1 - City of Glendale

• 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