Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Design review board sends 1645 Allen Avenue project back for redesign over massing, entry and historic concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Glendale Design Review Board voted unanimously on April 23 to return the design review entitlement for 1645 Allen Avenue for redesign after staff and board members said second‑story massing, an overpowering entry and unresolved privacy, window and stormwater issues remained; an architectural historian urged an EIR citing potential district‑level significance.
Alan Lambert, the city case planner, recommended returning the entitlement for redesign for the 1645 Allen Avenue proposal, telling the board, “the staff recommends that the entitlement for design review be returned for redesign.” The application would demolish a 1937 single‑family house and build a new two‑story, roughly 3,140‑square‑foot residence with a detached garage and an accessory dwelling unit.
The staff report cited three primary reasons for the return: the second‑floor massing does not respond to the site’s slope or the neighborhood step‑down pattern, the proposed 4:12 mansard roof limits articulation and increases perceived bulk, and the entry reads as overly tall and dominant on the façade. Lambert also recommended conditions to reduce nonpermeable paving, limit exterior lighting, require window detail drawings with simulated divided lights, and address potential privacy impacts from rear balconies.
The project architect, Hamlet Sudeikian, said the team made several revisions in response to staff feedback, including pushing portions of the second floor back, replacing the mansard with a hip roof and adding window grids. He told the board that the existing, vacant house is “beyond repair” and that moving the garage to the front would be impractical given the R1R zone setbacks.
During public comment Francesca Smith, who identified herself as “a qualified architectural historian,” told the board her submitted report and attachments argue the property is “a contributor to a previously unevaluated small historic district of 14 buildings,” and said, “Preparation of an EIR is required in that case” if a fair‑argument of substantial adverse change exists under CEQA. Board members said they valued Smith’s expertise but noted the city had not received an active nomination or application for a historic district that would automatically change the entitlement review.
Board members praised the applicant’s recent revisions but repeatedly flagged the same core issues. Board member Welch said the front‑facing, two‑story volume “is very tall” and that the second‑story element “doesn’t really have any room behind it” to justify the projection. Board member Lacroff said the revisions were a “good faith effort” but that the project was “not quite there yet.” Several members asked for specific conditions to guide a rapid resubmission: restudy the 2nd‑floor massing and side articulation, consider alternative roof forms, reduce the entry scale, downscale second‑floor window proportions relative to the first floor, require permeable paving or reduced hardscape, limit façade lighting to entries, and provide full material board and manufacturer specifications.
On a roll call the board voted to return the application for redesign with the articulated conditions. The motion was made by Board member Welch and seconded by Board member Kaskanian; the vote was recorded in favor by the present members.
Next steps: the applicant will revise plans to address the conditions and resubmit for a return hearing; the board also asked staff to evaluate Smith’s submission for any need to trigger additional historic review under CEQA.
