AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 12, 2022
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Ryan Gohlich, AICP, Director of Community Development Subject: CONSIDERATION OF A CONTINUANCE REQUEST RELATED TO THE APPEAL HEARING SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 11, 2022 TO
CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AUGUST 26, 2021
DECISION DENYING A HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW
WAIVERS OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE BEVERLY HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 NORTH
BEDFORD DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Property Owner Appeal Hearing Continuance Request
2. Appeal Petition
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1952
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider whether to grant a continuance request related to the appeal hearing scheduled to consider the Planning Commission’s decision denying a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) for the property at 910 North Bedford Drive.
INTRODUCTION
On August 26, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from the BHMC for the property located at 910 North Bedford Drive pursuant to a request from the property owner (Attachment 3). The waivers and deviations were requested in order to facilitate an addition to the existing single-family residence, which is generally identified as the Anthony-Kerry House and is a designated local historic landmark. Specifically, the resolution denied waivers or deviations from the following BHMC sections:
• 10-3-2404 (front yard setback)
• 10-3-2405 (rear yard setback)
E-3
Meeting Date: September 12, 2022
• 10-3-2407 (street side yard setback)
• 10-3-2408 (permissible encroachments within a required front yard setback) • 10-3-2420 (maximum allowable height for walls, fences, and hedges) • 10-3-2422 (required paving buffer).
On September 8, 2021, the property owner (26 LLC) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, seeking City Council approval for a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from the BHMC (Attachment 2). On October 26, 2021, the City Council set the appeal hearing for the first Council meeting in April 2022, which would have been April 12, 2022, in order to provide the property owner time in which to consider redesigning the project in such a way that waivers or deviations from the BHMC would not be required.
Subsequently, on March 15, 2022 (prior to the scheduled appeal hearing), the Council considered a request from the property owner to continue the appeal hearing an additional six months to provide additional time to redesign the project as described above (i.e., one that would not require waivers or deviations from the BHMC). The Council granted the continuance request and the appeal hearing was set for the first meeting in October 2022.
DISCUSSION
The property owner has submitted another request to continue the appeal hearing an additional six months as they continue to work on redesigning the project as described above. Staff has continued to attend meetings with the property owner, the architect team, and the City’s historic consultant. Preliminary drawings indicate that the property owner is working diligently toward a code-compliant project; however, no plans have been formally submitted to the City for review.
If the Council chooses to grant the continuance request, staff recommends that the appeal hearing be rescheduled for the first meeting in April 2023. If the Council does not grant the continuance request, staff will provide public notice in accordance with City requirements for the appeal hearing that is currently scheduled for October 11, 2022, and will bring forward a comprehensive staff report for that meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City, as this agenda item only intends to schedule a hearing date for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
Property Owner Appeal Hearing
Continuance Request
8/12/22, 10:31 AM Mail - Cindy Gordon - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADVmNzljZjU1LWRmYzUtNDU4MS05NzE4LTI2NGVjNGE2NDhlYgAQAABfAXxEmhhBm%2BY5E3N… 1/1 910 Bedford Appeal Extension request
Daniel Negari
Thu 8/4/2022 10:32 AM
To: Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi Cindy
Per our conversation just now our new architect is getting ready to submit our code compliant addition to 910 N Bedford. Hopefully we can proceed with a Staff approval and not have a need for the appeal.
Please request an extension of 6 months of the appeal for our previous submission as I am hopeful we can proceed with our new plan within that time frame which is significantly scaled down and 100% code compliant.
Please advise any next steps.
Thank you
Daniel
Attachment 2
Appeal Petition
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1952
RESOLUTION NO. 1952
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DENYING A HISTORIC
INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW WAIVERS OR
DEVIATIONS FROM BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
(BHMC) §10-3-2404 (FRONT YARD SETBACK), §10-3-2405
(REAR YARD SETBACK), §10-3-2407 (STREET SIDE YARD
SETBACK), §10-3-2408 (PERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS
WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK), §10-3-2420
(MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR WALLS, FENCES,
AND HEDGES), AND §10-3-2422 (REQUIRED PAVING
BUFFER) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 NORTH
BEDFORD DRIVE (PL1900251)
The Planning Commission of the city of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:
Section 1. Murray D. Fischer, representative of 26 LLC (the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-2404 (front yard setback), §10-3-2405 (rear yard setback), §10-3-2407 (street side yard setback), §10-3-2408 (permissible encroachments within a required front yard setback), §10-3-2420 (maximum allowable height for walls, fences, and hedges), and §10-3-2422 (required paving buffer) on the property located at 910 North Bedford Drive (the “Project”).
Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3252, waivers or deviations from any development standards may be permitted through the issuance of a Historic Incentive Permit. Such permits are available to properties that are designated as a local historic landmark in the City of Beverly Hills and require approval by the Planning Commission.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 2 Section 2. The Project consists of the restoration of the Anthony-Kerry House and a two-story addition with a two-story subterranean basement. An existing two-story detached accessory structure located to the rear of the property, adjacent to the street side and rear property lines, would be maintained and rehabilitated as part of the overall project. Based on a site area of approximately 33,971 square feet, the maximum allowable floor area for the site is 15,088 square feet, excluding basement areas. The Anthony-Kerry House and two-story accessory structure have a combined floor area of 5,267 square feet. The addition would include 7,977 square feet of abovegrade floor area, resulting in a site wide floor area of 13,244 square feet. The Anthony-Kerry House has a basement floor area of 2,200 square feet and the proposed basement addition would include 21,506 square feet of floor area, resulting in a basement floor area of 23,706 square feet.
Cumulatively, the project would result in 36,950 square feet of floor area.
The addition is designed in a contemporary style to provide contrast from the Craftsman style of the Anthony-Kerry House. The proposed addition features a curved wall at the northwest corner and a stepped wall design along Benedict Canyon Drive. The portion of the addition located above grade would be connected to the Anthony-Kerry House at two points on the northern elevation via glass enclosed corridors on the first floor. The height of the addition, as measured from average natural grade, would be approximately 21’-7” and would sit lower than the existing Anthony-Kerry House, which would be maintained at a height of approximately 24’- 3”. The location of the addition would be within the surrounds of the clinker brick wall, which would be reconstructed in its existing location.
Along North Bedford Drive, the addition would provide a 58’-1” setback above grade and a 5’-0” setback below grade; a 50’-0” setback is otherwise required. Along Benedict Canyon Drive, the addition would provide a 15’-0” setback above grade and a 10’-0” setback DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 3 below grade; a 40’-0” setback is otherwise required. Along the alley (rear property line), the addition would provide a 37’-6” setback above grade and a 30’-6” setback below grade; a 58’-0” setback is otherwise required. A stairwell is proposed within the required front yard setback, near the northern corner of the Project site, in order to provide egress from the subterranean basement in this location.
Additionally, the Project includes three different types of walls and fences located within the front yard, street side yard, and rear setbacks:
Transparent glass security fence: This fence is proposed to be 6’-0” in height and located directly in front of the Anthony-Kerry House within the required front yard setback. While it complies with the City’s open-to-view requirements, it is located in an area where the maximum allowable height for a wall or fence is 3’-0”.
Steel stanchion security fence: This fence is proposed to be between 5’-6” and 6’-0” in height and would begin at the northernmost vehicle gate adjacent to North Bedford Drive and would terminate at the clinker brick wall adjacent to Benedict Canyon Drive; it is located in both the required front yard setback and required street side yard setback. While it complies with the City’s open-to-view requirements and height standards for the required street side yard setback, it is located in an area within the required front yard setback where the maximum allowable height for a wall or fence is 3’-0”.
Clinker brick wall: The clinker brick wall is a character defining feature on the property and would be reconstructed in its existing location, within the DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 4 required front, street side, and rear yard setbacks, and the brick configuration would largely match the existing with the exception of two new openings adjacent to a courtyard feature. The fence would be reconstructed to its existing height, which is between 6’-0” and 9’-6”. The wall does not comply with the City’s open-to-view standards or the wall height standards for the front, street side, and rear setbacks.
The Project includes front yard paving comprised of a circular driveway and pedestrian walkway, accessed from North Bedford Drive and directly in front of the AnthonyKerry House, and amphitheater-style seating located in the northern portion of the Project site.
