MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1:00 PM MEETING · PDF file1:00 PM MEETING CALLED TO ... The fence in...

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS455 N. Rexford Drive

Beverly Hills, California 90210

REGULAR DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSIONMEETING MINUTES

June 7, 20121:00 PM

MEETING CALLED TO ORDERDate / Time:

ROLL CALLCommissioners Present:

Commissioners Absent:Staff Present:

APPROVAL OF AGENDAAction:

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCESpeakers: None.

1. ADOPTION OF MINUTESConsideration of the Action Minutes of the Design Review Commission Meeting of May 3, 2012.

The following items were taken out of sequence.

5. 709 North Beverly Drive (PL# 120 7806)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow a façade remodel of an existing two-storysingle-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Audio recordings of the Design Review Commission’s meetings are available online within three days of themeeting. Visit www.citvofbeverlvhills.org to access those recordings.

Motion:

Action:

Planner:Applicant:Public Input:

June 7, 2012/ 1:08PM

Commissioners Szabo and Strauss, Vice Chair Nathan and Chair Pepp.Commissioner Wyka arrived at 3:55 p.m.NoneShena Rojemann, Cindy Gordon and Candice Bond.(Community Development Department).

Approved by Order of the Chair to approve the agenda with modifications to theorder to allow items #5 & #6 to be the first projects heard.

Motion by Pepp; seconded by Strauss. (4-0).

Approved as presented.

Shena RojemannMark Rios & Selena Linkous, ArchitectsThere was no public input for this item.

Design Review Commission MinutesJune 7, 2012

Motion: Motion by Commissioner Szabo; seconded by Chair Pepp to return the project forrestudy (4-0).

Action: Return for restudy. The Commission gave the following comments:

> The scale of the entryway is too large and heavy for the façade.> The modern and traditional elements are not integrated or internally

compatible. The elements need to be blended together more.~ The shutters are too commercial and need to be revised to a more residential

look.~ The elevation of the garage facing the street is unfinished and the one

window is awkward.> Additional information on the door hardware is needed.> Please include the proposed façade for 711 North Beverly Drive into the

streetscape image.

6. 711 North Beverly Drive (PL# 120 7804)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Planner: Shena RojemannApplicant: Mark Rios & Selena Linkous, ArchitectsPublic Input: There was no public input for this item.

Motion: Motion by Commissioner Nathan; seconded by Commissioner Strauss to returnthe project for restudy (4-0).


~ The current orientation of the house is not aesthetically appealing to thestreetscape. The front of the house needs to read as the front of the house.

> The design of the rest of the house should be incorporated onto the elevationfacing the street.

> Please include the proposed façade for 709 North Beverly Drive into thestreetscape image.

CONTINUED BUSINESS

Return to order.

2. 718 North Rodeo Drive (PL# 120 2668)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence locate.d in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Planner: Shena RojemannApplicant: Hamid Gabbay, ArchitectPublic Input: There was no public input for this item.

Motion: Motion by Commissioner Szabo; seconded by Chair Pepp to approve the projectwith conditions (4-0).

of 8


Action: Approved with the following conditions:

1) The following elements shall be returned to staff for final review andapproval:a. The front door shall be composed of white wood with wrought iron and

sandblasted glass.b. The 3’-O” tall front yard wall shall be designed to match the façade color

with a pre-cast concrete molding cap.c. The landscape lighting shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the

house.d. The driveway paving shall be a honed travertine to match the house.e. 14’-O” tall trees shall be planted along the south side property line.f. The box sizes for the Acacia trees shall be increased to 48”.

2) Design Approval. Project approval is for the design-related aspects of theproject only. No approval is implied or granted with regard to applicable cityzoning or technical codes, which may require review and approval from othercity commissions or officials.

3) Compliance with Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a building permit, theapplicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of thecity’s municipal code and applicable conditions imposed by any discretionaryreview approval.

4) Compliance with Special Conditions. Any special conditions that requireapproval by the director of community development, or designee, shall besubmitted to the staff liaison to the commission within fourteen (14) days ofapproval or prior to submittal of the plan check review application, whicheveris greater.

