2411 Fifth Street - Berkeley, California · 2005. 8. 8. · 2411 FIFTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS...

$: 2411 Fifth Street - Berkeley, California · 2005. 8. 8. · 2411 FIFTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 4 of 10 May 8, 2008 File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Fifth\2411\AUP$
Z O N I N G

A D J U S T M E N T S

B O A R D

S t a f f R e p o r t

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420

E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION MAY 8, 2008

2411 Fifth Street Appeal of Administrative Use Permit #07-20000131 to make alterations to a City of Berkeley Landmark property (the Martin House), including converting the building from two to three units, and to construct a new two-story dwelling unit at the rear of the property; (M-UR, Mixed Use Residential ND)

I. Application Basics

A. Zoning Permits Required:

• Administrative Use Permit to construct one to four dwelling units, Under BMC Section 23E.84.030; and

• Administrative Use Permit to construct a Major Residential Addition over 600 sq. ft under BMC Section 23E.84.030.

B. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (“New Construction”).

C. Parties Involved:

• Applicant/ Property Owner:

Maurice Levitch/Levitch Associates, Inc. – 1029 Heinz Ave. Berkeley, CA 94710

• Appellants:

Patrick Sheahan and Cathleen Quandt – 2413-C Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710

2411 FIFTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 4 of 10 May 8, 2008

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Fifth\2411\AUP 07-20000131\APPEAL\2411 Fifth ZAB Staff Report 5-8-08.doc

Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Duplex MU-R Mixed Use

North SFR, Vacant Lot, Triplex MU-R Mixed Use

South Condominiums MU-R Mixed Use

East Duplex MU-R Mixed Use

Surrounding Properties

West SFR, Duplex, Triplex MU-R Mixed Use

Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Applies

to Project?

Explanation

Creeks N/A There are no creeks within 30 feet of the subject features.

Historic Resources Yes The Martin House is a designated structure of merit. The LPC has reviewed and approved the project.

Oak Trees N/A There are no protected oaks on the site. A large walnut tree will be preserved as part of the project.

Seismic Hazards Yes The project is located in a liquefaction zone. The project is exempt from CEQA and does not require geo-technical peer review. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall provide a soil report to the Permit Service Center if Building and Safety deems it necessary.

Soil/Groundwater Contamination

N/A Review of file does not indicate any soil or groundwater contamination on this site.

Table 3: Project Chronology Date Action

8/20/2007 Application submitted

11/29/2007 Application deemed complete

12/6/2007 LPC hearing

3/7/2008 AUP Notice of Decision Posted

3/27/2008 Decision appealed

5/8/2008 ZAB meeting

2/4/2008 PSA deadline1

1. Project must be approved or denied within 60 days after being deemed

complete if exempt from CEQA, or 60 days after adoption of a negative declaration, or 180 days after adoption of an EIR (Govt. Code Section 65950).

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2411 FIFTH STREET May 8, 2008 Page 5 of 10


Table 4: Development Standards Standard BMC Sections 23E.84.070-080

Existing Addition/ (Reduction)

Proposed Total

Permitted/ Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 7,051 NC 7,051 N/A

(Front Building) 2 +1 3 Dwelling Units

(Rear Building) 0 +1 1

6 Total for entire parcel

(Front Building) 1,877 +776 2,663 N/A Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.)

(Rear Building) 0 +1,758 1,758 N/A

Average (ft.) 21’5’’ +1’9’’ 23’4’’ 35’

Maximum (ft.) 25’6’’ +1’3’’ 26’9’’ N/A

Building Height (Front Building)

Stories 2 NC 2 3

Front 20’4’’ -7’4’’ 13’ 5’

Rear 71’ -3’4’’ 67’8’’ 10’

Left Side 20’6’’ +2’2’’ 22’8’’ 5’

Building Setbacks (ft.) (Front Building)

Right Side 1’9’’ +3’2’’ 5’ 5’

Average (ft.) 0 +20’9’’ 20’9’’ 35’

Maximum (ft.) 0 +22’ 22’ N/A

Building Height (Rear Building)

Stories 0 +2 2 3

Front 0 +89’ 89’ 5’ Rear 0 +10’ 10’ 10’ Left Side 0 +5’ 5’ 5’

Building Setbacks (ft.) (Rear Building)

Right Side 0 +5’ 5’ 5’ Lot Coverage (%) ~17% + ~20% ~37% N/A

Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) ~2,500 -1,900 600 600

Parking Automobile

1 +3 4 4

II. Project Setting

A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The subject property is located in the Mixed Use Residential District in West Berkeley. The area consists of mostly residential uses ranging from single family to multi-unit properties. The area has a wide range of building types and architectural styles and can be classified as an eclectic mix.