The landscaping would also include a number of trees that are required to be planted as part of the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued as a result of the removal of several large, character defining trees on the property. The required replacement trees include three Deodar Cedars and one each of the following species: Rustyleaf Fig, Maidenhair, Southern Magnolia, Aleppo Pine, Carolina Cherry, Coast Live Oak (multi-trunk), and a Coast Redwood. The landscaping plan also includes the preservation of a number of trees located along the southern property line and near the existing accessory structure, as required by the Certificate of Appropriateness. Certain trees within the front and street side yards are proposed to be removed as part of the overall project; however, these trees are not considered native or heritage trees and, therefore, are not subject to the City’s tree protection requirements.
Based on the scope of work, the project would require waivers or deviations from the following BHMC development standards:
///
///
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 5 BHMC §10-3-2404: Required front yard setbacks;
BHMC §10-3-2405: Required rear yard setbacks;
BHMC §10-3-2407: Required street side yard setbacks;
BHMC §10-3-2408: Permissible encroachments within a required front yard setback;
BHMC §10-3-2420: Maximum allowable height for walls, fences, and hedges; and
BHMC §10-3-2422: Required paving buffers.
Section 3. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.(“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the Guidelines, a project that is disapproved or rejected by a public agency is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the denial of the Project to be exempt from further environmental review.
Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on July 2, 2021, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the property, extended to the block-face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on July 2, 2021. On July 22, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the applications at a duly noticed public meeting. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting, and at the conclusion of deliberation, the Planning Commission, by a 4-1 a vote (Vice Chair Hudnut DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 6 dissenting), directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing denial of the Project because the Planning Commission could not make all of the required findings, as described in Sections 5 and 6 of this resolution.
Section 5. In reviewing the request for a Historic Incentive Permit, the Planning Commission considered the following criteria:
1. The proposed Project either:
a. Complies with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings"; or
b. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings", but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property; and
2. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape;
3. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties; DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 7 4. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbors' access to light and air;
5. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbors' privacy;
6. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city; and
7. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare.
Section 6. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows regarding the Historic Incentive Permit:
1. The Project does not demonstrate strict or substantial compliance with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings" (SOI Standards) and, as designed, does not protect and preserve the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property. The Project is largely, if not entirely, unrelated to the preservation and rehabilitation of the Anthony-Kerry House, which will be addressed separately through the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Specifically, the size, scale, proportion, and massing of the Project diminish the Anthony-Kerry House and reduce the historic landmark to a secondary resource on the Project site, thereby minimizing its importance.
The Project does not maintain a significant relationship to the existing Anthony-Kerry House and the existing residence would no longer be functionally necessary. The walls DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 8 and fences proposed along the perimeter of the Project site would visually and physically obscure the publicly visible landscape features, which are a character defining feature of the Project site.
2. The Project is proposed in the northern portion of the Project site, within the surrounds of the existing location of the clinker brick wall, and would have visibility from both North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive. When viewed from Benedict Canyon Drive, the addition would be the prominent visual element and would obscure much of the Anthony-Kerry House that is currently visible from that vantage point.
Additionally, the size of the proposed addition is significantly larger than the existing Anthony-Kerry House. Above grade, the addition would result in a floor area increase of approximately one hundred fifty percent (150%). Cumulatively, including the basement areas, the addition would occupy approximately 80% of the total floor area. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are inconsistent with other properties in the area, particularly the above grade setback along Benedict Canyon Drive, which would require a setback reduction of approximately 25’. Other properties in the area generally provide setbacks that are approximately 40’-60’ along Benedict Canyon Drive. The construction of the steel stanchion security fence along North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive would significantly reduce the openness of the property when compared to existing conditions as viewed from both streets. This fence would visually and physically enclose the property and obscure views to the expansive landscape area that is currently visible, and would alter the general openness of the streetscape that currently exists. Therefore, the Project would have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, and character of the streetscape. ///
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 9 3. As described in Paragraph 2 of this section, the Project will have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing as viewed by neighboring properties due to the size of the proposed addition in comparison to the Anthony-Kerry House, the reduced setback along Benedict Canyon Drive, and the fact that the addition would be the prominent visual element along Benedict Canyon Drive and would obscure much of the Anthony-Kerry House that is visible from that vantage point.