5) Project Rendering. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shallincorporate into the building permit set of plans, an updated color renderingof all building facades that are visible from the public street. The quality anddetail of the rendering shall be subject to approval from the director ofcommunity development, or designee, and shall include sufficient designinformation to evaluate project compliance during construction.

6) Approval Resolution. A copy of the signed resolution of approval shall bescanned onto the cover sheet(s) of the building permit set of plans.

7) Substantial Compliance with Approved Plans. The director of communitydevelopment, or designee, shall determine if changes to the approved projectare in substantial compliance with the commission’s action. Thisdetermination shall be subject to applicable fees and charges. A substantialmodification to the approved project requires approval from the DesignReview Commission.

8) Covenant Recording. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a covenant shallbe filed with the Los Angeles County Register-Recorder/City Clerk that

of 8


includes a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant may submitevidence of proper filing to the community development department orsubmit an application along with applicable fees to the development forcovenant preparation and filing.

9) Validity of Permits. The rights granted by this approval shall remain valid forthree (3) years from the date of approval, unless extended pursuant toBeverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-207.

10) Appeals. Decisions of the Design Review Commission may be appealed to thePlanning Commission within fourteen (14) days of the final action by filing awritten appeal and paying appropriate fees with the City Clerk.

3. 516 North Bedford Drive (PL# 120 5632)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow an addition and remodel of the existing one-story single-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa MonicaBoulevard.

Planner: Shena RojemannApplicant: John Sofio, DesignerOwner: Kam GhassemiehPublic Input: There was no public input for this item.

Motion: Motion by Chair Pepp; seconded by Commissioner Szabo to approve the projectwith conditions (4-0).

Action: Approved with the following conditions:

1) The trees within the front yard area shall be increased in size to 36” box.

2) Cut sheets shall be provided for the proposed façade light fixtures.

3) If the landscape plan is revised to include landscape lighting, a revisedlandscape plan shall be provided to staff with cut sheets for the light fixtures.

4) The fence in the front yard area shall be reduced to a maximum height of42”.

5) Design Approval. Project approval is for the design-related aspects of theproject only. No approval is implied or granted with regard to applicable cityzoning or technical codes, which may require review and approval fromother city commissions or officials.

6) Compliance with Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a building permit, theapplicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of thecity’s municipal code and applicable conditions imposed by any discretionaryreview approval.

7) Compliance with Special Conditions. Any special conditions that requireapproval by the director of community development, or designee, shall besubmitted to the staff liaison to the commission within fourteen (14) days of

of 8


approval or prior to submittal of the plan check review application,whichever is greater.

8) Project Rendering. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shallincorporate into the building permit set of plans, an updated color renderingof all building facades that are visible from the public street. The quality anddetail of the rendering shall be subject to approval from the director ofcommunity development, or designee, and shall include sufficient designinformation to evaluate project compliance during construction.

9) Approval Resolution. A copy of the signed resolution of approval shall bescanned onto the cover sheet(s) of the building permit set of plans.

10) Substantial Compliance with Approved Plans. The director of communitydevelopment, or designee, shall determine if changes to the approvedproject are in substantial compliance with the commission’s action. Thisdetermination shall be subject to applicable fees and charges. A substantialmodification to the approved project requires approval from the DesignReview Commission.

11) Covenant Recording. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a covenant shallbe filed with the Los Angeles County Register-Recorder/City Clerk thatincludes a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant may submitevidence of proper filing to the community development department orsubmit an application along with applicable fees to the development forcovenant preparation and filing.

12) Validity of Permits. The rights granted by this approval shall remain valid forthree (3) years from the date of approval, unless extended pursuant toBeverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-207.

13) Appeals. Decisions of the Design Review Commission may be appealed to thePlanning Commission within fourteen (14) days of the final action by filing awritten appeal and paying appropriate fees with the City Clerk.

4. 510 Alpine Drive (PL# 120 6056)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Planner: Shena RojemannApplicant: Ha mid Gabbay, ArchitectPublic Input: There was no public input for this item.

Motion: Motion by Commissioner Szabo; seconded by Vice Chair Nathan to return theproject for restudy (4-1; Wyka).


> Please provide a landscape plan and a window and door schedule.

of 8


~ The mansard roof is strongly preferred as the flat roof adds to the bulk andbox-like nature of the design.

> Additional spacing is necessary between the top of the doors on the secondfloor and the roofline.

> The pairs of French doors on the ground floor do not work and are not spacedappropriately. Consider adding windows as the doors do not give the houseany character.

~ The boxy element on the entryway does not relate to the rest of the façade.~ There is not a balance between the vertical and horizontal elements. The

design is not traditional and not fully modulated; it needs to be redesignedwith appropriate scaled openings or further modulated. A traditional,symmetrical box-like design can be achieved with the correct details.

NEW BUSINESS

7. 116 North Maple Drive (PL# 120 7850)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Planner: Shena RojemannApplicant: Cyrus Harouni & Gani Dino, DesignersOwner: Neesam Melody PerionePublic Input: There was no public input for this item.

Motion: Motion by Commissioner Wyka; seconded by Commissioner Strauss to return theproject for restudy (5-0).


> The entryway is too large for the scale of the house and the sculpturalelement is too large and too ornate. The pre-cast element around theentryway needs to be more simple and elegant.

> There is a privacy concern along the north side elevation with the largewindow. Additional information on the landscaping in that area is needed.

> The balconies above the entryway and above the window are cave-like. Theseshould be revised to be more open.

> There are too many light fixtures on the front of the house. The lights at thenon-entry doors are superfluous; may want to consider uplighting at the gatesas opposed to lights on the walls.

> The two pre-cast framing elements on the ground floor areexcessive. Consider removing the element around the non-entry door,keeping the windows in the same proportion, and utilizing a simple molding atthe top.

> Consider removing the horizontal banding along the façade. It is too heavyand thick and is a distraction from the house.

> The landscape plan needs to be clarified and easier to read with consistencybetween the plan and elevations.

> Details on the paving, lighting, railings, and all other details need to beprovided. Include cut sheets of all such elements.

> No fiberglass façade elements should be utilized. Please clarify.

of 8

4


8. 611 Alpine Drive (PL# 120 7876)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Planner: Shena RojemannApplicant: Jason Somers

Mike Holtz & Greg Sham, Architects/ContractorMarch Wisely, Garden DesignerDanny & Michelle Greenberg, Owners

Public Input: There was no public input for this item.

Motion: Motion by Chair Pepp; seconded by Vice Chair Nathan to return the project forrestudy (5-0).


> The proposed style does not read as a French style of architecture. There islittle design within the façade and reads as a box with no character— it needsrhythmic modulation, not simply repetitive elements. Please clarify thefaçade elements so the architectural style is identifiable and rethink theoverall design.

~ The fence does not match the design of the house and does not add to thequality of design. It is too large and ornate. Consider a fence that is lower inheight and simpler in detail.

> There are too many French doors on the façade and makes it very busy.> If the front facing garage is desired, it needs to be designed in a manner that

integrates it within the architectural style of the house.> The front yard paving needs to be reduced so that it complies with code and

additional landscaping is needed to enhance the garden quality of the City.> The garage and porte cochere need to be reconsidered so that they comply

with code.> There are too many lights on the façade.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION• Report from the Mayor’s Cabinet meeting• Meeting Recap Discussion

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT• Report from the City Planner

9. Design Review Candidates ListAction: No action was taken on this item.

10. Track 1 Approved ProjectsAction: No action was taken on this item.

of 8

s;O8a~ed

J!eqD ‘dded au~pv

1ZIOZ ‘Aifli JO AV~ q~6 SIHI ~]AO~ddV ~JN’ I 3SSVd

I/’Jd O~:S/ uo~ ‘L ~Ufl1 :9w!! I a~eaa~~~norav DNI133L~J

zTo~ ‘L ounrS9~flUiLAJ UOISSIWWOD M9IA9N u~isaa

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1:00 PM MEETING · PDF file1:00 PM MEETING CALLED TO ... The fence in...

Documents

Transcript of MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1:00 PM MEETING · PDF file1:00 PM MEETING CALLED TO ... The fence in...