1 - City of Glendale

glendale"~
california~
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Joint D City Council ~
REPORT TO THE:
Housing Authority D Successor Agency D Oversight Board D
May 14, 2013
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing on Appeal of Design Review Board Case No. 2-PDR 1301725, located at
2064 Buckingham Place
1) Motion to sustain the Design Review Board's decision to approve the Design Review Board
application.
2) Motion to continue to May 28 1 h, directing City Attorney to draft findings supporting denial of the
Design Review Board application.
COUNCIL ACTION
Public Hearing D Ordinance D Consent Calendar D Action Item 1Zl
Report Only D
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Hassan Haghani, Director of Community Development
Signature
Prepared by:
Vilia Zemaitaitis, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Reviewed by:
Yasmin K. Beers, Assistant City Manager
~ichael J. Garcia, City AttorneY c.~
"'""'~. G~~'""\
~ w

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the Design Review Board's determination to approve Case No. 2-PDR-
1301725-A, based on the rationale used by the Design Review Board. If the Council is inclined to
reverse the Design Review Board's decision and deny the application, an alternate motion has been
included for adoption.
BACKGROUND I ANALYSIS
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by Design Review Board #1 on February 28, 2013,
to approve Design Review Board Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A.
The applicant is proposing to add 252 sq. ft. to the first floor of an existing 2,011 sq.ft., singlestory
home and to construct a new 1,120 sq.ft. 2nd story, for a total of 3,383 sq.ft. of habitable
area. The existing 2-car attached garage will be retained and expanded to comply with the
minimum dimensions for a two-car garage. The pool will also be maintained as is. A ·new de·ck is
proposed at the rear. The proposed addition and remodel will alter the architectural style of the
existing house from a simple Ranch to a more Modern style.
General Information
Appellant:
Status of Appellant:
Applicant/Owner:
Gregory Mgerian
2060 Buckingham Place
Glendale, CA 91206
Neighbor to the east
Armen Mkrtchian
2064 Buckingham Place
Glendale, CA 91206
Requested Action:
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Design Review Board decision to
approve Design Review Board Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A.
Legal Description: Lot 13 and portions of Lot 12 and 14 of Tract No. 26703.
Zone: "R1 R" Restricted Residential Zone, Floor Area District I.
Land Use Element: Low Density Residential.
Lot Size and Frontage: The subject property has a lot area of 30,400 square feet (0.70 acres)
and approximately 23 linear feet of frontage on Buckingham Place (flag lot driveway). The
westerly half of the property slopes sharply downward towards Chevy Chase Drive.
Existing Site Characteristics: The subject property is currently developed with a single-story
house and attached 2-car garage located on a flat building pad portion of an irregularly-shaped,
dual-frontage flag lot, which features a steep down-slope along the rear towards Chevy Chase
Drive. The garage is accessed off a flag lot driveway at the terminus of Buckingham Place.
2

Circulation Element: Buckingham Place is classified as a local street in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street adjacent to
the subject property.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The surrounding area is zoned R1 Rand is developed with 1-
and 2-story single-family dwellings.
Environmental Documentation: The project was determined to be categorically exempt from
CEQA.
PROJECT HISTORY:
Previous Case (1-PDR-2008-089-A):
December 30. 2008- Applicant submitted design review application for final review for the
remodel and expansion of an existing 2,030 sq.ft., 1 ~story single family residence that
included an addition of 252 sq.ft. to the first floor, and construction of a new 1,815 sq.ft.
second story and an additional single car garage space for the required 3-car garage (ORB
Case No. 1-PDR-2008-089-A)
April 2, 2009- The project was presented to Design Review Board No. 1 with the recommendation
to approve as submitted. The Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the project with three
conditions:
1. Reduce the bulk of the 2nd story on the north-east side of the home, for example, by
eliminating the "add room" (as identified on the plans) and perhaps shifting the master
bathroom towards the center of the floor.
2. Submit plans for the front gate and walls for staff review and approval prior to submitting
for plan check.
3. Any new driveway portions shall match the existing driveway pavers.
April 15, 2009- The neighbor directly to the east, Gregory Mgerian, appealed the case to City
Council.
July 7. 2009- The City Council held a de novo public hearing for the appeal and voted
unanimously 4-0 to approve the appeal and deny the project (see Exhibit 7) for the following
reasons:
1. Size, Mass and Scale. The second story addition will create a house that is not
compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale. The size will be greater
than the neighborhood average (4,087 compared to a neighborhood average of 2,224
square feet). The significant increase in the mass and bulk of the house is inconsistent
with the massing in a neighborhood with much smaller average house size.
2. Conflicting relationships with adjacent buildings. The proposed house will not allow .
reasonable access to natural light from any of the bedrooms of the neighboring house.
3. The design of this house is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Current Case (1-PDR-1301725-A)
January 30, 2013- Owner/applicant submitted a new ORB application for the current project.
February 28, 2013- Case scheduled for ORB, but meeting postponed due to lack of quorum.
3

March 7, 2013- Project presented to Design Review Board No.1 . The Board voted (3-0-1) to
approve the project with the following conditions (Exhibit #4):
1. · Maintain the existing vertical landscaping along the east property line.
2. Provide substantial, vertical landscaping at the base of the new deck.
3. Remove the unpermitted patio and outdoor kitchen straddling the north interior
property line.
4. Lower the overall height of the roof by approximately two feet.
5. Reduce the sense of mass at the wall above the garage opening by either adding an
architectural feature above the opening or increasing the height of the door.
6. Provide more openness at balcony above the garage by removing the wall area at its
west side, extending the lintel across the new opening, and introducing a structural
post at the west outside corner.
7. Delete the wood rails at balconies from proposal and replace with aluminum rails
finished to match the windows.
March 21 , 2013- Mr. Gregory Mgerian appealed the case.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
• GMC Title 30, Chapter 30.62.060, provides the rules and procedures for appeals before
the City Council.
• GMC Title 30, Title 30, Chapter 30.11, provides the rules and procedures for zoning
standards in the R1 R Low Density Residential zone.
• GMC Title 30, Title 30, Chapter 30.47, provides the rules and procedures for Design
Review.
Files A vail able for Review:
All files and exhibits relative to Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A have been available for review in
the Planning Department, are available at this hearing, and by this reference are hereby made
part of the record.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S DISCUSSION FROM MARCH 7, 2013:
• The Board was very positive in their commentary regarding the architectural style and
contemporary materials of the proposal, citing that project is uniquely designed by a
well-qualified architect.
• Following public testimony and that by the adjacent neighbor to the east (appellant), the
Board discussed the project's impact on the neighbor's home. Although Boardmembers
noted the lack of explicit language about view protection in the Code, the remaining
Boardmemembers pointed out that the area was already largely developed with two
story houses, including that of the appellant.
• The Board commented that the neighbor's (appellant's) residence is angled away from
the property line and located 18 feet at the closest point and 30 feet away at the furthest
point from the common property line. Meanwhile, the proposed 2 nd story addition has
been set further back from the existing first floor elevation plane and was specifically
designed with no windows facing the appellant's property to address privacy concerns.
4

• Two Boardmembers noted the project addresses the Council's direction on the previous
case. The Boardmembers also made several suggestions such as lowering the height of
the new building by two feet and requesting design modifications to make the baicony
over the garage appear less bulky
• Board member Malekian commented that he was in support of the project, which is a
substantial design change from the previous one, and that until Council directs ORB to
look at view protection, this cannot be an issue to deny the project. He also mentioned
that the appellant's recommendation to have the house be tiered down the slope would
not change the size of the house, which was another issue raised by the appellant
during the ORB meeting. Mr. Malekian had to leave before the vote was taken.
• The Board voted to approve the project (3-yes, 1-abstain (Sakai), 1-absent (Malekian))
with conditions:
1. Maintain the existing vertical landscaping along the east property line.
2. Provide substantial, vertical landscaping at the base of the new deck.
3. Remove the unpermitted patio and outdoor kitchen straddling the north interior
property line.
4. Lower the overall height of the roof by approximately two feet.
5. Reduce the sense of mass at the wall above the garage opening by either adding an
architectural feature above the opening or increasing the height of the door.
6. Provide more openness at balcony above the garage by removing the wall area at its
west side, extending the lintel across the new opening, and introducing a structural
post at the west outside corner.
7. Delete the wood rails at balconies from proposal and replace with aluminum rails
finished to match the windows.
SUMMARY OF APPELLANT'S DISCUSSION:
In his appeal application (Exhibit #5), the appellant states that the Design Review Board did not
consider certain facts before rendering the decision. These facts include that his property was
not represented properly and that the "bulk and mass are inconsistent w/ neighborhood''. The
appellant also contends that the evidence before the ORB was insufficient or inadequate to
support its approval, since the "project addition blocks [their] windows and there are no windows
on the east side of the addition". The appeal application concludes with the appellant's
determination that the "designer did not follow the City Council recommendation made in 2009".
Along with the Notice of Appeal application, the appellant submitted several additional
documents and photographs. The first attachment points out the appellant's concerns regarding
the project impacts to his household and to the neighborhood, and also his concerns with the
ORB meeting itself (listed as attachment A and addressed to Permit Services Center, Appeal
Board). In the second attachment (listed as attachment Band addressed to the Design Review
Board), the appellant goes into greater detail regarding his concerns against the project, citing
the size of the proposed house versus the neighborhood average, the second story addition
blocking light and views, the FAR for the hillside lot, as well as comments made in the ORB staff
report regarding landscaping, massing and compatibility. The submitted photos show the views
of the story poles for the second story addition from the appellant's second floor windows and
include an aerial photo of the neighborhood context.
5

STAFF'S ANAL YS/S OF APPEAL:
The appellant's main argument focuses on the size of the project, the massing of the proposed
second story addition and the impact that the project would have on his home and the
surrounding neighborhood.
First, the appellant contends that the size of the project is not consistent with the neighborhood.
The existing 2, 011 sq.ft. house is being expanded to "about 4, 000" sq. ft., in an area where the
appellant argues the average house size is approximately 2,200 sq. ft. and primarily one story.
Staff's Response:
While the proposed addition will increase the floor area and number of stories, the project's
bulk and mass are not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Currently, there are ten (1 0) twostory
residences and seven (7) one-story houses located within the 300 foot survey area.
This project would result in the 11 1 h two-story house in the area. The existing one-story home
is tucked at the far north-east corner of flat pad of the hillside lot, screened behind mature
trees and landscaping, not directly facing Buckingham Place or readily visible from the public
right-of-way. The existing residence is 2,011 square feet, primarily rectangular in building
footprint and low-scale in massing.
The current proposal has been scaled down from the project reviewed by City Council in
2009; the proposed house is 3,383 sq.ft., 700 square feet less in size than the previous
proposal. With the 428 sq.ft. garage, the total is 3,811 sq.ft .. The size of the project and
footprint of the second story addition have been decreased from the previous proposal to
make the project more compatible with the surrounding developments. According to the
submitted neighborhood survey, houses in the area range from 1,624 to 2,358, with an
average size of 2,11 0. While this will be the largest house in the area, its location on a flag lot
(tucked around a corner bend and atop a steep slope on a recessed building pad), along with
its design, allow the house to fit within its site and context. Due to the angle of the flag lot
driveway from Buckingham Place and the substantial vegetation and mature trees along the
interior property line, the existing home and its proposed 2 nd story addition will not be as
readily visible from Buckingham Place as other homes with direct frontage along the street. T
The appellant contends that all of the said screening/landscaping is on his property and not on
the applicant's, yet the survey indicates the existing tall hedges are on the subject site. The
house is set on a building pad tucked around the corner of the property's flag lot driveway, not
facing Buckingham Road. This building pad sits atop a steeply sloped rear yard above a
hairpin curve of Chevy Chase Drive. Further, the project site cannot be easily seen while
driving this section of Chevy Chase Drive, because of the significantly curved street and
steeply sloped yard. Therefore, given the site conditions, the proposed massing and scale of
the proposal would not be pronounced, despite the dual street frontage condition of the lot.
The style change from the previous project to the current proposal has improved the
massing and scale. The previous proposal was a boxy, ultra-modern residence with a flat
roof and white geometric forms whose apparent mass and scale were determined to be out
of place. The current proposal alters the existing architectural style of the house from simple
Ranch to a more contemporary, modern house with a gable roof design. The proposed,
more contemporary architectural style of the project features a variety of rectangular shapes
and forms, and a gable roof system that matches many of the neighboring Ranch homes.
Furthermore, the two-story building envelope includes various recesses and pop-outs to
provide articulation across the facades and to break up the massing. ·
6

