
Page 14 and 15: ~ _ , APPLICATIOhl FOR VARIANCE Sub
Page 16 and 17: Attachment Pag", 1 Project Descript
Page 18 and 19: CITY or GLENDALE, CALlHJIU"IA J'lil
Page 20 and 21: Swmliu'(h, Val'ia\lGt: CI!>J.; 1,](
Page 22 and 23: ~;\i\l1d:II"1.j:. Valiilll\;\: OILt
Page 24 and 25: IhiTERDEPARTMENTAL COMII!IUhl~CP,Ti
Page 26 and 27: IlHERDEP ARTI\NEh~TAL COMI"jU!~!c)\
Page 28 and 29: NOT~CEOF APPEAL '~:IIcop«P.ll!llll
Page 30 and 31: ATTACHMI.cNT TO NO'nCE 011 AI'!'EAt
Page 32 and 33: find ing #3: Th~.....f/ rantint~ (I
Page 34 and 35: friends inn::a! cst.:1te developers
Page 36 and 37: - -----_.. fiNDINGS: VARIANCE Excep
Page 38 and 39: FINDI s: VARIANCE Same Zone or Neig
Page 40 and 41: flNDI s Form of Findings o Boilerpl
Page 42 and 43: FINDINGS Evidence II Generally, a c
Page 44 and 45: GLENDALE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PUBLI

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?