1 - City of Glendale

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