Lastly, the appellant recommended both before and during the DRB meeting that the
addition be built down the slope (versus as a second story). He repeated this
recommendation in his appeal application supplemental, citing a comment made during City
Council discussion at the last appeal hearing that was not included a condition or finding.
This issue was discussed by the Board. The Board commented that this suggestion would
result in a similar house size (if the size is a significant concern), and would also require
substantial engineering with visual impacts to the site's topography for those looking across
the valley at the project site.
Therefore, based on the analysis above, and as indicated in the previous DRB report and
substantiated by the ORB's vote of approval, the proposed massing and scale of the project
appear to be have been designed and conditioned to fit within the context of the
neighborhood.
As discussed during the previous appeal case and also during the ORB meeting, the appellant
repeated in his supplemental appeal submittal that the addition would "completely block sunlight
to all [their] bedroom windows located on the west side of the house" and "completely block the
current perspective of the valley from any window in [their] house, which will result in a
significantly diminished property value."
Staff's Response:
The addition would not completely block sunlight to the neighbor's windows. In response to
the City Council's comments, the second story addition was specifically reduced in size,
located away from the existing east first floor elevation by an additional 8'-9", and placed
above the west half of the building's footprint. This setback and placement of the addition
were designed to help reduce the perceived mass and scale, as well as address privacy
concerns and visual impact. Further, the neighbor's home is angled away from the ·property
line and offset from the subject site, with 18 feet to the closest point and 24'-5" feet to the
farthest point. Given the additional 8'-9" interior setback for the proposed second story
addition with the existing 5'-9" setback for the first floor, there is a total of 32.5 feet at the
narrowest point and 43 feet at the greatest distance between the neighbor's house and the
new second story addition. This separation is almost triple the minimum 12 foot requirement
between homes in the R1 R zone (minimum six foot interior setback on each side of the
property line for existing houses). Therefore, even with the 2nd story addition, there is ample
separation between the neighboring structures to allow light and air for both buildings.
As· for the impact of the project on the appellant's perspective of the valley, the DRB
Boardmembers and staff acknowledged that the neighbor's views will be affected by the 2"d
story addition. However, as stated by the DRB during the meeting and also noted in the
previous City Council appeal, although protection of views is not specifically addressed, it
can be reviewed through other standards such as neighborhood compatibility and site
planning. The 2nd story addition has been specifically reduced in footprint size/length and
designed to step away from the east elevation.
As noted by the appellant, the proposal is three feet higher at its peak in comparison to the
previous proposal; this additional height, however, is the result of changing the previous flat
roof design to a gable roof system. The previous proposal was designed in an ultracontemporary
style with a flat roof, which the City Council determined was incompatible with
the surrounding· neighborhood.
7

The current proposal features a more contemporary Ranch style with a gabled roof to match
the residences in the neighborhood. The proposed overall two-story building height is 28' is
well below Code limits (maximum building height in the R1R zone is 32 feet, with an
additional three feet for pitched roofs). During the ORB meeting, certain Boardmembers
pointed out the potential to modify the ceiling and roof design and required that the overall
roof height be lowered by two feet (Exhibit #4). Therefore, as conditioned, the overall height
for the pitched roof will be 26 feet. This condition height would result in a house that is
compatible with the two-story homes along the north side of Buckingham Place and also
help to slightly reduce the visual impact of the addition with regards to the appellant's views
from their bedroom windows.
The appellant repeatedly states that the proposed project does not address the recommendations
made by the City Council during the last appeal in 2009.
Staff's Response:
The City Council cited that the previous project was not compatible with the neighborhood in
terms of mass and scale, and design, and that the project resulted in conflicting relationships
with adjacent buildings (Exhibit #7).
The owner hired a new architect who submitted a new design submittal in response to the City
Council's comments:
• The current project is approximately 700 square feet less in size than the previous
proposal;
• The footprint/size of the 2nd story addition has been reduced and shifted away from the
adjacent neighbor to the east; and
• The project has been redesigned in a more contemporary, Ranch-influenced style to
be more compatible with the neighborhood.
SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City
Council uphold the ORB decision. The Boardmembers took into account not only the size of the
home, but also the project's massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, window placement,
garage location, use of material and colors and other architectural design elements in
determining compatibility. The two-story project, as conditioned, appears to be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood, despite its size, and is a commendable design with high quality
materials and details.
To reiterate the basis of the ORB's decision, the Record of Decision includes the following:
Site Planning: Minor changes are proposed for the footprint of the existing house on the
angled flag lot, yet the overall site planning of the site will remain similar to the existing.
Small additions are proposed at the ground level along the south and west elevations, while
a new semi-cantilevered deck is proposed at the rear to provide more flat surface area. The
proposed project is only partially visible from Buckingham Place, and will not be readily
visible from Chevy Chase Drive, given the curvature of the street and the building location
atop the steep slope. Except for the slight decrease in existing hardscape and the proposed
rear deck, the landscaping will not be affected and will remain as is, with the exception of
additional landscaping required to screen the base of the new deck. Staff is recommending
that additional landscaping be installed at the base of the deck to soften its appearance.
Overall, the proposed site plan is compatible with the adjacent developments.
8

Mass and Scale: Although the house will be the largest in the survey area, the project's
massing is generally compatible with the surrounding single family houses, given its
configuration of building forms, location on the hillside flag lot, and treatment of the fagades.
The majority of the second story addition is located away from the existing east first floor
elevation and interior property line, and above the west half of the building's footprint,
thereby reducing the perceived mass and scale, in addition to privacy concerns and visual
impact, in regards to the east neighbor. With its location on a recessed building pad atop a
steep slope above Chevy Chase, the 2-story project's mass and scale facing Chevy Chase
will also be not be apparent from the street. As conditioned, the proposed massing and
scale of the project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Building Design and Details: The project has been designed in a contemporary
architectural style, featuring appropriate, modern finishes and muted, earth-toned colors.
While the design slightly veers away from the traditional Ranch style in the neighborhood,
the more contemporary project is nevertheless compatible with the surrounding structures in
terms of forms and massing.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the Design Review Board's determination to approve Case No. 2-
PDR-1301725-A, based on the rationale used by the Design Review Board. If the Council is
inclined to reverse the Design Review Board's decision and deny the application, an alternate
draft motion is attached.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The· Code requires publication of public notices of when the Council considers approval of
entitlements such as design review. Staff has mailed copies of the notices to all property owners
and occupants within the 500' of the project. A public notice has also been posted on-site.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with Council direction pursuant to the recently adopted City Campaign Finance
Ordinance, the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the
chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, subcontractors and any person or entity with 10% interest or
more in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report is attached as Exhibit 3.
EXHIBITS
1 . Location Map
2. Photos of Existing Home & Site
3. Project Site Plans, Floor Plans, Elevations
4. Staff Report and Record of Decision for Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A for ORB Meeting
on March 7, 2013
5. Notice of Appeal of DRS's Decision to City Council
6. Neighborhood Survey
7. Plans for previous Case No. 1-PDR-2008-089-A and City Council's Motion to Deny the
Appeal
9

MOTION TO UPHOLD ORB APPROVAL
Moved by Council Member _____, seconded by Council Member
_____, that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current
record relative to Design Review Board Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A, located at 2064
Buckingham Place, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that
the Council hereby sustains the Design Review Board's decision, denies the appeal, and
approves the subject proposal incorporating the findings and conditions set forth in the
Record of Decision for Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A for ORB Meeting on March 7, 2013.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
1

MOTION TO CONTINUE
Moved by Council Member _______ and seconded by Council Member
_______ that upon review and consideration of Design Review Board Case
No. 2-PDR-1301725-A, located at 2064 Buckingham Place, and after conducting a
public hearing on said matter, that the Council hereby continues the matter to May 28,
2013, directing the City Attorney to draft findings supporting denial of the Design Review
Board application.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
2

LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT 1.
ti!FII F II H I F IIFII! ill Ill IIFIIFI IFIIH IHIFIIFIIHII=J!i II F II F III41FIIFIIHIHI I=J! 14 1FII F IIFIIHD
KEY
~ S UBJECT PROPERTY
r"'\OC JJ.
20G4 BUCKINGHAM PL
GLENDALE, CA 9 I 20G
SCALE: I" = 200'
RADIUS: 500'

