Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission upholds denial of variance for oversized wall at 3411 E. Chevy Chase Drive
Loading...
Summary
The Glendale Planning Commission unanimously sustained the planning hearing officer’s denial of a variance to legalize an existing, unpermitted retaining wall, fence and driveway gate at 3411 E. Chevy Chase Drive after neighbors and staff argued the four required findings were not met.
The Glendale Planning Commission on April 15 voted unanimously to uphold the planning hearing officer’s July 2025 denial of a variance to legalize an existing retaining wall, fence and driveway gate at 3411 East Chevy Chase Drive.
Staff told commissioners the request sought to legalize an unpermitted retaining wall that varies between about 3 feet and 6 feet in height, a nonretaining wall or fence on top ranging about 4 to 6 feet, and a driveway gate as high as 9 feet within the city’s 15‑foot street front setback. The case planner summarized the hearing officer’s finding that the applicant did not meet the four required variance findings — including that there are no unique site conditions constituting an unnecessary hardship and that the proposed wall was incompatible with the hillside development policy.
Neighbors and the Chevy Chase Estates Association urged the commission to sustain the denial. “None of the four findings have been made,” said a neighborhood representative, citing a long pattern of incremental, after‑the‑fact additions to the wall and a prior variance denial in 2004. Multiple residents described safety and liability concerns, inconsistent survey elevations and the wall’s visual dominance in the canyon.
The applicant, identified at the hearing as the property owner who purchased the home in March 2024, told the commission they inherited the constructed wall, said a citation was in place at the time of purchase and urged a “good‑faith” path to resolve safety and tree‑protection concerns. The applicant said they were open to lowering the wall or adding foliage if the city suggested acceptable mitigations.
Commissioners said the record before the planning hearing officer and staff did not show the exceptional circumstances or documented practical hardship required to overturn the denial. Several commissioners noted the absence of a structural‑engineer report quantifying risks if the wall were removed and said buying a property with a known code violation does not itself create the hardship required for a variance.
After deliberation, a motion to uphold the planning hearing officer’s decision passed on a roll call vote: Commissioners Trakjan, Malekian, Manasian and Nazarian and Chair Fuentes voted yes. The commission’s decision is subject to a 15‑day appeal period to city council.
The commission’s action leaves the hearing officer’s findings in place; staff advised that if the commission were to reverse, the matter should be continued to allow staff time to prepare findings supporting an approval.
