Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Design Review topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Glendale DRB approves single‑story French‑country home at 1727 Wabasa Way with design conditions

5830356 · September 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Glendale Design Review Board approved demolition of an existing ranch house and construction of a single‑story French‑country style residence at 1727 Wabasa Way, subject to conditions on roof/attic dimensions, wall finishes, window recessing and exterior lighting.

The Glendale Design Review Board on Sept. 25 approved plans to demolish an existing ranch‑style house at 1727 Wabasa Way and build a new single‑story French‑country residence, after the project team agreed to staff‑recommended conditions addressing attic height, roof gable simplification, boundary walls and exterior fixtures. The property owner, Sevag Kairapetian, and architect Craig Stoddard presented the proposal and answered board questions before a 3–0 vote with two members absent. The board motion was made by Board Member Welsh and seconded by Board Member Halajian. Staff planner Coloma Diaz led the presentation and recommended approval with conditions.

The project site is a regular, interior lot of about 16,200 square feet on the city’s mid‑eastern side and currently contains a one‑story ranch house and a detached two‑car garage (the existing house footprint and condition were described by staff). The applicant proposes demolishing the existing structures and building a new 3,620‑square‑foot, single‑story residence with four bedrooms, three‑and‑a‑half bathrooms, and a 721‑square‑foot attached three‑car garage. The proposed overall height is 22 feet, 2 inches (below the 28‑foot maximum for the zone). The design uses French‑country elements: pitched gable roofs, limestone veneer, copper dormers and black aluminum‑clad windows.

Staff said research by preservation staff found the property not eligible for federal, state or local historic designation and that it is not considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project will widen the driveway to 14 feet, increase the front setback to 33 feet, and add an in‑ground pool and an accessory dwelling unit at the rear (the ADU location is not under DRB purview). The project team reported approximately 380 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill. A private arborist identified three city street trees and one neighboring western sycamore; staff does not anticipate impacts to those trees but recommended that required urban forestry permits be obtained prior to construction.

Board discussion focused chiefly on roof pitch and attic clear height. Staff’s condition asked to ensure the roof attic interior clear height is under 6 feet to avoid creating new habitable attic space; the owner reported that they reframed the roof so the attic clear height will be 5 feet 6 inches and that attic space will be used for mechanical equipment only. The architect and owner asked to retain an 8:12 roof pitch to preserve the French‑country character; board members agreed to accept the reduced interior attic height solution and to simplify the entry gable arrangement as shown in the revised elevation provided by the applicant. Other conditions require recessed windows, decorative facing for new boundary walls, specification for decorative driveway pavers, and exterior lighting details to avoid spillover.

The board adopted the motion to approve the project with the revised wording of staff conditions (remove the overall height reduction language and leave the attic interior‑height requirement; simplify the front gables as presented; require updated plan sheets incorporating the materials, recessed windows and lighting details). The roll call vote was 3–0 with two members absent. The board noted that appeals of the DRB decision must be filed within 15 calendar days on the city’s appeal portal.

The project will return to staff for plan check to verify compliance with the DRB conditions and to obtain required permits (building permit, urban forestry and maintenance services division permits).