8 Maybeck Twin Drive Use Permit ZP# to construct a new, three-story, 2,557-square-foot single-family dwelling on a vacant lot.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "8 Maybeck Twin Drive Use Permit ZP# to construct a new, three-story, 2,557-square-foot single-family dwelling on a vacant lot."

Marylou Haynes
5 years ago
Views:

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 FOR BOARD ACTION FEBRUARY 9, 2017 8 Maybeck Twin Drive Use Permit ZP#2016-0097 to construct a new, three-story, 2,557-square-foot

1 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 FOR BOARD ACTION FEBRUARY 9, Maybeck Twin Drive Use Permit ZP# to construct a new, three-story, 2,557-square-foot single-family dwelling on a vacant lot. I. Background A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: LDR Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1H Single-Family Residential District B. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling, under BMC Section 23D Administrative Use Permit, to reduce the front setback to 2-11, where 20 is required, in the Hillside Overlay District, under BMC Section 23E C; and Administrative Use Permit to construct an unenclosed hot tub, under BMC Section 23D C. C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Sections (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. D. Parties Involved: Applicant Goring and Straja Architects, 729 Heinz Avenue, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA Property Owner Douglas Bibby and Annie Bailey, 1329 California Street, Berkeley, CA Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 February 9, 2017 Page 2 of 12 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Subject Site

3 February 9, 2017 Page 3 of 12 Figure 2: Site Plan 2 MAYBECK TWIN DRIVE

4 February 9, 2017 Page 4 of 12 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation Subject Property Vacant Lot Surrounding Properties North South East Single-Family Dwelling R-1(H) Low Density Residential (LDR) West Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Applies to Project? Explanation Creeks No The project site is not within a creek buffer. Coast Live Oaks No No oak trees are on the project site. Green Building Score Housing Accountability Act (Govt. Code (j)) Seismic Hazards (SHMA) Yes Yes Yes The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated checklist for the project. The minimum required points are 50 points, and the checklist indicates a score of 63 out of a possible total of 342 points for the dwelling. The project is a housing development project consisting of residential units only. See Section V.B for discussion. The site is located within a landslide hazard area as defined by the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). A geotechnical report prepared by Alan Kropp and Associates, dated February 22, 2016, was submitted for the project, and was determined to be in compliance with the SHMA. The report was peer reviewed by Cotton, Shires and Associates, who made conditions of approval recommendations for geotechnical plan review and construction inspections to be performed by the geotechnical consultant prior to final occupancy. These recommendations have been included as conditions of approval #17 and #29. Table 3: Project Chronology Date May 16, 2016 November 28, 2016 January 26, 2017 February 9, 2017 Action Application submitted Application deemed complete Public hearing notices mailed/posted ZAB hearing

5 February 9, 2017 Page 5 of 12 Table 4: Development Standards R-1 (H) Standards BMC Sections 23D and 23E Proposed Permitted/ Required Lot Area (sq. ft.) 6,241 5,000 Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 2,557 - Dwelling Units Total 1 1 Building Height Average Maximum (Hillside Overlay) Stories 3 3 Building Setbacks Front Rear Left Side Right Side Lot Coverage (%) Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) Parking 1 1 II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The subject site is located on Maybeck Twin Drive, a private, winding road in a steep hillside residential neighborhood, approximately ½-mile east of the North Shattuck Commercial District. In the immediate vicinity of the site, two and three-story (generally single-family) dwellings are interspersed with tall, mature trees and shrubs, which serve as ample screening in between dwellings. Most residences on Maybeck Twin Drive have carports or parking decks that are close to the edge of the road. As shown in Figure 1: Vicinity Map, a city-designated landmark building known as Maybeck Cottage occupies the property just south of the site, at 1 Maybeck Twin Drive. B. Site Conditions: The subject site is a vacant, pie-shaped lot that tapers and slopes up the 55% slope, away from Maybeck Twin Drive (See Figure 3: Site Survey for details). A number of large acacia, redwood and eucalyptus trees, and small landscape trees sparsely occupy the site; all are proposed to be removed for the proposed development. A 15 access easement abuts the southeast boundaries of the subject site, an area granted by 2 Maybeck Twin Drive for use by adjacent neighbors to access the main roadway. A portion of the subject site inside its south boundary (but not included in the 15 easement) was previously paved over as an extension of the driveway on the easement. The driveway was historically used by the residents at 2 and 4 Maybeck Twin Drive to facilitate the backing of vehicles out to Maybeck Twin Drive. The

