Design board sends 1943 Chilton Drive rebuild back for redesign after neighbors raise privacy and massing concerns

The Glendale Design Review Board voted 4–0 on June 25 to return for redesign a plan to rebuild the fire‑damaged home at 1943 Chilton Drive after staff and multiple board members raised concerns about the new house’s massing and privacy impacts for adjacent properties.

Shoikeya Premian, the city case planner, told the board the proposal would demolish a 1,950‑square‑foot house built in 1926 and construct a new two‑story home of about 2,248 square feet with an attached 798‑square‑foot ADU and a detached garage on a 7,500‑square‑foot lot. “Staff is recommending return for redesign, and we have included 10 conditions,” Premian said, citing changes to massing, roof form, window details, lighting and conformance with departmental comments.

Designer Edward Ajamian, representing the homeowners, said the family wants to rebuild after a three‑year pause and that the design uses parapets and recessed second‑floor elements to reduce perceived bulk. “We met every single zoning code. We took it into consideration. We read your design guidelines,” Ajamian said, adding that mechanical equipment would be limited to a reduced basement crawl space and that windows would be recessed fiberglass units.

Neighbors at public comment said the project as presented would block morning light, reduce privacy and appear out of scale with surrounding one‑story homes. “We are opposing this to be built — this huge, massive house right next to my property that I’m going to lose all my privacy,” said Surin Amadian, an immediate neighbor, who told the board he and other neighbors wake to the burned lot each morning.

Other neighbors raised health and nuisance concerns while the lot sat as a burned, partially cleared site for several years. Teni Amadian told the board she feared a “tower‑like element” would overlook adjacent yards and cited the Glendale code chapter on privacy and sunlight in urging changes to reduce visual intrusion.

During deliberations board members repeatedly said a two‑story home could be appropriate on the site but that the current design emphasized boxy massing and included a rooftop element and a tall curved privacy wall that exacerbated privacy and light impacts. Several members urged lowering some interior ceiling heights, removing the rooftop deck and reducing the master‑bathroom balcony wall to standard railing height to avoid an expansive stucco plane that would cut off sunlight to neighbors.

Board member comments tracked the staff conditions and added two specific board requests: elimination of the proposed rooftop deck and removal or reduction of one west‑facing balcony adjacent to the master bathroom. After discussion a member moved to return the project for redesign; the board voted 4–0 in favor.

Next steps: the board’s action is procedural — the item was returned for redesign rather than denied, and applicants may revise plans addressing the 10 staff conditions and the two additional requests and return to a future DRB meeting. The board’s vote is subject to a 15‑day appeal period under city rules.