Glendale Design Review Board approves 5‑story, 36‑unit Fairview Avenue housing project with design conditions

The Glendale Design Review Board voted 4‑0 on March 13, 2025 to approve design plans for a five‑story, 36‑unit residential building shown in staff materials as 21 East Fairview Avenue, requiring the applicant to add specified design details and minor program changes before final permits are issued.

The board’s action implements a previously approved density bonus housing plan and follows staff analysis that the project qualifies for a Class 32 (infill) CEQA exemption. The vote came after public comment raising questions about the site’s historical significance, neighborhood traffic and safety, and after the city’s historic preservation officer presented an analysis concluding the site is not a historic resource.

Staff described the project as a roughly 40,000‑square‑foot, five‑story building on an approximately 18,000‑square‑foot site that would replace several early‑20th‑century structures. The design includes a two‑level subterranean garage with 45 parking spaces (43 single‑access, 2 tandem), a mix of market‑rate and affordable units granted under a density bonus, and a reduced common outdoor space compared with code requirements. Staff said earlier approvals included a 50% density bonus that provided three very low‑income units and an additional 32.5% density bonus that provided two moderate‑income units; the applicant said the project will provide five affordable units as part of the bonus.

The board’s conditions require: recessed and detailed window treatments consistent across facades; translation of the south (Fairview) facade’s design language to the west facade; enhancement of the northern interior yard with minor active amenities (the board gave the example of a dog run) while preserving required fire access; selection of an S‑tile roof color/finish from the samples the applicant supplied (board members discussed preferring variegated finishes such as “Aneja” or “Fume”); and differentiation of the building base with a contrasting color or material to reduce perceived mass and to help articulate the main entry. The board also recorded two nonbinding considerations: increasing landscape tree box sizes on the north interior yard (members suggested 36‑inch box trees where feasible) and repurposing on‑site river stones into the landscape design.

The project’s planning history and regulatory points were matters of public comment and staff explanation. Staff noted a prior Planning Commission recommendation to proceed with an alley vacation for a 15‑foot alley adjacent to the property; the alley vacation (to split the alley 7.5 feet to each owner) will proceed to City Council for final action, tentatively in April. Staff also reported that a historical assessment prepared by Saphos Environmental concluded the property had been substantially altered and lacked cohesive architectural integrity; staff filed a Class 32 infill exemption with the state and Los Angeles County in 2024.

Members of the public and preservation professionals urged a different conclusion. Architectural historian Francisca Smith told the board that the report was in error and that the property ‘‘is historically significant’’ and therefore not eligible for the Class 32 exemption: ‘‘You can't use class 32 if it's a historic property,’’ she said. Jay Platt, the city’s historic preservation officer, presented his review and said, ‘‘In this case, I strongly believe this isn't a historic resource,’’ explaining that Sanborn maps and building‑by‑building alterations show the site developed in stages and lacks the consistent bungalow‑court typology argued by the preservation commenter.

Neighbors raised traffic and safety concerns, citing higher neighborhood traffic volumes tied to nearby commercial uses and recent incidents they said increased safety worries; board members and the applicant characterized those concerns as public comment rather than matters within the DRB’s design review authority. Applicant Rodney Khan summarized the project as a density‑bonus housing development that includes market‑rate, moderate and very‑low‑income units and said the project ‘‘is providing 5 affordable housing units.’’ Khan also noted the project exceeds the parking requirement.

Board deliberations centered on design details rather than density or height, issues the board said are controlled by state density bonus law and prior planning approvals. Members praised the Spanish‑colonial design approach, the fifth‑floor setback that reduces massing, and the project’s on‑site parking, while asking the applicant to refine west‑facing elevations, window recessing and entry prominence. Board member discussion produced the motion to approve with the conditions described above; Board member Welsh made the motion and Board member Simonian seconded it. The roll call recorded Halajian, Simonian, Welsh and Chair Kaskonian voting yes; the motion carried 4‑0.

Next steps noted in the meeting include (1) the applicant working with staff on the specific conditions before permit issuance, (2) the Planning Division and Public Works continuing work on the alley vacation for City Council consideration, and (3) final building and landscape details to be resolved during plan check and permit review. The DRB meeting closed after the vote and the board adjourned at 6:42 p.m.