6 February 9, 2017 Page 6 of 12 applicant proposes to demolish the driveway paving inside the subject site boundaries and reclaim this area for landscaping. Figure 3: Site Survey Existing Edge of Pavement Toe of Slope 15 Access Easement 2 MAYBECK TWIN DRIVE

7 February 9, 2017 Page 7 of 12 III. Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a new, three-story, 2,557-square-foot dwelling on a vacant lot. The project includes a circular driveway with a drive-through garage. The applicant also requests the approval of a front yard setback reduction to 2-11, where 20 is required, and an unenclosed hot tub on the site. The proposal includes 1,061 square feet of new landscaping. IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting the application to the City on May 6, 2016, a pre-application poster was installed by the applicant at the project site and the project plans were reviewed by all abutting and confronting neighbors. No objections were indicated by the neighbors who signed the Neighbor Signature Table. One letter was received by staff on June 2, 2016, signed by eight residents of properties in the vicinity of the subject site, expressing concerns that the proposed circular driveway would create a traffic hazard on Maybeck Twin Drive and on the 15 access easement across 2 Maybeck Twin Drive, and would hinder emergency vehicle access to the adjacent dwellings. Later, this letter was amended to include signatures of three additional neighbors. (See Section V.I Off-Street Parking and Traffic, for a discussion of proposed driveway.) On January 26, 2017, the City mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations, and the City posted notices within the neighborhood in three locations. No further communications regarding the project were received as of the writing of this staff report. B. Committee Review: This project is not subject to advisory committee review. V. Issues and Analysis A. Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, 15000, et seq.) pursuant to Sections (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section , and (f) the project will not affect any historical resource. B. Housing Accountability Act: The Housing Accountability Act (j) requires that when a proposed housing development complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the project or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:

8 February 9, 2017 Page 8 of The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. The project has proposed the following elements that do not comply with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards: A reduction of the required 20 rear yard setback to 2-11 for the dwelling. Therefore, the ZAB need not make either finding above if it chose to deny this project (as it is currently proposed). C. Creation of a New Dwelling Unit: By developing a vacant lot with a new single-family dwelling, the project adds one new dwelling unit to the city s housing stock, furthering the General Plan Housing Element (2015) objectives and policies to expand the city s existing housing supply. D. Compatibility with Neighborhood Scale and Character: The subject site is surrounded by two and three-story, single-family dwellings in its immediate vicinity. The proposed dwelling would be three stories at its tallest, but lowers to two stories toward its rear and to one story towards Maybeck Twin Drive, to conform with the slope of the hillside. The design also features long, horizontal lines, and a gable roof that slopes down with the hill, both of which would serve to minimize the structure s height and massing in the landscape. Thus, the proposed dwelling would be expected blend well with the existing neighborhood fabric. Further, as shown in Table 4: Development Standards, the proposed dwelling meets all of the R-1(H) district and Hillside Overlay standards for density, height, lot coverage, setbacks (aside from the reduced front setback), usable open space, and parking. The request to modify the front yard setback is discussed in section H below. E. Sunlight/shadow: Shadow studies that were submitted with the application show that the proposed new dwelling will have little impact on sunlight access to and shadows cast on adjacent dwellings. The new dwelling may introduce new shadows on the northwest corner of the adjacent house at 4 Maybeck Twin Drive, but only during a few hours before sunset in the summer season. Moreover, existing mature trees in the same area appear to preclude such impact. Otherwise, according to the shadow studies, shadows cast by the proposed dwelling largely do not reach adjacent dwellings. F. Privacy: Three outdoor decks and the largest windows of the dwelling are at the front of the building, and would be situated above the confronting dwellings across Maybeck Twin Drive (to the south). However, mature, existing trees on the north edge of these confronting lots would serve to screen these dwellings from the vantage point of the front decks and windows. Smaller, less impactful windows would be located on the side façades, at the same height as the dwellings on either side of the subject lot. The rear deck would be situated below the dwellings directly behind and to the east, and