4. The Planning Commission did not consider the Project’s impact on neighbors’ access to light and air due to the other criteria for which it was unable to make the findings, as described in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this Section.
5. The Planning Commission did not consider the Project’s impact on neighbors’ privacy due to the other criteria for which they were unable to make the findings, as described in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this Section.
6. The Project site is generally characterized by an expansive, open landscape area on the northern portion of the property near the intersection of North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive. The Project includes site wide landscaping that consists of large trees and a variety of other planting materials. As required by the Certificate of Appropriateness issued in response to the removal of character defining trees, the landscape plan includes three Deodar Cedars and one each of the following species: Rustyleaf Fig, Maidenhair, Southern Magnolia, Aleppo Pine, Carolina Cherry, Coast Live Oak (multitrunk), and a Coast Redwood. However, as described in Paragraph 1 of this section, the walls and fences proposed along the perimeter of the Project site would visually and physically obscure the publicly visible landscape features. Specifically, these elements alter the spatial relationship between the Anthony-Kerry House and the expansive, open DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 10 landscape that is characteristic of the local landmark as the walls and fences enclose the Project site and significantly minimize the garden quality of both North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive. Furthermore, the steel and glass materials that are proposed are not materials that enhance the garden quality. Therefore, the Project would have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the City.
7. The Project is inconsistent with many General Plan policies, specifically Land Use Policies LU 6.1 (Neighborhood Identity) and LU 6.2 (Housing Character and Design). Land Use Policy LU 6.1 seeks to “maintain the characteristics that distinguish the City’s single-family neighborhoods from one another in such terms as topography, lot size, housing scale and form, and public streetscapes.” Land Use Policy LU 6.2 requires that “new, renovated, and additions to housing be located and designed to maintain the distinguishing characteristics and qualities of the neighborhoods in which they are located, including prevailing lot sizes, building form, scale, massing, relationship to street frontages, architectural design, landscaping, property setbacks, and other comparable elements.” As described in Paragraph 1 of this section, the Project does not demonstrate strict compliance with the SOI Standards and, as designed, does not protect and preserve the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property. Additionally, as described in Paragraphs 2 and 6 of this section, the Project is out of scale with other properties in the vicinity; encloses an existing open, expansive landscape area that is characteristic of the site; and would have substantial adverse impacts on the scale, character, and massing of the streetscape as well as the garden quality of the city. Therefore, the Project will have a substantial adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 11 Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary findings to approve the Project, and hereby denies the requested Historic Incentive Permit.
Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.
Adopted: August 26, 2021
Andrew Licht
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:
Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
David M. Snow Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Assistant City Attorney Director of Community Development DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 1952 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on August 26, 2021, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Ross, Demeter, Ostroff, Vice Chair Hudnut, Chair Licht NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
________________________________
KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 0ABB89F770FC4CC7992B0BFDD52C2531 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: PC Reso 1952 - 910 N Bedford Denial.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 12 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
10/13/2021 1:54:02 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Andrew Licht
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 172.90.235.66
Sent: 10/13/2021 1:56:00 PM
Viewed: 10/13/2021 3:05:52 PM
Signed: 10/13/2021 3:07:26 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
David Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 70.187.141.216
Sent: 10/13/2021 3:07:28 PM
Viewed: 10/15/2021 4:55:14 AM
Signed: 10/15/2021 4:55:31 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ryan Gohlich
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 10/15/2021 4:55:33 AM
Viewed: 10/15/2021 8:31:41 AM
Signed: 10/15/2021 8:32:00 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Karen Myron
[email protected]
COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,
CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 10/15/2021 8:32:02 AM
Viewed: 10/15/2021 10:06:57 AM
Signed: 10/15/2021 10:07:44 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 10/13/2021 1:56:00 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 10/15/2021 10:06:57 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 10/15/2021 10:07:44 AM Completed Security Checked 10/15/2021 10:07:44 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps