2421 ninth street - berkeley, california€¦ · 9/7/2015 · this new 1,175 sf residence will be...

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

JULY 9, 2015

2421 Ninth Street

Use Permit #2013-0046 to construct a detached 1-story, 3-bedroom dwelling unit of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. in the rear of an existing 1-story, 3-bedroom, approximately 1,300-sq. ft. single-family residence, to reduce the minimum rear setback for the new dwelling from 20 feet to 5 feet, and to create a total of 6 bedrooms on the subject parcel.

I. Background

A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Low/Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-1A – Limited Two-Family Residential

B. Zoning Permits Required:

Use Permit, under BMC Section 23D.20.030, to construct a new dwelling unit; Use Permit, under BMC Section 23D.20.050, to create 6 bedrooms on a parcel;

and Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23D.20.070, to reduce a minimum

rear yard setback from 20’ to 5’.

C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (“In-Fill Development”).

D. Parties Involved:

Applicant/ Architect Greg Van Mechelen

Property Owner Fereydoon Shalileh

2421 NINTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD of 12 July 9, 2015

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Ninth\2421\UP2013-0046\DOCUMENT FINALS\2015-07-09 ZAB\2015-07-09- ZAB_RPT.docx

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

North

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2421 NINTH STREET July 9, 2015 of 12


Figure 2: Site Plan

North



Figure 3: North Elevation, March 2015

Figure 4: North Elevation, July 2015 Figure 5: West Elevation, March 2015 Figure 6: West Elevation, March 2015



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

Subject Property Single-family Residence R-1A Low/Medium Density Residential

Surrounding Properties

North Single-family Residence

R-1A Low/Medium Density Residential

South Single-family Residence

East Single- and Two-family Residences

West Single- and Multi-family Residential

Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Applies to Project?

Explanation

Creeks No

Oak Trees No

Seismic Hazards No

Green Building Score Yes Prior to submittal of any building permit application for this project, the applicant shall complete a Green Building Checklist.

Table 3: Project Chronology

Date Action

October 15, 2013 Application submitted

November 13, 2013 Application deemed complete

December 13, 2013 CEQA Deadline

February 11, 2014 PSA Deadline

February 26, 2015 Public hearing notices mailed/posted

March 12, 2015 ZAB hearing

April 18, 2015 Application Revised, See Attachment 2)

June 25, 2015 Public hearing notices mailed/posted (See Attachment 3)

July 9, 2015 ZAB hearing

Table 4: Development Standards

Standard BMC Sections 23D.20.070-080

Existing Main

Building

March Proposal for Two Main

Buildings

July Proposal for Two Main

Buildings

Permitted/ Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 6,500 6,500 6,500 4,500 Min to allow 2 dwellings

Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,280 2,455 2,455 Approx 7,800

for a 3-story building

Dwelling Units 1 2 2 2 Max

Number of Bedrooms on a Parcel

3 6 6 6 w/ Use Permit

Building Height Average 12’ 4’’ 16’ 8’’ 15’-3” 28’ Max

Stories 1 1 1 3 Max

Building Setbacks

Front 15’ 15’ 15’ 20’ Min

Rear 64’ 5’ 5’ 20’ Reduced w/AUP

Left Side 8 5’ 10’’ 5’ 10’’ 4’ Min

Right Side 16’ 4’’ 4’ 6’’ 4’ 6’’ 4’ Min

Lot Coverage (%) 21 40 40 40 Max

Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 3,750 1,550 1,550 800 Min

Parking 1 2 2 2 Min



II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: This West Berkeley residential neighborhood is

two blocks west of the San Pablo Avenue commercial corridor and three blocks east of the Sixth Street arterial thoroughfare. For the purpose of this report and discussion, the immediate neighborhood is defined as the 2400-blocks of Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Streets between Channing (north) and Dwight Ways (south). The area is zoned R-1A and features a mix of single- and small multi- family developments in a range of 1- and 2- (and occasionally 3-) story main buildings. These developments are setback and organized in a pattern that accommodates open yards surrounding and separating single main buildings or pairs of main buildings, and even some small groups of main buildings. These developments commonly include detached accessory buildings and structures. The neighborhood is walking distance to the San Pablo/Dwight commercial node of the West Berkeley Commercial District and to AC Transit Lines 72, 72R, 49 and Transbay Line Z. Local City Landmarks include the Sawtooth Building and Niehaus House.

B. Site Conditions: The subject property currently contains one main building: a

single-story bungalow constructed in 1925 and expanded in 1997 to include a total of 3 bedrooms. There is a driveway and side yard parking space along the north side of the property and a small metal storage shed in the rear yard. The lot is otherwise undeveloped, open and landscaped with a few mature trees and solid boundary fences along the north and east sides and an open fence along the south side.

C. Background – previous denial of two-story proposal: In November 2008, and again in May 2009 upon remand, the Zoning Adjustments Board approved Use Permit #05-100000084 to construct a detached two-story dwelling unit with a 10-foot rear yard setback at this property. The City Council denied this application on appeal in September 2010 finding that:

The proposal [maxed out] the development potential at the site and, in this way, was contrary to the Purposes of the R-1A district.

The scale of the two-story proposal was not consistent with the existing scale of the one-story accessory buildings in the rear yards of abutting properties.

The proposed second story windows would create privacy impacts and sightlines into neighboring properties.

Extensive shadow impacts to neighboring properties could be lessened with an alternative design.

To clarify the regulations of the R-1A district, the Zoning Officer prepared and the Board approved an interpretive memorandum in May 2009, included as Attachment 4. This memo includes a comparison of the R-1, R-1A and R-2 development standards, and a sampling of 17 rear unit projects approved in the R-1A district



between 1973 and 2007. The Board has approved two applications1 for detached rear dwelling units in the R-1A since 2010, continuing its practice of reviewing discretionary projects based on their context and potential to create detriment for adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The application herein responds to this history and applies careful consideration to the built environment as a result.

III. Project Description The architect Greg VanMechelen has designed and proposes a new single-story building in the rear of the existing main building on this property. This new 1,175 SF residence will be defined as an additional main building in accordance with BMC Section 23F.04 (Definitions) and includes the standard living/dining space, a kitchen, 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The applicant has proposed a single-story building in order to match the scale of the existing building at this site and graciously introduce an intensification of development on this R-1A property. As revised, the shed roof segments would now be 15’-3” at the highest point and as shown in Figures 5 & 6, the highest portions of the roof would now be setback from the north property line by 15’-8” (prior roof would have been setback from the property line by roughly 10’). The roof plan would allow clearstory windows on the north and south sides of the building to let in natural light while preserving the privacy of adjacent neighbors. Creation of this new building requires Use Permit approval under BMC Section 23D.20.030 (Uses Permitted) and an Administrative Use Permit under Section 23D.20.070.D.4 to reduce the rear yard from the standard 20’ minimum to 5’. The building will be clad in a combination of horizontal sliding and wood or cement fiber shingles to complete the modern look and provide visual interest for this residential context. The proposal includes 2 new parking pads: 1 at the north side of the property and another between the existing and new building. The existing boundary fences will remain to ensure adequate screening and privacy for the abutting residences and improvements are proposed for the existing fence along the south property line to protect the privacy of those neighbors as well. The mature tree located at the east and south sides of the property will remain.

IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting the application to the City in

September 2013, the applicant erected a pre-application poster at the project site. The application submittal package included a set of project plans with original signatures from 11 neighbors with 6 of the 11 indicating that they had concerns about the proposal.

1 The Board approved Use Permit #03-100000085 at 2226 Ninth Street and Use Permit #2013-00039 at 2415

Ninth Street. These projects included detached two-story dwelling units in the rear yard of existing one- and two-story main buildings.