9 February 9, 2017 Page 9 of 12 therefore, may produce a minor privacy impact. However, this impact would not be unreasonable for the density of the neighborhood. To help minimize unavoidable privacy impacts, trees and large shrubs are proposed in the landscape plan on the front and sides (subject to review by the City Fire Department), in areas where there is no existing vegetation to screen the building from adjacent neighbors. Overall, privacy impacts from the proposal would be minimal and reasonable for this suburban setting. G. Views: Dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site enjoy views of the San Francisco Bay to the west, though many views are filtered by numerous existing trees which far exceed the height of the two and three-story dwellings on this moderately steep hillside. Story poles were erected in July of 2016, and confirmed that the proposed three-story dwelling would sit below the adjacent dwellings directly to the north and northeast, as shown in Figure 4: Northeast-Southwest Site Section, and would not affect their views to the west. Otherwise, the proposed dwelling would not significantly impact views of the bay from adjacent dwellings. Figure 4: Northeast-Southwest Site Section Westward Views H. Front Yard Setback Reduction: The applicant is requesting a reduction of the front yard setback to 2-11 where the standard is a minimum of 20 for the R-1(H) district. The Hillside Overlay district allows a reduction of yards if it is consistent with the purposes of the overlay district, which serve to protect the character of hill districts, protect views while allowing appropriate development of properties, and allow modifications to standard yards when justified because of steep topography or irregular lot pattern. Because the lot is pie-shaped, opening to its greatest width toward the street and at the bottom of a steep slope, a garage located at the foot of the slope and close to the street, rather than further up the slope, would be less costly to build while providing easy vehicle access from the street, therefore making it a more feasible

10 February 9, 2017 Page 10 of 12 solution to providing off-street parking that is compliant with R-1 district requirements. Further, staff notes that most of the lots here have parking structures that are located within the 20 front setback. Thus, the location of the house and attached garage in the front setback is a reasonable proposal for the site, given these topographical and lot shape constraints. I. Off-Street Parking and Traffic: The applicant is proposing a one-way, circular driveway on the subject lot for vehicles to enter from a 15 easement on the east side, drive through the parking garage, and exit to the west onto Maybeck Twin Drive. The proposal would provide one parking space, where one space is required in the district. (The second tandem parking space shown on the site plan is not being considered for approval with this Use Permit.) The Transportation Division has reviewed the proposed parking in terms of size, location, traffic flow and safety, and has determined that the design complies with City standards. The Division noted that the circular driveway design would create safer egress into the existing traffic flow, as drivers enter the roadway in a forward motion, than would a standard driveway and garage, where drivers would regularly back out into oncoming traffic in the street. The Division stipulated that the preferred traffic flow through the circular driveway would be westward with ingress from the 15 easement on the east side, and egress to Maybeck Twin Drive on the west for the safest circulation pattern. A condition of approval (#12) is included in the permit to require the applicant to agree to this stipulation. The distinct nature of the divided two-lane street in this section of Maybeck Twin Drive, where the one-way directions are reversed from the standard (cars drive on the left side of the median, rather than the right) would work well with the westward flowing circular driveway design. (See Figure 5: Automobile Circulation Study.)

11 February 9, 2017 Page 11 of 12 Figure 5: Automobile Circulation Study (Approved by Transportation Division) 8 MAYBECK TWIN DRIVE (SUBJECT PROPERTY) 4 MAYBECK TWIN DRIVE 2 MAYBECK TWIN DRIVE J. Hot Tub: The proposed unenclosed hot tub would be located on the rear deck, approximately 4.4 from the northwest property line (outside of the 4 side setback). Standard conditions of approval for hot tubs are included with the permit to ensure compliance with noise, sanitary, and safety code. The hot tub would not present any other detrimental issues for the neighborhood. K. General Plan Consistency: Based on the foregoing project description and analysis, staff concludes that the project will comply with the following 2002 General Plan goals and policies: 1. 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. 2. 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.

12 February 9, 2017 Page 12 of 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. 4. Policy UD-32 Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. 5. 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. 6. 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: See section V. Issues and Analysis. 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 ZP# pursuant to Section 23B and 23E C, and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1). Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, received October 21, Notice of Public Hearing 4. Neighbor Comment Letter, received via on November 7, 2016 Staff Planner: Sharon Gong, sgong@cityofberkeley.info, (510)

A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: LDR Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1H Single Family Residential - Hillside Overlay

A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: LDR Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1H Single Family Residential - Hillside Overlay 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 FOR BOARD ACTION FEBRUARY 26, 2015 1229 Oxford Street Use Permit #UP2014-0009 to 1) add a 1,171 square-foot third story which would result