Glendale hearing takes testimony on variances for three‑story house at 1719 Gladys Drive

The Planning Hearing Officer on Sept. 24 took public testimony and closed the record for a variance and administrative‑exception request to construct a three‑story, 2,216‑square‑foot single‑family home with an attached two‑car garage at 1719 Gladys Drive in the College Hills neighborhood.

Senior Planner Nicholas Haughty summarized the application and staff recommendation, saying the project proposes variances to minimum lot size (the lot is 5,234 square feet; the R1R zone requires 7,500), floor‑area ratio (applicant proposes 2,216 sq. ft., an FAR of 0.42; the district maximum is 0.30 or 1,572 sq. ft.), and a reduced street front setback and driveway length. Staff also identified administrative exceptions requested for building height (proposed 38 feet vs. a 32‑foot maximum in the R1R zone) and reduced interior setbacks (minimum 7 feet 9 inches vs. a 10‑foot requirement). Haughty told the hearing that staff finds the project categorically exempt from further CEQA review under the State CEQA Guidelines, Class 3 (new construction of a single‑family residence, see section 15303(a)), and recommended approval with conditions and draft findings in the staff report.

Designer and applicant representative Vicki Barbieri said the design team retained geotechnical and structural engineers early in the process and that the house has been sited and engineered to limit excavation and to meet code: “Everything will be under codes and under requirements,” Barbieri said, adding the team plans additional refinements such as shifting trash storage into the garage.

Neighbors and residents who live below and adjacent to the lot opposed approval at the hearing. Tina Joyner, whose home sits downslope, urged denial, citing slope stability, falling debris and construction access on the narrow, dead‑end street: “Public safety must come before private convenience,” she said. Other commentators reported past incidents of falling debris and said heavy construction equipment and staging would further risk adjacent properties and impede emergency access. Janine Edwards, who owns the neighboring property at 1727 Gladys Drive, told the hearing the parcel has had a burned‑out foundation since 1990 and described repeated access and parking problems during nearby construction projects.

Planner Haughty and the applicant’s designer responded to technical questions from the hearing officer about driveway configuration, how the structure steps down the slope, floor‑to‑ceiling heights and the project’s terraces. Haughty noted that previous variance approvals on the street established a streetscape pattern of reduced setbacks and building forms that “push the building closer to the street” to reduce perceived massing downslope; staff cited nearby precedents (for example, 1652 and 1664 Gladys Drive) as part of its analysis.

The hearing officer closed the public record and took the case under submission for a written decision rather than making a determination that day.

If approved, the project remains subject to design‑review board scrutiny and building‑permit requirements.