Go gle 2064 Buckingham Place, Glendale, CA
..
Project Site

2064 Buckingham Place, Glendale, CA
Project Site
Appellant's Property

GENERAL NOTES
I. TA KE CAREFl!l NOTE CF ALL R.."GlliiREKENTS VNPER DIVISION I • VE'EKAL
REGUIREMENTS lllAT ARE HADE A PART OF fHE CCNTRACT. INCLUDING
PROJECT REGIJIREHENTS, 6Eh.'ERAL REQUIREHEHTS, PROJEGT!ON AND 'E.PEG!AL
PRECAUTIONS, AND ll€ 6E~ COI\'OITlfJNS CF iJ:E COtHRAGT FOR
C..016'JRI.AC.TION.
24. PROVICE APPROVED FIRE DAMPERS FOR. ALL OUC.TS PEJIETRAT 1'6 FIR::
RATED l'tA!.LS AND FLOORS.
25. DOOR OPENINGS NoT LOCATED BY Dlt--'J:NSICN SHALL BE GEN'il:RED IN
HALL SHOHH OK LOGA TED s• r-ROH FIHI5H l"tA.U TO FINISH JAMB.
.EXHIBIT . 3.
2. IT 5HALL BE ifiE C.OtfTRAC.TOR'S RESPON~IB ILITY TO VERIFY ALL
DIME.\lSJCN; AND WNDITlONS AT l'HE ...r.e SITE AND TO C..cw=6GHEC.K DETAILS
AHD D I HEN510~1$ ON THE 5'1'RJ.X;.n:RAL DRAl'41N55 l'tlnt RELATED ~GOJ REMEifTS
ON THE ARCHI"J"EC.Tl.IRAL, t-"E::CHA~Ic.AL AND E!..EC. TRIC.Al DRAYiiUGS. FLOOR
OPENIN65, 9..EEV'E5 AND Oll-ER AAGHITEG1URAL., MEGI-'ANIC.Al A."tD EL-fC.TRJGAl
REGlt!tREMENT$ t-tJST 6E COORDINATED BEFORE Th'E C.OtiTRAGT~ PROCEEDS
Y-IITH COf'efRUGfiON.
3. ALL l'iORK AND MAITERIALS ARE TO WMPL:r IN EVERY RESPECT YUH Trl.E
LA TEST "REGtJ;R&'.EHTS OF ALL A.PPLIC.A3'_E GJTY, CCUHN' AND STATE CODES,
LOC.AL REGlll.ATIOttS AND THE OIREC..TION Of THE BWLDINS INSPEC.TOR FOR
Sl'CH BtJILDIN6 l..M'S. RE6U.ATkJl6 AND DIRECTIONS AA.E TO 6E CCN51DERfO
AS PART OF mESE SPEC.IFIC.ATJON5 AtiD PLANS, EXGEPT V"iHERE EXCCEDED
HEREIN.
26. ALL LE6AL EXIT DOORS 5!-V'ILL 6E OPENA6Lf fROH IHSIDE h l"rt-'CUT THE
IJ5E OF A KEY OR Alff SPECIAL KNOI'd..EDSE OR EFFORT, SPECIAL LOGKIN6
DEVICES SHALL eE OF AN APPROVED rrPE.
21, ALL Y'tALL MOL.tn t:D TELEPHONE AND ::LEC.TRIGAL CXJTLET5 51-JALL 6E
INSTALLED AT ·s• AF.F .. I.Jt.:LESS OTHERJ"iiSE NOTED.
28. N....L Ll6HT FIXn.'ru:5 5HAU. BE LOCATED EXACTLY AS INDICA TEO.
:2RK.
&. TilE C.OtHRAGTCR 51 tALL VE--RtrY LCCAnON OF AFFEC.TED EX15TIN6
MEGHANIC.AL ruc.T5 AND ElEGTl, Fvol moc:lfiGoUon, otG J
.. AT
~METAL
HORTH ARRO:-l
A.B. A.NGHOR 60L r
A .D. AREA DRAIH
$
AVDNL ADDITIONAL
AD~.
~ PLYI"ffOD
ADJACENT
AF.F. ABOVE
~
F ~N ISH F LCOR
SECTION ALUM. ALUI-11NJH
APPRO X. APPROXIMAT2LY
c::J GYPSI..IM YI.:ALL30ARD
ARGH. ARGHITEC.T
A.S. AS,~ i jC CONCP..ETE
ASSY. ASS:'MeL Y
CJ
CO~RETE
GRID LINE B.O. eorro.'-1 or
' ------0
BD. BOARD
BIT. B IT\JMEN(OUS)
BLDG. BUILDING
~F IN15HI"«"J"O
MATCH LINE
~ BLK6. 6LOCKIN6
BM. B:'AM
GA9. CABINET
[illill
6A TT IN._CU.ATIOIJ
ELEVATION C .B. CAT~ BASIN
~
C.T. C.E~M IC. TILE
GEM. G:'>'ENT
AC01.5TICAL TILE ---+ D IREC TION OF SLOPE C L. C.E'4TER L!NE
llilililil C.L6. C.Eil lt-«7
GLR. C-LEAR
[S;J i"'IOO eLOCKIN6
GOc. GOLUMN
DRA.Y-IIN& lfJMBER C.O:--tP, COMPOSITION
0
CONG. CONCRETE
CONSTR. G::>N5TRJJC.TION
C.ONT. HOOD BLOGKIN$
GO~T. C.ONTINJCIJS
C8J
INTERIOR ELEVATIO N
GONTR. CONTRACTOR
CPT. GARFET
CARPET SECTION
~ ~
C.TR. G~NTER
DB'- DCIJ3/_;';
~ ROOM N.JMef:R D.F. DCU0L.AS FIR
~DETAIL >Ul~BER DIA. DIAMETER
.
DIM . D IMENSION
DN. DC YiN
" SH::~T ON ~IGH
STOP.;';FRONf DR. DOOR
DETAIL OGa..RS ® D.5. DOHKSPO\If
DTL. DETAIL
GROOM FI/'U5H tv!=
G) COOR D""'. DRA>'IIN6
EA. EAGH
G oooR~R
ELEG. ELEGTRIGAL
EL. ELEVATION
1'>/INDOI"f
®ROOM i'VH3.::R ®
ENGL. ENCL05URE
EG. EGl!Ji\L
EXIST. EXISTING
't GENTE
•LAND DESC IN DOC 0000802,
16-3-NR• 261e>3•POR OF LOTS 13 AND
BUILDING DESCRIPTIONISJ
191>311963
3/3
I
•'
.,.,··
''\
-
r:
',,
\

Alajajlan
Mar coos I
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Suite 120
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244-5130
Fax: (818) 551-1613
E·mail: aramar@wortdnelatt.net
O.,ner:
MR AND MRS
MKRTCHYAN
Project Nom.:
S.F.D
ADDITION AND
REMODELING
Project Adre1s:
2064 Buckingham Place
Olendale,CA
SITE PLAN
Scale: 1/16'=1'-0'
KEY PLAN
CD ~2!,~. 1'·0' PLAN
.
f ....
e A PPROVED
0 APPROVED
eRE~SION
'"..:DtJoh ''\ •
t
CPI!'I)'OJ M
.,.....,.,..
1 :"··~~~ ~
.•
\

~·
6' 13'-2' 6'
61-31/2'
IE)DJNIN6 ROOM
Alajajian
Marcoosi
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Sullo 120
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244-5130
Fax: (818) 551-1613
E-mail: aramar@worldnet.att.net
O•m•r:
MR AND MRS
MKRTCHYAN
(E) OFFICE
Proj•et Nome:
S.F.D
ADDITION AND
REMODELING
Proj•ct Adross:
2064 Buckingham Place
Glendale,CA
@
1JU~~~+4~4-~~+-~~V+~~~~~ID+-~~~:~~~+-~r
~~~~ :
r' '
:
I _____.. ...
... - ..
:~:-___ ...-
15'-1'
-~ .....
---
--------
T
-----
---"-"':r"~-v2; _______ 7-2'
16'-1'
-------
6'-2'
I_ 2'-2'
N>Vl'
:· "
'
i
CD ~~~~~ FLOOR PLAN
~
1ST FLOOR
PLAN
Scale: 1/4"=1'-ll"
IDD ,
PROP05ED 2ND FLOOR LIVABLE AAfA ,
TOTAL LIVABLE AAfA ,
TOTAL tUilER OF PARKIN& ":RI'l£5 ,
2)01l S.f t 252 S.f =2;360 SF
1,120S.F.
3,400 S.f.
2
e APPROVED
e REVISION
0 R[VISlON
e R[YtSION
e OAAv.N BY
e APPROVED
0 PRINT DATE
'
.($, '' '
~~~ \
e JOB NO
e $HE[T NO
A-2.1

----EXI5TIN6"ROOF
1/ v
~~~-FrFT~~~~~~~~~~Jt
-r1-r
~~-L.-J-,J-,..1-.-'T T • L Ll J J J J I I I
HLrL,-YY-ril ( T , 1 ~-'-r'-rY-r'-.-'-r'-.-1-rl I I
/ ---tel "ROOF
ir t""m.
J.--1..-1-.r~L ~ I I I I I~ ~-'-r'-r'-rY,.-1-rLr'-r '-r ''-rY-r'-r-1-...Y..,rtY ~ ..-4-L,...L,-1-,--'-r'--r'-r' ~,.Y..,+rh.~,rt
I I II II T
T
I_Ll I,JI I I I I I I
IL
II
II
A
6
I !::
c;>IN.I!J~~
"' CLOSET )(_'
D'·D'
~ y
@
DN
13'·1'
@
~ IX
lr
IN AL
Alajajlan
Marcoosl
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Sulle 120
Glendale. CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244-5130
Fax: (818) 551-1613
E· mall: aramar@worldnet.att.net
Ooner.
MR AND MRS
MKRTCHYAN
I_
A
l'rJ
H'-1 11&' IH>~r.
N~ -~ I ~· I
I I
D
- -
'
~~
: '
I ~ ::
rn : '
:: '
' "
' '
IN.l1ASTER
BEDROOM '
-- -= f;=- Iff= fnL.. rrr
' :: "
' : ' "
p
'
:: .: ' ' ' " ' " ' !! "
'
' : ::
: ' ' :I
-- --
' ' ,. ' "
·-- . ~- ~-
:~: :J
"
Project Nome:
S.F.D
ADDITION AND
REMODELING
Projoct A.dress:
2064 Buckingham Place
Glendale,CA
4'.0 112' 5 ~ • r~· ~II&' ll.z~ 314' 1'.0 3/IJ' I r-o·
55'-11'
1
~
2ND FLOOR
PLAN
Scale: 114'•1'-0"
KEYPLAN
CD ~Al~g·~-o~SED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
WALL LEGEND:
EXISTIN0 rlALLS TO REMAIN
EXISTIN0 rlALL TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED NEV'l rlALLS
e APPRO\'EO
0 APPROVED
0 RE\IISION
AREA ANALYSIS :
1ST FLOOR LIVABLE AREA (E)+ NEV'l ADD:
PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR LIVABLE AREA
TOTAL LIVABLE AREA :
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKIN0 SPACES
2,108 S.F t 252 S.F =2;360 S.F
1,120 S.F.
3,480 S.F.
2
0 REVISION
e REVISION
0 OR AWN 9Y
e PRIN T D ... T(
8 JOB NO
e SHEET NO
A-2.2

II
~-----EJ

1'-6 3/!l'
Alajajian
Marcoosi
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Suite 120
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244-5130
Fax: (818) 551-1613
E-mail: aramar@worldnet.att.net
Oflntr:
MR AND MRS
MKRTCHYAN
A
Project Nome:
S.F.D
ADDITION AND
REMODELING
Projtcl Adren:
2064 Buckingham Place
Glendale,CA
I-&
ROOF
PLAN
~
f-- NEH 1l

3
Alajajlan
Marcoosi
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Suite 120
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244·5130
Fax: (818) 551-1613
E-mail: aramar@worldnet.atlnet
Offner.
MR AND MRS
MKRTCHYAN
~
~a-mM
-~
..
~
.
¢.
. \
'•
'
'
.
.
...... ,.
DH
. -
. -
25'·5'
DH
~
. -
~-~~-[)
~
·ier-"""-!. llEWlt'l ~ 6
'\ -
~ '• - -_ - ~ ~
''
"'~-~ -
~
-
-
~
1--
1

EXTERIOR FINISI-l MATERIALS:
1/B' llK LAHABRA SliUO OR EGVAL, STEEL l'IWi.ED FINISH, HAND
APPLIED, WTWO GOATS OF POLYMER BASE EXTERIOR PAINT~ EDWARDS
DE61q1 'MODERN IVORY'.
2. EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF.
2.1 NEH A5PHAL T SHINGLE ROOF (TO MATCH EXISTING).
22 HOOD FASCIA. DUNN EDHARDS DE6010 'CHOCOLATE CHJNK'
CD ~2,Y.Tc~
ELEVATION
3. ALIJH. CLAD HOOD DOOR AND HINDOH FAAMES, STANDARD
BROHN BAKED ENAMEL PAINT BY MAfiJFACl\JRER.
4. 42' HIGH, MIN ~· THICK CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS PANEL RAILING.
5. ORNAMENTAL LIGHT FIXT\JRES HITH BRUSHED AIJ,Mii'U'f FAAME FINISH,
FOREe AS T LIGHTING GO. (TYP)
6. GARAGE DOOR AND DOOR FAAME HITH ~· THICK
TEWERED FROSTED FINISH GLAZING, Ol.k-IN EDWARDS
DE6010 'CHOCOLATE G.IUIK'
1. 6' HIGH, 3/4' SlROKE, STAINLESS STEEL ADDRESS ftiMBERS.
B. AIJ,Mitu-1 CHII'tiEY CAP, DUNN EDHARD5 DE6010 'CHOCOLATE c.fWK'
'1.
HOOD lRELLIS WTW0 GOATS OF STAIN FINISH DUNN EDWARDS DE6010
'CHOCOLATE CHJNK'
10. 3/4' TO 1-112' THK. NAllJRAL LIMESTONE VENEERADHERED MASONRY VENEE!<
INSTALLATION SHALL GOMPL Y HITH THE APPLICABLE "REGJIREMENTS OF
SECTION 1405.10.1 AND SEC. 6.1 AND 63 OF TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5.
II.
CAST lRIM PAINT FINISH, DUNN EDHARDS DE6010 'CHOCOLATE CIWK'
12. SIDE GLASS GATE
Alajajian
Marcoosi
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Sulte120
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244-5130
Fax: (818) 551·1613
E-mail: aramar@worktnet.atlnet
Owner.
MR AND MRS
MKRTCHYAN
Project Nome:
S.F.D
ADDITION AND
REMODELING
Projec;t lu:lren:
2064 Buckingham Placa
Glendale,CA
I 3 2J I
•
22 10
2J
q
EXI5TIH!> 2
lJl lTllTT TT \1 TT T TlT T r r r I I I I I
I
I I I Lll I I I 1 r
1 T
TOP OF ROOF
~
~
SOUTH AND
WEST
~ ELEVATIONS
ITJ 0
TOP OF PLATE v
Scale: 114'=1'·0'
'A'.% X y y y vvv 1/ 1/1/1/1 A" A" X X Y Y Y V Y
D
"VI/1/1 /1 A" A" lA' XX% YVV VV VVVlLI/fAA
7-YYYVV V VVI /1/IA"A" XXXX'YVVVv
/1/IA"A"A'A' IXXX'Y VVVVI/ /1/1/IA" A' A' A'
~~
~~~.
~
D D D
~D
~
,..---- ,..----
I I
-
,..----
~
H
~ ~ i
1--1
® ~E~"~E ELEVATION
1 I I
==l
~
.All
I
~
'\--1 I-
/
fL-
~
FINISH UPPER FI.OOR
l1=dl=l1:z:
/
r=
~ R
1-
FINISH LOH'R R..OO%,
~~
6RADE FIN. ~
i
~
KEYPLAN
e APPROVED
e APPROVED
. RE\'ISION
e R£VISl0N
e RE\"'SION
e DRAWN BY
e PRINT DATE
• J OB NO
e SHEET N O
A-3.1

dajcjian · ,..or;co:i c:rc hle~c·,;:
l'lc.
EXTERIOR FINI5f.l MATERIALS:
CD ~2Y!o~ ELEVATION
1/f>' TH::. l.AIIA6RA SlOCW CR EGIJAL, Slffl TRAl'lED FINISH, HAND
APPLIEO,I"Vil'tJ COATS OF POL "!"MER BASE EXiERIOR PAINT DUNN EDWARDS
DE61q1 'HODERN IVORY'.
2. EXISTING ."CAW T SHit-ISLE ROOF.
/ I NEW AS.OHAL T SHINGLE ROOF (TO MA -c.H EXISTING)
22 IWD FASC,IA. CIMN EDI'W

EXTERIOR FINISf-1 MATERIALS:
1/8' THK. LAHABRA Sl\.U.O OR EaJAL, STEEL TRAYt..ED FINISH, HAND
APPLIED, WM? WATS Of POlYI'ER BASE EXTERIOR PAINT~ EDWARDS
DE61q1 'MODERN IVORY'.
2. EXISTIN6 ASPIW. T SHIN6LE 'ROOF.
2.1 NEW A5PHAL T 5HJN6LE 'ROOF (TO MA Tal EXISTIN6).
2.2 f't?OD FASGIA, D.MN EDHA'RDS DE6010 'GHCWLATE CIWK'
3. ALUM. GLAD YWD DOOR AND ViiNDOW FRAMES, STANDARD
6ROVIN BAKED ENAMEL PAINT BY MAJU'Ac:n.l

EXTERIOR FINISI-I MATERIALS:
TOP OF RDCF
TO? Of Pt.ATE
1/8' THK. LAHA6RA STix:GO OR EQI!AL, STEEL TR.A.i'ILED FINISH, H.A.ND
APPLIED, ~'i!mO GOATS OF POLYKER BASE EXTERIOR PAINT DUNN EDHARDS
DEfJlql 'MODERN IVORY".
2. EXISTING ASPHALT 5HIN6LE ROOF.
2.1 NEVI ASPHALT 5HIN6LE ROOF (TO t1ATa1 EXISTING).
22 i'VOD FASC.IA, DUNN EDV'!ARDS DEbOlO 'GHOGOLATE CHUNK'
3. ALUM. GLAD VlOOD DOOR AND HINDOH FRAI1ES, STANDARD
BRDI