B. Site Conditions: The site contains an existing two-story, two-unit, Queen Anne style building, a City of Berkeley Landmark (the Martin House). The site is relatively flat and is surrounded by other residential uses. The building is non-conforming due to the setback on the south (right) side and because there is only one off-street parking space where two are required, but otherwise the property conforms to the development standards for the district.

III. Project Description The applicant is proposing to alter the existing two-unit building (the Martin House) and construct a new building at the rear of the lot. The project entails: 1) increasing the height by 1’-9’’ to result in a new average height of 23’4’’’, 2) relocating the building 7’ closer the street and 2’ closer to the northern (left side) property line, 3) adding a two-story, 769 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the building, 4) converting the existing two-unit building to a three unit building with one unit on the upper floor and two units on the ground floor; and 5) constructing a new two-story, one unit building at the rear of the lot with an average height of 20’-9” located 10’ from the rear property line and a minimum of 5’ from the side property lines.

IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns:

On 3/7/2008, the Zoning Officer approved the project, finding that it would comply with the development standards for the District and would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding neighbors or the neighborhood. On 3/27/2008 two abutting neighbors in the three-unit condominium project to the south (2413-C Fifth Street) appealed the Zoning Officer’s decision. Their concerns and Staff’s response can be found in Section V below. The applicant has also produced a response to the appeal points (See attachment #4). On 4/28/2008 the appellants submitted additional correspondence elaborating their concerns outlined in the appeal letter and raising another point contending that certain aspects of the project pertaining to required paths of travel would not meet building code (See attachment # 4 page 2). Although the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate these aspects of the project, staff asked the applicant to verify their conformance with the Building Code with a plan checker from the Building and Safety Division. On April 30, 2008, the applicant confirmed that he had met with Building and Safety and that the required paths of travel would meet building code (See attachment # 6).

B. Committee Review:

On August 6, 2006 the Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the Martin House, located at 2411 Fifth Street, a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit. Section



3.24.200 of the Berkeley Municipal Code requires Landmarks Preservation Commission review of any proposed exterior modifications to a Landmarked or Structure of Merit building. On July 20, 2007 an application was submitted proposing to alter and rehabilitate the Martin House, move it to a slightly different location on the same lot, and construct a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the property. On 12/6/2007 the LPC approved the project finding that the project would preserve the character-defining features where possible, rehabilitate deteriorated ones where feasible, and restore those that have been removed over time. Additionally, the LPC found that the alterations to the exterior of the structure are required for programmatic reasons and will be undertaken in such a manner as to minimize the impacts on the structure’s character-defining features. The alterations and addition have been designed to be in keeping with the Queen Anne style of the structure. The new, detached dwelling unit at the rear of the property has been designed to be differentiated from, but compatible with the Martin House. It is to be located at the rear of the property and its scale, massing, and height make it clearly subordinate to the historic structure. Therefore, the proposed work will not adversely affect the architectural features or the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value of the site. The LPC appeal deadline ended on 1/15/08 with no appeals.

V. Issues and Analysis

A. Key Issues:

1. Residential Density: The appellants contend that the proposed project would be excessively dense for the location. Staff Analysis: The proposed project meets the residential density standard for the District, which allows one residential unit per each 1,250 feet of lot area; provided, however, there may be one additional unit for any remaining lot area which may be less than 1,250 square feet but greater than 750 square feet (Section 23E.84.070.B). In this case, the applicant is proposing four residential units on a parcel that is 7,051 sq. ft. A parcel this size could accommodate up to six dwelling units. In comparison, the appellants own one of three units on the adjacent 7,230 sq. ft. lot. Thus, the proposed project would be developed with a slightly higher density than the appellants’ property. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the purposes of the MU-R District, which encourage strengthening residential concentrations that exist within the District. For these reasons, staff believes the proposed project does not represent excessive density.



2. Setbacks: The appellants contend that the front setback of the Martin House (front building) should be consistent with the front setback of 2415/2417 Fifth Street.

Staff Analysis: The proposed project meets the setback requirements for the District and the code does not require or specify that front yard setbacks be uniform with adjacent buildings. The front setback for 2415/2417 Fifth Street is 16’4’’ and the proposed setback of the Martin house would be 13’. Staff does not consider the difference in the front setback to be a significant issue.

3. Parking: The appellants contend that the parking layout does not appear to meet

City of Berkeley Standards and that the width of the curb cut is excessive.