In December 2014 staff mailed letters to these neighbors asking to learn more about their concerns and received responses from 2 individuals: Lorena Aranda of 2419 Ninth Street, immediately north of the project site, who telephoned staff; and Brian Joseph who requested electronic versions of the project plans via email transmittal. Others, such as Susan Henderson of 2420 Tenth Street (immediately east), emailed asking to be informed of the upcoming public hearing date. Ms. Aranda telephoned staff on December 17, 2014, and expressed her concerns about the proposal’s potential impacts to privacy and sunlight at her residence during an extended conversation. At the end of the talk she stated that she would confer with others in the neighborhood and possibly provide written correspondence to staff. Her concerns about privacy and sunlight are addressed in this staff report, and are summarized in Findings & Conditions, Attachment 1. On March 12, 2015, the ZAB held a hearing to review this project and to consider testimony from the applicant and interested members of the community. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ZAB asked that the applicant lower the roofline and that the edges of the roof slope way from the neighbors on the neighboring lots. The Captioner’s record of this meeting may be found in Attachment 5. Revised plans were submitted on April 18, 2015 to lower the roofline and to increase the setback of the highest portions of the roof, but these plans do not have the roof slope away from adjacent neighbors. Instead, the revised and lower roofline would now be further aware from the neighbors to the north and south. On June 25, 2015, staff posted the Notice of Public Hearing at the site and at two locations in the vicinity of the project and mailed notices to adjoining property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations. Correspondence received in response to this notice may be found in Attachment 6.

B. Committee Review: This proposal is not subject to review by the Design Review

Committee or the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

V. Issues and Analysis A. Increased Residential Density [No change from March 12, 2015 Staff Report]:

The proposed creation of an additional dwelling unit is found to be permissible in this R-1A district where as many as two dwelling units are allowed under BMC Section 23D.20.030 (Purposes) and 070 (Development Standards). The creation of a new dwelling unit will increase the City’s existing housing supply by one unit and is responsive to the directives of the General Plan Housing Element (2010) which encourage new in-fill housing as a means of achieving the identified regional housing fair share benchmarks. The 3-bedroom unit size will improve the diversity of the City’s housing supply for small families and similar kinds of households. For all of these reasons, the creation of a new dwelling unit is found to be favorable and beneficial.



B. Scale and Massing of New Building [Change from March 12, 2015 Staff Report noted in BOLD]: The proposed single-story building is comparable to the existing building at this site and with the residence at 2419 Ninth Street (north). This proposal is restrained and appropriate, and will fit in the context of varied story heights in the immediate vicinity where 1-, 1 ½- and 2-story main buildings are common.

The shed roof design and clearstory windows are found to be appropriate for this context because they will affectively capture light for the interior spaces while ensuring privacy for the adjacent neighbors by avoiding direct sightlines into those existing residences. This shed roof design will be unique within this setting of traditional pitched and hipped roof styles, but this is consistent with the City’s established pattern of eclectic and individualistic residential development. The proposed building height that would be reduced to 15’-3” will also fit within this existing context where the proposed building will be not be among the lowest or the tallest buildings in the vicinity.

Staff finds that the applicant’s proposed scale and massing for the new building are permissible and recommends a favorable finding for their approval.

C. Potential Sunlight Impacts [No change from March 12, 2015 Staff Report]: The

Shadow Study provided with this proposal confirms that the potential sunlight impacts from this project will be limited and will not unduly impact any single abutting residence for an extended period of time. Please see Attachment 2 of this report. The shadow fan of the new building will not reach the abutting residences at 2425 Ninth Street (south) or 2418 and 2420 Tenth Street (east), but will reach the rear elevation of the residence at 2419 Ninth (north) and the rear cottage at 2424 Tenth (southeast). These occurrences will be brief and limited as described below.

2419 Ninth Street The residence at 2419 Ninth Street is expected to experience some loss of direct sunlight during winter mornings, 2 hours after sunrise but not later than noon. This condition will likely begin in late fall and last until late winter. The rear elevation of the building will be affected and there is 1 sliding glass door at this location; the use of this area of the residence is not known. Because the affect will be localized and limited in these ways (approximately 3-1/2 hours per day for approximately 4 months per year at 1 window opening), it is found to be reasonable and non-detrimental as the residence at 2419 will be retain the majority of the direct sunlight that it currently experiences.

2424 Tenth, rear cottage The projected shadow fan of the proposed building will reach the rear cottage residence at 2424 Tenth Street in the hours before sunset during the summer but will not affect this residence at other times of day or throughout the year. Because the affected residence will retain its solar access at all other times, the potential impact of the proposal is found to be limited and non-detrimental.