D
DOD
Alajajlan
Marcoosi
Architects Inc.
320 W. Arden Ave. Suite 120
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 244-5130
Fax: (818) 551-1613
E-mall: aramar@wortdnet.att.net
Own.r.
MR AND ·MRS
MKRTCHYAN
Project Hom.:
S.F.D
ADDITION AND
REMODELING
CD ~2,~.I~ ELEVATION
Project Adren;
2064 Buckingham Place
Qlendale,CA
EXISTING
ELEVATIONS
~
Scale: 114"~1'-0"
~~~~~~~~
-------------------- ------------------------P- - -----h~~
~----------------------------~ - - -- ----- ------ - -------- - -- - ----- -- - --- ---------------- - -- ------ -------- -------- ------ - ---------------- -- -------- - -------- 1\
DO DO DO DO
KEYPLAN
0 APPROVED
e APPROVED
0 REVISION
~ ------ -----~---- -- - ------ -- - ----lill---- ---- ----------liii[! ii~l -- - -- ----- ---- --~~~- ----- ----- -----~-- --------- -- -- ----- -~.~
0 RE._, SION
8 REVISION
W DRA'fi'N SV
@ ~~~.To-ELEVATION
8 PRINT DATE
e.JOB NO
e SHEET NO
A-3.3

DOOR SCHEDULE
,..,...._
FIReRA~ 6lA56
LOGAllCfl
"""" """""""
- "'""' _,.., no:. ';l(i~
~- """' REMARKS
DOOR ;
101 ENTRY 6'-o' 6'-o ~ AL!.t-1. 6LA55 DUAL
'""'*'· A~~~-
Q DOOR SYMBOl
§
102 ~ARAGE 11'-o' 1'-o· I~ ALU-1. 6LA55 G j>wuo. SPEG. IO'f

'R-131ta\ATION -----4~+'0/4' HORIZONTAL Yl.l.
TVBE
KEYPLAN
1/2' THICK GLASS RAILING
CERAMIC TILE
SKID-i

~m&· ------------~
5mJPPIH6
I 3/4' nt:: . SOLID
CORE HOOD DOOR.
sa; DOOR sc.HEilOLE
fOR ADD\.. DET AIL5
314' IlK c&aiT FIJ6TI'R N'!'UB>
CMR 2 lAYeRSIX' Tl1'E '!>'
PN'I'RI'IR r.oru: 251..;;. 2001
Gill>
2'
1""1
_·,.
-'-'+-- w· nn:: c&aiT
f\ASTERCMR
PN'I'RI!IaW
>ETA!. !ATM.
3/4' THK. ---­
PL Yl"'IOD RISE
AND RIJN5
3-2xl4
5TRIN
5HCl!'ER IJAAIN
i'l'l'fil' lt)Lf5
1'+-------174- -FINI511 1EI6HT OF
~ TILE HIN.
10' NJ(NE IJAAIN
""-----l ------------J~··~I;.
KEYPL AN
0 APPROVED
3LA"I"l:R5 5YNT1£T1C
f 1ffiiG lt1T MOfl'£l)
Dllf:Tl'EEN i'WRF'6.
1-e-flAA!E II' S' Mill
ATI'IAU.S _____...J
na---------41
0 APPROVED
e REVISION
e REVISlON
0 REVI SION
e DRAWN BY
SHOWER DETAIL
0 0·12
TUB AND WALL CONNECTIONs~~~~IL
OJ
e PRINT DAlE
0 JOB NO
e SHEE T NO
A-6.2

ITJ
L..____ ___
EXTERIOR FINI51-1 MATERIALS:
2064 BUCKINGI-IAM PL Glendale, CA
I. 1/1';' ll!K. LAHABRA ST\JC,GO OR EQ.JAL, STEEL TIW'liD FINISH, HAND
APPLIED, W1Y'+:J GOATS OF POLYMER BASE EXTERIOR PAINT
ct!NN EDWARDS DE61

. EXHIBIT 4.
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, California 91206-4386
(818) ·548-2140 (818) 548-2144
(818) 548-2115 Fax (818) 240-0392
www.ci.glendale.ca.us ·
DESiGN REVIEW ·soARO
RECORD OF DECISION
Meeting Date March 7, 2013
Design Review
ORB Case No.
Address
Applicant
2-PDR-1301725-A
2064 Buckingham Place
Armen Mkrtchian
Board Member Motion
Geragos
· Keuroghelian
Malekian*
Sakai
.Zarifian
Totals
Q·Rs · DecisiotJ
X
Second Yes
X
X
X
X
3
f\pptav~ ~i.th conditlo·ns.
No Absent Abstain
X*
X
Conditions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Maintain the existing vertical landscaping along the east property line.
Provide substantial, vertical landscaping at the base of the new deck.
Remove the unpermitted patio and outdoor .kitchen straddling the north interior property line.
Lower overall height of roof by approximately two feet.
Reduce the sense of mass at the wall above the garage opening by either adding an
architeeturarreature above the opening-:-or increasing-the-height of the door. - - -
Provide more openness at balcony above the garage by removing the wall area at its west
side, extending the lintel across the new opening, and introducing a structural post a~ the
west outside corner .
. 7. Delete the wood rails at balconies from proposal and replace with aluminum rails finished to
match the windows.
Page 1 of 2
0
WE RECYCLE

Analysis and Summary:
Site Planning: Minor changes are proposed for the footprint of the existing house on the angled flag lot,
yet the overall site planning. of the site will remain similar to the existing. Small additions are proposed at
the ground level along the south and west elevations, while a new semi-cantilevered deck is proposed at
the rear to provide more flat surface area. The proposed project is only partially visible from Buckingham
Place, and will not be readily visible from Chevy Chase Drive, given the curvature of the street and the
building iocation atop the steep slope. Except for the slight decrease in existing hard-scape and the
proposed rear deck, the landscaping will not be affected and will remain as is, with the exception of
additional landscaping required to screen the base of the new deck. Staff is recommending that substantial
landscaping be installed at the base of the deck to soften its appearanqe. Overall, the proposed site plan is
compatible with the adjacent developments.
Mass and Scale: Although the house will be the largest in the survey area, the project's massing is
generally compatible with the surrounding single family houses, given its configuration of building forms,
location on the hillside flag lot, and treatment of the fac;ades. The majority of the second story addition is
located away from the existing east first floor elevation and interior property line, and above the west half of
the building's footprint, thereby reducing the perceived mass and scale, in addition to privacy concerns and
visual impact, in regards to the east neighbor. With its location on a recessed building pad atop a steep
slope above Chevy Chase, the 2-story project's mass and scale facing Chevy Chase will also be not be
apparent from the street. Therefore, the proposed massing and scale of the project appears compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Building Design and Details: The project has been designed in a contemporary architectural style,
featuring appropriate, modern finishes and muted, earth-toned colors. While the design slightly veers away
from the traditional Ranch style in the neighborhood, the more contemporary project is nevertheless
compatible with the surrounding structures in terms of forms and massing.
* Boardmember Malekian attended the DRB meeting, heard the public testimony, shared his comments regarding the
proposal, but had to leave before the vote.
The Design Review Board approves the design of projects only. Approval of a project by the Design Review Board
does not constitute an approval of compliance w ith the Zoning Code and/or Building Code requirements.
If an appeal is not filed within the 15-day appeal period of the Design Review Board decision, plans may be submitted for
Building and Safety Division plan check. Prior to Building and Safety Division plan check submittal, Design Review Board
approved plans must be stamped approved by Design Review Board staff. Any changes to the approved plans may
constitute returning to the Design Review Board for approval. Prior to Building and Safety Division plan check submittal, all
changes in substantial conformance with approved plans by the Design Review Board must be on file with the Planning
Division.
- ,. .PI.em;e mjl]se an appointment with the case planner_ for D~B stamQlsign-off.prior to_submitting foi: Building.glan check.
ORB Staff Member Vnia Zemaitaitis '4
Page 2 of 2

"
CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2013 (continued from February 28, 2013)
TO: Design Review Board No. 2
PREPARED BY: Vilia Zemaitaitis, Senior Planner
CASE NUMBER: 2-PDR-1301725
ADDRESS: 2064 Buckingham
APPLICANT/OWNER: Armen Mkrtchian
PROJECT SUMMARY: To remodel and expand an existing 2,011 sq.ft. , 1-story single family
residence by adding 252 sq.ft. to the first floor and constructing a new 1,120 sq.ft. second story
(total of 3,383 square feet). A new deck is also proposed at the rear.
EXISTING PROPERTY: The existing property is developed with a 1-story, single-family residence,
a pool, and an attached 2-car garage on an irregular shaped, hillside lot. The 30,400 sq .ft. parcel is
a through-lot with frontages on both Buckingham Place and Chevy Chase Drive. Access to the
home is taken off Buckingham Place, while the rear yard steeply slopes downward towards Chevy
Chase Drive.
CEQA STATUS: The project is exempt from environmental review.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to add 252 sq.ft. to the existing 2,011 sq.ft., single-story home and
construct a new 1,120 sq.ft. 2nd story, for a total of 3,383 sq.ft. of habitable area. The existing 2-car
attached garage will be retained and expanded to comply with the minimum dimensions for a twocar
garage. The pool will also be maintained as is. A new deck is proposed at the rear. The
proposed addition and remodel will alter the architectural style of the existing house from a simple
Ranch to a more Modern style (Exhibit 2).
PROJECT BACKGROUND
A previous proposal (Case No. 1-PDR-2008-089) was approved with conditions by ORB #2 on April
2, 2009. The case was appealed to the City Council by the next door neighbor. City Council voted
in favor of the appeal and denied the project on July 7, 2009. The City Council cited that the
previous project was not compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale, and design,
and that the project resulted in conflicting relationships with adjacent buildings (Exhibit 4).
The owner hired a new architect who submitted a new design submittal in response to the City
Council's comments:
• The current project is approximately 700 square feet less in size than the previous
proposal;
• The footprint/size of the 2nd story addition has been reduced and shifted away from the
adjacent neighbor to the east; and
• The project has been redesigned in a more contemporary, Ranch-influenced style to be
more compatible with the neighborhood.

2064 Buckingham Place
Page 2 of 7
CONTEXT
GENERAL PLAN: Land Use Element: Low Density Residential. The project complies with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. The property is located in a low-density residential area
and is surrounded by local streets and similar single-family homes.
ZONE: R1 R (Restricted Residential) Zone, Floor Area Ratio District Ill
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS: None
The existing 1-story residence was built in 1963 in a simple Ranch style with a shed roof entry
added at a later date. The Historic Preservation Planner has reviewed the proposal and has
determined that the existing home is not eligible for any historic register, and is not a historic
resource under CEQA.
NEIGHBORING ZONES AND USES:
Zoning
Existing Uses
North R1 R-Ill $ingle Family Dwelling
South R1R-III Single Family Dwelling
East R1R-III Single Family Dwelling
West R1R-III Single Family Dwelling
Project Site R1R-III Single Family Dwelling
COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The subject property is located in the Chevy Chase neighborhood of Glendale. According to the
City's Comprehensive Design Guidelines, site planning should address the opportunities and
constraints of the site, including existing site features such as mature trees, topography, and
drainage patterns. Components of site development extend beyond building placement and
configuration, and include consideration of topography, surrounding uses, retaining walls,
landscape design, hardscape considerations, and parking. New projects should fit well with
surrounding building fabric. While new proposals need not copy existing development, mass and
scale should respect adjacent building context. Detailing and choice of materials should reinforce
the overall project design. Architectural design elements, details and materials should be
consistent throughout a project, recognizing that a building is 3-dimensional and must be well
designed on all sides.
COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPOSAL:
Average of Properties Range of Properties within
Subject Property
within 300 linear feet of 300 linear feet of subject
Proposal
subject property
property
Lot size 15,270 sq.ft. 7,040 sq. ft. to 30,490 sq.ft. 30,400 sq.ft.
Setback 50 ft. 15 ft. to 130 ft 73ft
House size 2,110 sq.ft. 1,624 sq. ft. to 2,358 sq.ft. 3,383 sq.ft.
Floor Area 0.18 0.07 to 0.33 0.11
Ratio
Number of 7 1-story, 10 2 -story 1- and 2-story 2
stories

2064 Buckingham Place
Page 3 of7
SITE PLANNING
The home is currently located on a flat building pad portion of dual-frontage flag lot that
features a steep down-slope along the rear towards Chevy Chase Drive. The general site
planning will not change drastically, as the majority of the proposed addition wi ll be on the
second floor above the house that is currently one-story. The additions to the first floor are
primarily proposed along the south and west elevations; such additions are composed of an
enlarged foyer, enlarged garage, enlarged family room facing the new deck and a new
breakfast area addition to the kitchen.
Due to the angle of the flag lot driveway from Buckingham Place and the substantial vegetation
and mature trees along the interior property line, the existing home is only partially visible from
Buckingham Place. The home is also not readily visible from Chevy Chase Drive, given the
curvature of the street and the steep slope leading up to the building pad.
A new cantilevered deck is proposed at the rear. The deck projects from the graded portion of
the lot (existing building pad) over the steeply sloped rear yard overlooking Chevy Chase Drive.
The height of this deck is less than the 15 feet overall maximum height. The railing of the
proposed deck will be glass. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires
landscaping and irrigation to be installed in the area surrounding the proposed deck to soften
its appearance and reduce its mass/scale as viewed from neighbors south along Chevy Chase.
Lastly, the submitted site plan features a rectangular area north-west of the pool that is not
clearly identified. Based on a site visit, this area was discovered to be an outdoor covered
patio with an outdoor kitchen. According to the plans, this patio area stretches across the
interior property line. Building & Safety has no permits for this structure. Since it crosses over
property lines and does not meet the side setback in the R1 R zone, this structure cannot
readily be permitted and the property owner intends to remove it.
Lot coverage:
The existing lot coverage is approximately 8.2%. The proposed lot coverage for the
expanded building footprint will be 1 0.5%, with an increase of only 2.3%. According to
Code, any deck greater than 18 inches above grade must be included in the lot coverage
calculation; with the proposed deck at the rear, the new lot coverage ratio is 13.3%. The
proposed percentage is still well below the limit allowed by Code and the 30% limit
recommended in the Design Guidelines.
Parking:
The existing attached 2-car garage will be enlarged in order to provide the interior
clearance for a two-car garage required by Code (20' by 20' interior). The orientation of the
garage towards the flag lot driveway will not change. The new garage appears compatible
with the intent of the Guidelines, since the new garage is similar to the existing condition .
Landscaping:
The proposed addition will not necessitate the removal of any existing landscaping
currently on site. There is substantial landscaping, including a very tall, mature pine tree
and dense shrubbery at the interior bend of the flag lot driveway, screening a substantial
portion of the house from Buckingham Place. Staff is recommending that the landscaping
along the east interior property line be maintained and preserved, and that additional
landscaping be installed at the base of the new rear deck.
Walls:
There is an existing five- to six-foot high block wall that surrounds the subject property
along the north, south and portions of the east property lines, and a railing spanning the
edge of the building pad atop the sloped rear year. There is no fencing in the front yard
setback area directly in front of the house. There is a block retaining wall on the westernmost
portion of the property that encloses the swimming pool. The existing walls are to

2064 Buckingham Place
Page 4 of7
remain. The proposed rear deck is to have a decorative block wall base and a
complimentary glass and metal railing along the edge above.
Privacy: The first floor of the existing home is set back back from the east interior property
line 5'-9"; the enlarged foyer will be in line with the existing setback. One of the bedrooms
of the second story addition is set back an additional 8'-9" from the first floor below, while
the majority of the second story addition is located further away above the west half of the
building footprint. The neighboring home to the west is setback at an angle from the shared
property line. In addition to the angled setback, landscaping in the form of mature trees
and shrubs buffers the two homes from one another. Furthermore, the east elevation has
been designed with a reduced amount of windows, when compared to the fenestration
pattern of the west elevation, to specifically address the privacy of the adjacent home.
While there may be some visual impact to the property to the east, the proposal will not
impact the privacy of any surrounding property.
Summary: Minor changes are proposed for the footprint of the existing house on the angled flag
lot, yet the overall site planning of the site will remain similar to the existing. Small additions are
proposed at the ground level along the south and west elevations, while a new semi-cantilevered
deck is proposed at the rear to provide more flat surface area. The proposed project is only
partially visible from Buckingham Place, and will not be readily visible from Chevy Chase Drive,
given the curvature of the street and the building location atop the steep slope. Except for the
slight decrease in existing hardscape and the proposed rear deck, the landscaping will not be
affected and will remain as is, with the exception of additional landscaping required to screen the
base of the new deck. Staff is recommending that substantia/landscaping be installed at the base
of the deck to soften its appearance. Overall, the proposed site plan is compatible with the
adjacent developments.
MASS AND SCALE
The existing residence is 2,011 square feet, primarily rectangular in building footprint shape
and low-scale in massing. The existing one-story home is tucked at the far north-east corner of
flat pad of the hillside lot, screened behind mature trees and landscaping, thereby rendering it
not prominently visible from Buckingham Place
The proposed second story addition will result in an increase in floor area and change in the
number of stories. Currently, there are seven (7) one-story homes and ten (1 0) two-story
homes in the surrounding 300-foot survey area. The proposed second story addition will be set
back from the existing east elevation and away from the east adjacent neighbor (in response to
the neighbor's appeal of the previous project), The second story tiers upward from the
expanded two-car garage portion and along the west elevation (see isometric drawing). The
massing of the second story is broken down by the inclusion of various balconies and recessed
patio areas. The existing, odd-shaped front entry has been modified to better integrate with the
shapes and volumes of the project, with a slight expansion forward and in line with the existing
interior side setback.
As previously mentioned, the majority of the second story addition is located away from the
existing east first floor elevation and interior property line, and above the west half of the
building's footprint. Whereas any second story addition would affect the view from the
neighbor's second story windows, the proposed location/placement of the new second story
further from the interior property line helps reduce the perceived mass and scale, in addition to
the visual impact and privacy concerns, with respect to the easterly neighbor (as noted in the
previous project's appeal). Furthermore, the size of the project and footprint of the second story
addition have been decreased from the previous proposal to make it more compatible in terms
of mass and scale with the surrounding developments.
The exterior remodel will alter the existing architectural style of the house from simple Ranch to
a more contemporary, modern house with a gable roof design (unlike the previous Modern

2064 Buckingham Place
Page 5 of 7
proposal with its flat roof). It should be noted that both styles, the simple Ranch and the more
modern one, tend to focus on simple and straightforward forms. The proposed, more
contemporary architectural style of the project features a variety of rectangular shapes and
forms, and gable roof system that matches many of the neighboring Ranch homes.
Furthermore, the two-story building envelope includes various recesses and pop-outs to
provide articulation across the facades and to break up the massing.
Lastly, the location of the home and topography of the site help to diminish the massing and
scale of the two-story project. The house is set on a building pad which is tucked around the
corner of the property's flag lot driveway, not directly facing Buckingham Road. The building
pad also sits atop a steeply sloped rear yard, not easily visible from the hairpin curve of Chevy
Chase Drive below. The west elevation can be seen only if one stands on Chevy Chase Drive
and looks up, although there is no safe place to stand (no sidewalks) along the hairpin turn
below. This rear-facing elevation has the greatest amount of detail in design and fenestration.
Had the building not been situated atop the steep slope adjacent to a hairpin curve (road), or
not on a flag lot, but rather directly facing the front street property line, there would be more
emphasis on the proposed massing. As currently designed, this west elevation is varied, wellarticulated
and designed.
Building Height: The existing one-story structure is 16'-0" to the top of the highest ridge,
while the proposed overall two-story building height is 28'. The maximum building height in
the R1 R zone is 32 feet, with an additional three feet for pitched roofs. The proposed height
is well below Code limits and appears compatible in height with the two-story homes along
the north side of Buckingham Place.
Setbacks: The proposed front setback will be 73 feet, as measured perpendicularly from
Buckingham Place per Code. This front street setback will be well above the required 15-
foot minimum front setback for homes in the R1 R zone. Because this home is located on a