Staff Analysis: Prior to approving the Administrative Use Permit, staff received comments form the City’s Traffic Engineer that supported the proposed parking layout. Once the appeal was received, staff confirmed with the Traffic Engineer that the proposed parking layout is acceptable. Additionally the City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed width of the curb cut and determined that it too conforms to traffic engineering standards for the proposed parking plan. Although the curb cut is wider than most, driveways may be up to 20’ wide where the property line abuts the public right of way per the Zoning Ordinance (Section 23E.28.080.H). Correspondence from the Traffic Engineer confirming this can be found in attachment # 5.

4. Open Space: The appellants contend that the open space between the front and

rear structures is inadequate and inconsistent with the surrounding development and that unit #2 does not have accessible yard space.

Staff Analysis: The separation between structures is 18’7’’ at the first floor and 26’4’’ at the stepped back second floor. Although, there is no development standard regulating the amount of required open space or building separation between buildings in the MU-R District, the proposed separation is more than the building separation requirement in residential districts, which is typically about 12’ for two stories. The project meets the development standards for required open space and the applicant has agreed to remove a fence at the rear of unit #3 to make this space more accessible for the occupants of unit #2. Although the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state whether open space may be private or communal on multi-unit parcels, staff believes this concession by the applicant will make the open space more useable for all occupants.

5. Massing and design of the Rear Unit: The appellants contend that the massing and materials of the rear unit are not compatible with the surrounding development and neighborhood character.



Staff Analysis: The massing of the rear unit meets the development standards for the district, and would not represent an unreasonable impact to surrounding neighbor’s light, air, privacy, or views. The proposed rear building would not unreasonably impact surrounding neighbors because the building would have a separation of approximately 25’ to the closest neighboring building to the north, approximately 40’ of separation to the abutting main building to the east, and approximately 10’ of separation to the closest building to the south. Additionally, the rear building was designed to maintain a relatively large amount of open space (approximately 24’ of building separation) between the two-story portion of the rear building and the abutting neighbors to the north. The surrounding structures and neighborhood character vary greatly in terms of size and style. The design of the rear building, including its massing and materials, was approved by the LPC on 12/6/2007. The appeal period for the LPC’s decision ended on 1/15/2008 with no appeals. This issue is more appropriate for the LPC’s purview and not zoning. In summary, staff disagrees with the appellants’ contentions because: 1) the project was approved by the LPC; 2) the project does not represent an unreasonable impact to surrounding neighbors’ light, air, privacy, or views; and 3) the project is not out of character with the mix of neighborhood building sizes and types.

B. General and Area Plan Consistency:

General Plan Policy Analysis: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. Policy LU-3–Infill Development: Encourage infill development that is

architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

2. Policy H-19–Regional Housing Needs: Encourage housing production adequate

to meet the housing production goals established by ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Determination for Berkeley.

Staff Analysis: Staff believes the proposed project would meet these policies because the project would create infill development by adding two new dwelling units thereby increasing the City’s housing stock.

3. Policy LU-7–Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new

development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.

4. Policy UD-16–Context: The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character



of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.

5. Policy UD-24–Area Character: Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in.

Staff Analysis: Staff believes the proposed project would meet these policies as the project would: 1) be consistent zoning standards; 2) respect the built environment of historically and architecturally significant buildings as the project was approved by the LPC; and 3) would be compatible and reinforce the design characteristics of the neighborhood because the project would renovate and beautify an existing Berkeley landmark and add a new modern building at the rear of the property, consistent with recent approval of new buildings in the area.

6. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts

on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.

Staff Analysis: The project would not unreasonably impact light or create any new significant shading to surrounding neighbors See findings in the Notice of Decision of Administrative Use Permit #07-20000131 in attachment # 1.

VI. Recommendation

Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board: A. DENY the appeal of Administrative Use Permit #07-20000131 and uphold the Zoning

Officer’s Decision pursuant to Section 23B.32.040 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments: 1. Notice of Decision of Administrative Use Permit #07-20000131 2. Appeal Letter dated March 27, 2008 3. Correspondence Received from the Traffic Engineer dated April 3, 2008 4. Correspondence received from Applicant dated April 15, 2008 5. Correspondence received from Appellant dated April 28, 2008 6. Correspondence received from Applicant dated April 30, 2008 Staff Planner: Nathan Dahl, [email protected], (510) 981-7481

2411 Fifth Street - Berkeley, California · 2005. 8. 8. · 2411 FIFTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS...

Documents

Transcript of 2411 Fifth Street - Berkeley, California · 2005. 8. 8. · 2411 FIFTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS...