The Glendale Design Review Board on Nov. 13 unanimously directed the applicant for 2009 West Mountain Street to return for redesign, citing concerns about a tall, monolithic second story over a new street‑facing garage and the overall massing as viewed from the public right of way.

Planning staff (Joe) described the project as a remodel and second-story addition over an existing one-story house on an approximately 10,000-square-foot interior lot in an R‑1R zone. Staff recommended the project be redesigned to step the second story back from the street, reduce continuous tall walls, and address driveway/curb-cut impacts in the public right of way.

“Staff ... recommend the project be redesigned with a step back of its second level and being away from the street,” Joe said, pointing to the design-guideline goal of reducing visual impact from the street.

Designer Chris Andreasen told the board the intent was a restrained modern composition with a double-height entry and south-facing glazing to bring natural light into the living spaces. “Our proposal introduces a second story that aligns with the surrounding scale while giving the home a clean modern expression,” Andreasen said.

Board members pressed on several issues: the proposal raised the finished floor about four feet above curb level, producing long stairs and planned retaining walls that the board viewed as creating unnecessary monumentality; the proposed second‑floor volume and a deep front balcony were noted as candidates for reduction; and the large reflective glass garage door should be reconsidered. Members also discussed the project’s compliance with the municipal ‘50%’ repair/demolition rules and recommended that the applicant ensure the building-and-safety calculation will allow the proposed remodel.

Board member Welsh summarized the board’s tone: the design is strong but the massing needs to be broken up and the second story pushed back; she also questioned interior layout choices, saying a front second‑floor bedroom was very narrow. “That bedroom is super narrow with no closet, without access to a bathroom,” Welsh said, urging the applicant to consider relocating programmatic elements to enable a reduced front mass.

Actions the board requested or required include: stepping back the second story, relocating or reconfiguring a narrow second‑floor bedroom (and removing the deep front balcony), removing or reducing a decorative column over the garage, restudying fenestration and materials to reduce the perceived bulk, narrowing and reconfiguring the entry stairs and preserving the public-row planter when feasible. On the question of a mature magnolia in the public right of way, the board struck an earlier proposed condition to preserve it as written, acknowledging public works review and permitting requirements for right‑of‑way features.

Board member Welsh made the motion to return the project for redesign with the discussed conditions; Board member Lockreth seconded it. The motion passed on roll call 5–0. Staff will work with the applicant on the revised design and the applicant will return to the board for review.