flag lot, the front setback is not a significant issue. The existing interior setback of 5'-9"
along the east property line will be continued for the front entry extension. The second story
above will be further set back an additional 8'-9", while the majority of the second story
addition is located further away above the west half of the building footprint.
Floor Area Ratio: The existing house is 2,011 square feet with a FAR of 0.07. The
proposed house will be 3,383 square feet with an FAR of 0.11. Houses located within 300
feet range from 1,624 to 2,358 square feet in size, with an FAR range from 0.07 to 0.33 and
an average of 0.18. This will be the largest house in the area. However, its location on a
flag lot tucked around a corner bend and atop a steep slope on a recessed building pad,
along with its volumetrically stacked design, provide opportunities for the larger project to fit
within its site and context. Meanwhile, the current proposal is well below the average FAR
for properties in the neighborhood, and below the recommended limitations in the Design
Guidelines and the maximum permitted by Code.
Summary: Although the house will be the largest in the survey area, the project's massing is
generally compatible with the surrounding single family houses, given its configuration of building
forms, location on the hillside flag lot, and treatment of the fagades. The majority of the second
story addition is located away from the existing east first floor elevation and interior property line,
and above the west half of the building's footprint, thereby reducing the perceived mass and
scale, in addition to privacy concerns and visual impact, in regards to the east neighbor. With its
location on a recessed building pad atop a steep slope above Chevy Chase, the 2-story project's
mass and scale facing Chevy Chase will a/so not be apparent from the neighbors and street
below. Therefore, the proposed massing and scale of the project appears compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.

2064 Buckingham Place
Page 6 of 7
BUILDING DESIGN AND DETAILING
The existing home is a simple, gabled Ranch-style house that was constructed in 1963. The
angled front entryway was later added in a more modern style. The neighborhood includes a
variety of Ranch-inspired homes apparently constructed in the same time period.
The proposed addition and remodel are proposed in a more modern design than the existing
Ranch house. The project's emphasis is still on simple, straightforward forms and a gable roof
system, such as those found in typical Ranch structures.
The south elevation could be considered as the front elevation of the project, since it features
the front entryway and two-car garage, and this facade is the elevation first encountered off the
flag lot driveway. This elevation features a two story central volume (incorporating the
expanded two-car garage), with a recessed, angled front entry on the east (mimicking the
existing front entry) and a recessed, two-story balcony frame on the west.
The elevation facing the interior property line to the east features less fenestration and detail
than the other elevations; the second story is specifically setback from the first floor and does
not have any windows, thereby providing greater privacy and less visual imposition on the
adjacent property.
As previously mentioned, the west elevation has the greatest amount of detailing. This
elevation features a 2-story far;ade with windows that maximize the view over Chevy Chase
canyon. A combination of windows and inset balconies puncture the far;ade, breaking it up and
resulting in not just one big box, but a variety of smaller forms in dialogue with on.e another.
Other details included the home's fenestration pattern, which features a variety of proportions
and shapes to the windows. The west and south elevations feature more windows than the east
and north elevations that face the adjacent house to the east; not only does this maximize
privacy for the neighbors, but it also maximizes the views and sunlight. Meanwhile, some
windows are tall and narrow, and others are wider; window shapes are repeated on various
elevations and help tie the elevations together, providing an interesting and appropriate
composition for each elevation.
Lastly, the home features aluminum door and window frames, with baked-on enamel finish , and
architectural glass balcony railings and glass garage doors. These details contributed to the
modern quality of the project.
Textures and Quality of Materials: The new home will have earth-tone smooth stucco,
stone veneer accents, Mi lgard aluminum windows, standing seam metal roofing, decorative
metal and glass railings.
The combination and variety in the chosen materials provide visual interest and texture to
the overall appearance and will be appropriate to the Modern style of the building. The
color scheme also appears to work harmoniously with the design, and to be compatible
with the surrounding homes and hillside palette.
Summary: The project has been designed in a contemporary architectural style, featuring
appropriate, modern finishes and muted, earth-toned colors. While the design slightly veers away
from the traditional Ranch style in the neighborhood, the more contemporary project is
nevertheless compatible with the surrounding structures in terms of forms and massing.
RECOMMENDATIONS/ DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION:
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions:
• Maintain the existing vertical landscaping along the east property line.

2064 Buckingham Place
Page 7 of?
• Provide substantial, vertical landscaping at the base of the new deck.
• Remove the unpermitted patio and outdoor kitchen straddling the northerly interior
property line.
Analysis and Summary:
Site Planning: Minor changes are proposed for the footprint of the existing house on the
angled flag lot, yet the overall site planning of the site will remain similar to the existing. Small
additions are proposed at the ground level along the south and west elevations, while a new
semi-cantilevered deck is proposed at the rear to provide more flat surface area. The
proposed project is only partially visible from Buckingham Place, and will not be readily
visible from Chevy Chase Drive, given the curvature of the street and the building location
atop the steep slope. Except for the slight decrease in existing hardscape and the proposed
rear deck, the landscaping will not be affected and will remain as is, with the exception of
additional landscaping required to screen the base of the new deck. Staff is recommending
that substantia/ landscaping be installed at the base of the deck to soften its appearance.
Overall, the proposed site plan is compatible with the adjacent developments.
Mass and Scale: Although the house will be the largest in the survey area, the project's
massing is generally compatible with the surrounding single family houses, given its
configuration of building forms, location on the hillside flag lot, and treatment of the fac;ades.
The majority of the second story addition is located away from the existing east first floor
elevation and interior property line, and above the west half of the building's footprint, thereby
reducing the perceived mass and scale, in addition to privacy concerns and visual impact, in
regards to the east neighbor. With its location on a recessed building pad atop a steep slope
above Chevy Chase, the 2-story project's mass and scale facing Chevy Chase will also be
not be apparent from the street. Therefore, the proposed massing and scale of the project
appears compatible with the surroun_ding neighborhood.
Building Design and Details: The project has been designed in a contemporary
architectural style, featuring appropriate, modern finishes and muted, earth-toned colors.
While the design slightly veers away from the traditional Ranch style in the neighborhood, the
more contemporary project is nevertheless compatible with the surrounding structures in
terms of forms and massing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Plans
3. Neighborhood Survey
4. City Council Motion and Project Plans from the City Council Appeal on July 15, 2009, of
Case No. 1-PDR-2008-089

App~a l
EXHIBIT 5.
on
gl e nd ~ .. ~.~~o
Ca'"' No.?. f9(13Q~
Date
-l:r/(L
Submit 3 copies of this applkation to the Pe rmit Se rvices Center (PSC) located at 633 East Broadway, Rm. 1 01,
Glendale, California, 91206, along wit h the required fee. For more information please call the PSC at 818.548.3200.
Please com lete (PRINT or TYPE) the following information:
PART 1- NOTICE TO APPELLANT (please read carefully)
A. This form must be prepared, and 3 copies filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed.
B. Every question must be answered.
C. If a question does not apply, you must answer "does not apply" or words to that effect.
D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in
fact you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith.
E. Attach additional pages for long answers.
F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal
Procedure on the City's webpage at www.ci.glendale.ca.us/gmc/2.88.asp
PART 2- APPELLANT IN FORMATION
A 612~e6o/2~ ll1¢~~ Gl?~6vMtSf2..e4-'fT:N
B. ~~6D ~J:,:,e
B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination? Yes 0 No []-
If "Yes," attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here _ _ __ _
If "No," give the following information concerning your receipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination.
Date Time Location Manner _______ _
C. State generally what kind of permit, variance er action was t he basis for t he
decision from which the a pea l is taken -J~:!?:l~~~;e,:J.._~::::::;'%jl::_j::::t'S_j~:::.=~~~L-...:::=:~
D.
E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes 0 No lb/
If "No," how are you involved with the permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action referred to
above? _____ _____ _______ _ _____ ___ _ _ _____ ____ __
F. Does this matter iiwolve real property? Yes fri7No 0
If "Yes," give the address, or describe the real property aifey:ted -------:;.,.----;-------:;.--~fr---A
7-----::&------
Qio~ $"f't211/ a. ·~· 1//c

PART 4- STATEMENT OF ERROR
A. Do you c~tend that there was a violation of a specific provi~ion of law, which forms the basis for this appeal?
_ Yesc/' _ No If "Yes", state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated: ____ _ _
C. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer failed to fu lfi ll a mandatory duty by any provision of law
given in answer "A"? _ Yes ~ If "Yes", state which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to
exercise: ·
FORSTAFFUSEONLY t ,_ IJ -"+-
Da~ Stamp-
Date received in Per~it Services Center ',3;l.\ '[3 Received by ~ c:. l:P
Fee paid l \& J.-l r. (.f\1 Receipt No. _..::....{ l~3L-j"?f__._']-l--------,=--:X -
N
N
1/312013
Page 2 of 2
City of Glendale· Community Development Dept., Planning Divisjon · 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103 ·Glendale, CA 91206 · 818.548.2140 · www d glendale ca.us/plannjng

To: Permit Service Center. Appeal Board
633 E .Broadway, RmlOl, Glendale, CA 91206
From: Gregory Mgerian
2060 Buckingham Place, Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Projected Remodeling Construction at 2064 Buckingham Place, Glendale, CA
91206 CASE NUMBER: 2-PDR-1301725-A
Dear Members ofBoard,
My family has been living in this hillside neighborhood (RlR-ill zoning) for 15 years
now. Our home is a 2370sq. ft, two story single family house located at the curve ofthe
cul-de-sac (2060 Buckingham place). The average house size in our area is
approximately 2200 sq. ft. The majority are one story houses, and some are 2-story.
These homes were built in 1963-1966 in a simple ranch style. If you look at that area, it is
easy to notice that the house sizes and number of stories were carefully ananged with
consideration, allowing each home to benefit fi·om the nice canyon landscape, open
mountain or canyon view with enough sun, space and privacy for all the residents.
The points of concern affecting om· household and neighborhood are as follows:
The planned remodeling of our neighbor's house (2064 Buckingham place) from a
2011 sq. ft. home to about 4000 sq.ft. (3400 sq. ft. habitable) mansion will:
o Completely block sunlight to all our bedroom windows located on the west side
of the house, (none of our rooms have windows facing any other direction, as a
privacy measure for the tenants in the next house over).
(i Completely block the current perspective of the valley from any window in our
house, which will result in a significantly diminished property value. All we will
see is our neighbors' walJs.
e
The new design is about three feet taller than the previous design thus
making it too bulky.
The points of concern affecting our ueighborhood are as follows:
o
o
New project will dismpt of modest neighborhood style where the majority ofthe
homes are of ranch style and average 2200sq feet total.
Loss of major part of valley sight for homes located on the north side ofthe block
C) It is not a "modest" remodeling. There is change from 2030 sq. ft. to over 4000 sq.
ft. (3400 sq. ft. habitable) and addition of 2nd floor.
1

We attended the Glendale Design Review Board #2 meeting that was held on 3/7/2013
and expressed our disagreement with the project hoping that our opinion will be
considered. However, the project was approved with minor conditions that do not
alleviate any of our concerns nor do the minor changes have to be re-presented for
approval.
The concerns with the meeting we had are as follows:
e
Only 3 out of the 5 members voted for the project. The Chairwoman Ms. Sakai.
abstained and one ofthe members, Mr. Malekian left before the voting.
o
o
0
Ms. Sakai, a senior member on the board, realized the serious nature of the
situation and abstained.
The two board members that approved the plan and a staff member seemed eager
to get the plan approved no matter what and didn't seem to take our concerns into
consideration.
There were incorrect statements made regarding the project impact on our
neighborhood and adjacent neighboring properties.
o
o
Mass and scale on project plan and in Design Review Board's Record of Decision
is stated incorrectly;
Statement regarding compatibility of projected construction with the area and
surrounding buildings is controversial;
o
Our house location and proximity was not shown on the project plan.
o
Our photographs mailed and emailed to DRB few weeks prior to the meeting
were not presented until we had to demonstrate them again during the time given
to us to talk.
Q
Proposed project did not address the recommendation put forth in the 2009 case
made by City Council in the previous appeal of the case.
Attachments:
1. Photographs t-aken from one of our rooms to present the future look.
2. Photograph taken from neighboring street (Buckingham Road).
3. Rebuttal to Decision Review Board Record ofDecision
Sincerely,
Ga·egory Mgerian and Narine Mirzoian
2060 Buckingham Place
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 679 5203
gn~gll}gL@~.Jt.n~1
2

Attachment B
To Design Review Board
· Community Development Department
633 E. Broadway Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
DRB Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A
The new proposed project, does not meet the guideline put forth by the
2009 case decision. The new architectural group has reduced the square footage
of the house on 2064 Buckingham Place by about 400 sq ft from previous
designed but they failed to meet the city council requirements to make the
design less intrusive and reduce-mass and scale. The new dwelling is going to
be a massive obstruction to any light coming into our westen1 windows. It is
still blocking light and view from the upstairs bedrooms, changes are
insignificant, even though they presented as such.
The we stem facing slope offers them a significant piece of real estate to
place their expansion on yet they have chosen to erect the entire expansion in
one small spot of their lot; tllis is the issue at heart. The new design is about
three feet taller than the previous design thus making it too bull)'. At no point
did the design group visit our property to see what the proposed project might
look W'e from our windows. Had they visited our property, it would have been
clear that raising the roofline 3 feet higher than the previous proposal that was
rejected for bulk and intrusiveness was not a good idea.
The design group either did not understand the recommendation put forth in
the 2009 case or chose to ignore it.
We are not opposed to our neighbors renovating their home. What we are
against is their doing tllis at such a high price to our own home and
neighborhood. At 3,400 square feet this design is not just largest home, but JOy
f~u hu·geB.' than the 2,200 square foot average for our neighborhood. Even today
that house is not the smallest one. The expansion is an almost fifty a)er«=ent
increase in square footage from the current dwelling; this is by no means a
modest change.
The opponents may argue that they have one of the few houses in tl1e
neighborhood that does not have a second floor which entitles them to being
able to build that.
1

My. response is that the only reason you are even being allowed to be a
1,500 sq ft expansion is because of the rather large lot size that the house is on.
Instead of building down or towards their west facing· slope where the vast
majority of the lot exists, the designer has chosen to erect the new expansion all
in one location on the small flat pad at the top of their property; once again
choosing not to follow the city Council's recommendation.
If the F.A.R (Floor Area Ration) is adjusted to the flat portion of their lot,
where all construction and building will be done, the F.A.R value will be
drastically different than what has been given. Most ironically, the new design
doesn't utilize a square foot of the massive hillside property they are using to
justify a massive remodel.
The F.A.R value is artificially being depressed by the fact that the slope is
being taken into consideration; they when it comes to expansion the design
group chooses not to tal(e the slope into consideration.
I would like to bring to yom· attention few notes made on tlus subject in the
July of 2009 City Council appeal meeting were the previous projects was
tun1ed down unanimously.
Council Member Laura Friedman said:
no one would have any problem at all with his home if he were to develop a more
modest home or one that goes down the hill.
Council Member Drayman in his closing comments mentions "special attention
to the properlies immediately adjacent to the subject properly" ORB agreed with that.
Let's look at the new DRB staffrepmt:
On Page 2 of DRB staff report City Planner says: mass and scale should
respect adjacent building ~ontext.
Does it?
Page 3: ... Due to substantial vegetation and mature trees along the interior
lines, the existing home is only partially visible from Buckingham Place.
Do I have to remind you that yom· statement was literally ridiculed in2009
meeting, because those are our trees, ow· vegetation along the property line?
You are hiding behind my trees! By the way one of the pine trees died because
of their driveway construction few years ago. On the same page city planner
says: the home is not readily visible from Chevy Chase Drive, giving the
curvature of the street.
My answer here will be: if you are building a good stuff why do you need to
hide behind neighbor's trees and street curvature.
2

.. . Staff is recommending the landscaping along the eastern line. Who is this
recommendation for? All the landscaping is mine at this point.
Page 4:
... the proposal will not impact the property of surrounding properly. This
new floor is right against my windows.
Overall, the proposed site plan is compatible with adjacent developments.
Same mantra is being repeated over and over again.
Here is my favorite one:
... Whereas any second story addition would affect the view from the
neighbor's 2''d story windows, the proposed location placement ~~the new
second story further from the interior property helps reduce the perceived mass
and scale. So, acknowledging the existence of mass and scale there is an
attempt to reduce visual impact.
In the Summary on Page 5 Planner repeats again: the proposed massing and
scale of the project appears compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Let's think again why she says that over and over again? Probably she hopes
that reviewers will not read details, only the summruy.
Page 6: Recommendations.
Maintain the existing vertical landscaping along the property line. Who do
you recommend it to? I would say you should do better homework The
finat1cial aspects: this design will have significant impact on our property value
as well.
We are against this project in this form as it was presented.
Greg my Mgerian and N ariue Mirzoian
2060 Buckingham Place, Glendale, CA 91206
2/27/2013
3

EXHIBIT 6.
NEIGHBORHOOD KEY
Key Address Sq.Ft.Buildlng Sq. Ft.Lot F/A% Stories Set Back Roof
Sub.Jea
.20b4 6UCI

. .
L.A. MAPPING SERVICE
500' RADIUS MAP
LEGEND
71 DEER ~REEK ROAD ®
OWNERSHIP NO.
POMONA,· QA. 9.1766
(909} 595-0903
I
OWNERSHIP HOOK
CASE NO.
DATE: 1-15-13
SCALE: 1" = 200'

-
.9 8 2
EXHIBI~' 7 ..
M 0 I! 0 N
Moved by Council Mem~er ---=N=a,.....,· a=r=i=an=-----------
'
seconded by Coun

EXHIBIT
7.
; .
-- ----
··
f 0
·· ·
I
~· ···
o 0 • I I f
o 1 o t ~~ I t I t I t t t I t
t I t o I I I I I t I
·· · ·· · ~ · ·
· t · t · t ·· t ~·· I I I I o · 0 ·
--
· ··~· · · · · ·····
I t I I I I I I I I f I
. .
f f I o I I f t t I I 0
o t t f I I I I I t f I o 0
· · · · · ~··· ····
··· .o t t ·~ t I t -· o . · t ·· I I --·· I I t · I
IIIVI310NS
NO. :gsu. BY
'\> .. ...... .
t .. I • t t
,,· .:- :-:-:-:-
• f o f I I
. ....
• f o t t I
I o o t t I
I o I t I
t • t • •
N 0 T E
lHERE IS NO CW

,
2t-J.D sro~'(
~o~:no~
€U t-1\ l ~~'ED
l
~D~
CO~D\ 11 o~ .
c·
~
I
I
9'-6'
~/ v v -~
0
!~
/~
1
15'-0'
'
~
\
'! SLOPE-1 2 .12
~
0
~~ (
1/~~
\
.
~\~~{;>~·
cJ& I~ ~l
A
0 0
J I
2 \o
:,
,I i
!:: I
I
!
I
~
I
1u I
i
I
I
I
1"'- ~-
.......:_.
r-~
i 3'-9' 2'- 0' 3'-9'
i
ts•.,o•
3'-6'
1-
2'-0'
1
14'"0'
~v~v~v~v~ kvvv
~vvvv vvvvvvvv~ W-.>~
vvvvvvv~~
vvvv
vvvvv
~ -
~ -.
vvvv
vvvvv
vvvv
vvvvg vvvv
~~~~~3 V \
~ """'vvv ~~~rvvvvv~~
vvvv'~
~vv'< R :..,vv'