Recognizing the urban in-fill context of the project site where new buildings are likely to cast shadows on existing developments, staff believes this proposed design minimizes shading impacts to the neighboring properties. The project’s potential sunlight impacts are, therefore, deemed reasonable and generally non-detrimental.

D. Potential Privacy Impacts [No change from March 12, 2015 Staff Report]: The

windows on the lower portion of the proposed new one-story building will be affectively screened by the existing boundary fences at the site (north and east) and further obscured by the existing accessory structures on the abutting properties at 2418 and 2420 Tenth (east). No sightlines will result from the proposed clearstory windows on the north and south elevations. A new or improved fence is proposed along the south property line to ensure privacy for the abutting residence at 2425 Ninth (south). Under these circumstances the proposed new building will not result in privacy impacts for the nearest abutting residences.

E. Rear Yard Setback Reduction [No change from March 12, 2015 Staff Report]:

The proposed rear yard setback of 5’ where a minimum of 20’ is otherwise required is permissible in this portion of the R-1A district west of San Pablo Avenue in accordance with BMC Section 23D.20.070.D.4 and with the required Findings of Section 090.C. Please see Findings for Approval #3 of Attachment 1.

As discussed previously under Key Issue #3 above, the proposed building and its location are not expected to result in significant sunlight impacts for the nearest residences at 2419 Ninth Street and 2424 Tenth (rear cottage). Based on the solar orientation of the subject property to its surroundings, staff does not believe that a proposal with an additional 15’ rear yard setback would result in a significantly different outcome with respect to potential shadow impacts. Therefore, staff finds the request for a rear yard setback reduction to be non-detrimental with respects to its potential sunlight impacts.

This reduction to 5’ is consistent with a neighboring development at 2424 Tenth Street (southeast) where a rear cottage residence is setback less than four feet from its rear property line. Other examples of developments with minimal rear yard setbacks include the accessory buildings at 2418 and 2420 Tenth, immediately east. While these are single-story accessory structures and not dwelling units, they provide a context which mitigates the potential impacts of the proposed 5’ rear yard rendering it consistent within the existing setting and, thereby, reasonable. Given the built environment in the immediate locale of the proposed building, the proposed rear yard reduction is found to be reasonable and acceptable.

The rear yard reduction allows for a greater building-to-building separation from the residence at 2419 Ninth, abutting on the north side. Given the stated concerns about privacy impacts at 2419, staff believes that the proposed placement and location for the new building would be beneficial and preferable to other development scenarios with a 20’ rear yard which would result in greater proximity to 2419 Ninth.

Other aspects of this project that support findings for approval of this request for a rear yard reduction include: 1) the generous public right-of-way width on this block of



Ninth Street (80’) which suppresses the minimum standard for fire and emergency apparatus required by the California Fire Code; and 2) the continuity of privacy as discussed in Key Issue #4 above.

For all of these reason staff recommends that the Board make a favorable finding for the request to reduce the required rear yard setback for this project from the standard of 20’ to 5’.

F. General and Area Plan Consistency [No change from March 12, 2015 Staff

Report]: 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 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.

6. 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.

7. Policy EM-5–“Green” Buildings: Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.)

Staff Analysis: As outlined in Tables 2 and 3 for Special Characteristics and Development Standards, explained in the Project Description, and discussed under the Key Issues section of this report, staff finds that this proposal will be: Consistent with its built environment; Adherent to all applicable regulatory requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and Aligned with the R-1A district objectives related to development flexibility &

sunlight protection. In these ways, staff finds that the project responds to each of the City’s policy directives cited above.

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 APPROVE Use Permit #2013-0046 pursuant to Section 23B.32.040 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments:

1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, dated July 2, 2015 3. Notice of Public Hearing, dated June 25, 2015 4. Zoning Officer Determination Regarding the R-1A District, Dated May 14, 2009 5. Captioners Record of the March 12, 2015 ZAB Hearing 6. Correspondence Staff Planner: Fatema Crane, [email protected], (510) 981-7413

2421 ninth street - berkeley, california€¦ · 9/7/2015 · this new 1,175 sf residence will be...

Documents