Design review board offers comments on proposed 8‑story, 131,850‑square‑foot residential building at 820 N. Central

The Glendale Design Review Board on June 26 provided advisory comments on a proposed 8‑story, 131,850‑square‑foot multifamily building at 820 North Central Avenue, asking the applicant to refine lighting, façade modulation and street‑level treatments before the City Council reviews the project's stage‑2 materials.

City planning associate Eileen Babakani told the board the project (case PDR002693‑2023) would demolish a roughly 6,000‑square‑foot vacant restaurant and two surface parking lots to build 155 units across three lot parcels, with two levels of subterranean parking. “The project is proposing to demolish an existing approximately 6,000 square foot commercial building … to construct a new … approximately 131,850 square foot, 8 story multifamily residential building with 2 levels of subterranean parking garage,” Babakani said. She noted the building would provide 186 parking spaces and use a state parking provision—identified in staff materials as “AB 2097”—to reduce a required total of 197 spaces to 186.

The project team said the building would include 1 studio, 31 one‑bedroom and 73 two‑bedroom units, 3,388 square feet of publicly accessible open space at the Central Avenue corner, and about 15,376 square feet of resident open space including a second‑floor pool deck and balconies. Babakani said the proposal complies with the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Getaway District’s height and FAR limits and uses a corner feature as allowed by the DSP.

Architect Ron Mandalian described site layout and how upper‑level private open space overlooks the public plaza: “We placed our open space … our main pool deck and main common open space on the Second Floor overlooking down,” he said. Applicant Rodney Khan said the site is in the DSP Getaway District and argued the new housing would help meet the city’s RHNA numbers, noting the existing restaurant site has been vacant for years.

Board members generally praised the materials palette, proportions and the plaza concept but raised repeated concerns about lighting intensity, north/east façade blankness and the absence of ground‑floor retail. Board member Walsh cautioned that façade lighting “should be carefully done” and asked the applicant to work with a lighting consultant to avoid “super flashy, super bright” fixtures. Board member Simonian suggested adding articulation on the east façade and carrying upper‑level balcony treatments around corners to reduce a “boxy” appearance when viewed from nearby hotels and Brand Avenue.

Staff said final details —garage entries, gates, utility locations, right‑of‑way improvements, lighting specifications and programming for the publicly accessible open space—will be reviewed and finalized during stage‑2 (final) design review. Babakani told the board staff had not received any public comments on the item.

The board did not take a formal vote to approve or deny the project. Instead the members directed staff to assemble the advisory comments and forward them to City Council with the stage‑2 package; Babakani confirmed staff will “write a list of those suggested comments … and then forward it to the council along with the stage 2.”

What happens next: The applicant will return with stage‑2 design materials that respond to the board’s comments and provide the detailed lighting, garage entry and landscaping plans required for final review. City Council will consider the stage‑2 materials in its upcoming review as required by the project’s approval path under the DSP.