_----!:TO~P ~O~F:!:!!:R
0
OO::,:F~~-t-r--'"'1
1 ------~--- --------- Tl
1-A • 3 1. (5)
_----!:TO:::P-:0:-:F·~ROO:::F~~+'f+- ~~1------------ ___ ----··r--4-1---+----t----,---'---j
_---!:TOP~O:._F'!.!PIA::::IE~!~+~. 1-:~:=t--- ------- ___ -----
-~...:;
TO:::.. P..:!Of'-',I>IA'-=IE~~-t--t'-~t-:=:i1 'i-~-=--=- r----+--j---t== ======== =======
~r---
i'
Ill
2 I
1 ~
~~--+-----+-+4-_,-~, ----------t
I
------- -- -------- ------------ --- -- --- ---
1-A• cp
~-------~~
-'L Jl
FIRST FIN. FlJt A.
CRAOE FIN
A
10' - B' 29'-2'
EXTERIOR f]NISH MATERIALS·
:fi:'l - lN!AII!A S1UCCO Cll E!IUH..lll0011\ml!! 1 ·HA!i0 1i'MD..II,11j 1110 COAlS CJ
\..::.1 f'Ollii!R BASE EX1IJII(Il PAIIT. X--..w'MlROQC(8A9i 1110)
fi\- IIIQIGIT ~ RAlJI«

TOP OF ROOF
-~
TOP OF ROOF
-~
TOP OF PLATE
-~
TOP OF PLATE
-~
b
1J
$ TOP OF •ROOf
$ TOP OF 1 ROOF
$ TOP OF PLATE
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND fiN. FlR. ~
!I
. ...
~
o/ !
~ ' ~
"'
$ SECOND AN. FlR.
(E)GATE:
TOP OF RQOF
TOP OF ROOF
_IOP OF PLATE ·::::
TOP OF PLATE ;~,
FlRST ·flN. R.R.
~
FlRST FlN. FlR.
GRADE FlN.
--r--·
~ ij------ ----------.-- ~ -- -- ----- ---- ---·
---r---- ---· --·
~ l L I L
~
l #
-
~
---------- - ----
c:~~=J-
I
I
f-
m
I I I I
l!lllilllll
39'- 10'
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS:
{;\- I.Nf!al.l Sl\IOCO 00 EWA!.. SIIOOilt ~~lfi'UED. 11]1\ TliO COATS CJ
\.::J P«.YIIER BASE fX1ERIOft PNHT. X- 4911uouv"""""''BASH 1110)
D
'C)/ P«.YIIER BASE EXTERI

-c ~ • • -- • ..
-D
0'-1"
CJ
r :::0
fTl 0
~
r
0'-1"
,
II
c
z
0
i 0'~1~,_::~2·~ p
~~ ~
lib
tiCJ
t=;"'t!]
~ II 0'-9"
I
II
10
~~
II ··-· . ··- .... -" .. ~
II
._,II
Fll
~
~
D
D
0
0
tl 0
r.::;:::!~
~)d
(?cO~
'Lf"C!J ·
E{gCJ
D~ i~
Q£1
~'1S"Fh
- ---·- - ·- - ···---~
E?J=--1
r-J~
J::::=fc:J
r===1.=:CJ
~i t==;~
II
01 - - - -- ------:o
0 :o
. 10
, ~I I sJ==::Jo o c=::J
I I
I
leg- . :o
o
I ·11
0'-1 H
:o
01 :o
o: :o
Q5
!/
>£>
5'-2"
6'-0"
lg
r;:::::=!. -
.bf'C:!]
PE$
,_.
0 I
~ 1'-0"
~ 1
d
~
,_.
ru
,_.. I
~
IJ)
I
Ul
~
I
i\)
I
'-.]
~
0
'
I
1\.)
~
0' - 6" l 0'-2"
0
I ,_.
~
ru "
Ul
·v
C)
I
-1:>.
~
r...
ru
ru
'-/
-
~
)> e:o:::o
~
I
0
~
U1
I
f'\.)
~
Ul
I
1\.)
~
-·
r-tt 0'-2"
0
I ,_.
~
r...
1\.)
co
'-/
,J.
•c:~::::]~~~----
//,/'
v2
/
/
/
6--- -7-
, -,
I ',,
~ ............,
~ '\.
r...
'
ru
',,
(J\ \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
'-/ \
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~~:~::G:~=~~=r~=~= =a=~~=~~: :::8
>-:: 1'-0"
I
0
"
5'-2 11
5'-2"
0' -2" 0'-4"
0'-1" 0'-1" 0'-4 11
C8 II II D II II II qm
0'-2"
C8
0'-4"
0'-1" 0'-1" 0'-4"
~ ~tt5t5"~o
>
I
-~=~~
~ ! i ..
!!'ll!s
-.JI
. .!
.... ,-
~ I ~
Cl,
1'-1C II '-9 1'-4' 1'-2"
6'-0ti
-- ---- '
~~I
iii ;
~~ ~
0 .•
~ ~
~
~ . 6' . 0''
= -- - . ~
;'I '
..,
-t
(
-·
o·
~~
=:.
3i.
:po
I I CONSOLtiNT:
~ PIIOJBCl' ADilJIESS: 2064 BUCKINGHAM PL.
t -V?
GLENDALE.CA 91206
::: "' ' ·.
_, ..
....
~·
PROPOSED ADDffiON
c -
......
j. ""='
~.)
~ OWNER: GEVORK NERSISYAN •- .:::::> __
;
.,

PROPOSED ADDITION
OWNER: GEVORK NERSISYAN
lllm8IOH8 _
MO. lli8UI BY
2.064 BUCKI-NGHAM PL. GLENDALE.CA 91206 .
-IW:
DIL\'IJIIJY:
Dilts~
101 110.
----------------------------------------------------~- ~
T

TRACT : .26703 LOT : 13
LOT AAv.
~~: 30,400 SQ. FT.
EXSS1'INO HOUSE AAS.
• 2030.0 SQ. FT.
£lUSTING GAAAGE AA£A
• 464.0 SQ. FT.
EXm\NG PAnO
• 381.0 SQ. FT.
EIOST\NO PORSH. • 38.0 SQ..FT.
PfiOf'OSED ADOITlOH 0 141' R.OOR (2!2.0SQ. FT. ) TOTAL• 2030.0 • 283.0 •22!2.0 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED 2-NO R.OOR MEA
•1111.0 SQ. FT.
PA0P0SE0 GARAGE M£A
PROPOSEO PATIO
• 207 . 0 SQ_FT.
• 300.0 SQ. FT.
PROI'06EO 8AI.CONV • 248.0 SQ. FT.
• 2MT.OSQFT. • 2030.0SO.FT. • 40f7.0SQ. FT.
207.0 SQ. FT.• .C04.0SQ.FT •171.0SO.FT.
EXISTlNG
WATER n.ow C!RECTlON
I I
~
I
.J
z
0.\D 0
:Eo

o·-o·
13'-2'
6'-0'
70'-4'
26'-4'
22'-10'
?
? ,.,
b
I
l.J
• 4 R 6
f-+-
3 012
UP
22'-0'

RIVIB'IOIIB
MO. IB8IJI BY
EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN
' "NEW"WAUS
(E) CEIUNG TO BE OEMOUSHED 645.0 SQ.FT.
EXISTlNCHOUSE AREA 2030.0 SQ.FT.(2030.0-645.0)= J LOll
(E) WALLS TO DEMOUSHED
·"'(E) "BrOCK 'WAU:'iO 1lEMOliSHED
.U
.-~--. -,-,
f)IIIIGHIJY:
DIIA'tlll IJYt
/ ,..,. ••--,
, .--:-o"':"' ·
1 • ST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4"=r-o"
lOI JIO,
A-2-1
8lllft
or

__________________
~------------...:.._ ....:...______;___._____ , ,_ .
47'-6'
2'-0' 14'-11' 4'-0' 6'-0'
70'-3'
17'-9'
16'-11'
----
~
_p
!
I
'
!
I
I
I
..
I
"'
c
- - ~ 1
+-LILJ----"-"--:-t-t
-
z
Oz
E~
0 ~
Oz

SL0PE=1'-2': 12
SL6PE 1/2: 12 -..
ONB
ifo. J8slll BY
EJ
Pi.uf
,,.~., ·~·
plllltal tc:
-
. - -
,
AQO_F . ~LA.N
SCALE: 1/4';=1'-0"
A-2- 3
IIIID:T -
or

-----=--------=-_:___:_ _ ___ _______.:.____;__ __-·- .
rl ~ll l l
~
"' ;(,
11 to·
lll.ft. 1111 .
--.- . .
lll
.
I II Ill
L I--
Ill
Ill
(EX)BLOCK WAL!-_
fENCE H•6' -o·
!0
'
"'
~
1
56'-3'
70'-8'
14'- 5'
5
(EXISTING) EAST
ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
I
-~
. ·~
KO,
IIVIBIOKI
-18110 : BY
(EX)BLOCK WALL ~
E H=6'- 0' -
~
=
(EX)BLOCK WALL
fENCE H•6' -0~___}
I
(~
I
3'-8'

EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS;
Q-= ~~~~~~'(JM/\otllj m

-- . ---·-----.
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS:
~
I 8
TOP OF ROOF ~
TOP OF ROOF ~
TOP OF PlAT£ ~
f.\- LNlAIIR~ SlUCCO Ill EWAL SIIOO!H M~1 HIHO AI'I'IJEI) 1
'M,Ill 1V«l CO~TS (f'
\..::J PQ.'MR B~SE EXl!lliOO PAll!. X-4aiiEN~UYimOOI

TOP OF ROOf
--'-"'--"'--"=+--r------ ------------
TOP OF ROOf
I
II
ata' T'II'E"" I
~ l:fP.BC ,...._ -"-'1-r-1 - ....,
~~
'"""-
-~oMS:
I
li ' ... ~
~
J
(
I
I
I
~6~
~
~I ~
1
I
i
IIIVII10118
1(0. IB8VI BY
SECTION "B"
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
. ... .. ,
EJ
IIC£1&: l/4"•t•-o•
DllllGIIIITI
lOB !10.
A-4-1
IIIIBT
or

I
TOP Of ROOf
SECTION "A"
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
110. IBIUI BY
(
'
I
i
, ....
; ;t.
ICAUI: ,, ••• , .~·
BIIIOII BYt
DU'Ilf BYt
SECTION "A"
SCALE: 1/ 8"=1'-0"
lOB 110.
A-4-2