2329 grant street - cityofberkeley.info › uploadedfiles...jun 14, 2012 · z o n i n g a d j u s...

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

MARCH 8, 2012

2329 Grant Street

Use Permit #10-20000041 to raise an existing single-family residence by 2 feet thereby extending a non-conforming 15-foot front yard setback (where 20 feet is required); to construct a 149-square-foot first story addition, a 135-square-foot second story addition, and a new 1,054-square-foot third story; and to establish a child care center on the first floor for up to 15 children with hours of operation from 7:30 – 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

I. Application Basics

A. Land Use Designations:

General Plan: MDR – Medium Density Residential

Zoning: R-2 – Restricted Two-Family Residential District

B. Zoning Permits Required:

Use Permit to establish a child care center, under BMC Section 23D.28.030;

Administrative Use Permit to extend a non-conforming front yard setback, under BMC 23C.04.070.B;

Administrative Use Permit to construct a major (>600 sq. ft.) residential addition, under BMC 23D.28.030;

Administrative Use Permit to construct a residential addition over 14’ in average height , under BMC 23D.28.070.C; and

Administrative Use Permit to allow a main building to exceed 28’ in average height, under BMC 23D.28.070.C.

C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301e and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Existing Facilities” and “Conversion of Small Structures”).

D. Parties Involved: Applicant/ Catarina Negrin and Noah Friedman, 2329 Grant Street,

Property Owners Berkeley, CA 94703

ATTACHMENT 5 ZAB 06-14-12 Page 1 of 15

2329 GRANT STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 2 of 15 March 8, 2012

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Grant\2329\UP 10-10000041\Document Finals\ZAB March 8, 2012\ZAB Staff Report.docx

Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1

Walden School – Private K-12

Washington Elementary School – Public K-5

Berkeley High School – Public 9-12

Berkwood Hedge School – Private K-5

Vera Casey Childcare Center – Public Pre-K

Subject

Site

McGee Farm Preschool – Private Pre-K


ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2329 GRANT STREET March 8, 2012 Page 3 of 15


Figure 2: Vicinity Map 2




Figure 3: Site Plan (Proposed)




Table 1: Land Use Information

Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Single family dwelling R-2 Low Medium Density

Residential

Surrounding Properties

North Single and multi-family

dwellings R-2

Low Medium Density Residential

South Single and multi-family

dwellings R-2


East Single- and multi-family

dwellings, educational uses R-2


West Single and multi-family

dwellings R-2


Table 2: Project Chronology

Date Action

May 11, 2010 Application Submitted

July 7, 2011 Revised Plan Set Submitted

November 15, 2011 Revised Plan Set Submitted

January 10, 2012 Revised Plan Set Submitted

February 14, 2012 Revised Plan Set Submitted

February 14, 2012 Application deemed complete

February 23, 2012 Public hearing notices mailed/posted

March 8, 2012 ZAB hearing

April 14, 2012 PSA deadline1

1. Project must be approved or denied within 60 days after being determined to be exempt from CEQA, or 60 days after adoption of a negative declaration, or 180 days after adoption of an EIR (Govt. Code § 65950).




Table 3: Development Standards

Standard

BMC Sections 23D.28.070-080 Existing

Addition/

(Reduction)

Proposed Total

Permitted/

Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 6,500 no change 6,500 5,000

Total Dwelling Units 1 no change 1 2

(1 per 2500 sq ft)

Childcare Center 0 1 1 Use Permit

required

Gross Floor Area (±sq. ft.)

2

1st Floor 1,213 149 1,362 n/a

2nd

Floor 1,418 135 1,553 n/a

3rd

Floor 0 1,054 1,054 n/a

Building Height

Average (ft.) 20.5 9 29.5 28 (35 w/AUP)

Maximum (ft.) 21.6 8.4 30 n/a

Stories 2 1 3 3

Building Setbacks (ft.)

Front

1st & 2

nd floor (3

rd floor)

15 no change 15 (29.5) 20

Rear 58.5 no change 58.5 20

Left Side

1st & 2

nd

Floor 9.5 (5.5) 4 4

3rd

Floor --- n/a 8 6

Right Side

1st & 2

nd

Floor 12 (1.5) 10.5 4

3rd

Floor --- n/a 9.5 6

Lot Coverage (%) 22.4 5.7 28.1 40 (for 2 stories)

35 (for 3 stories)

Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 3,910 (465) 3,445 400

Parking Dwelling Unit 1 0 1 1

Day Care Center 0 1 1 TBD3

Items in bold are non-conforming conditions.

1. The Gross Floor Area calculations are approximate and based on staff calculations using the Zoning Ordinance Definition of gross floor area (BMC §23F.04). The plan set submitted by the applicants are accurate in terms of scale and measurement, but not in calculation of Gross Floor Area.

2. Child Care Centers shall provide the number off Off-street Parking Spaces as determined by the Board, based on the amount of traffic generated by the particular Use and comparable with specified standards for other uses (BMC §23D.28.080.1)




II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The subject site is located on the west side of Grant Street on the block between Bancroft way to the north and Channing Way to the south. The neighborhood is a mix of single- and multi-family properties with a few nearby religious assembly uses. The neighborhood also has several public and private schools located to the north, south, and east of the project site (see Figure 1 Vicinity map above).

B. Site Conditions:

The site consists of a relatively flat, 6,000 square-foot lot that is 50 feet wide by 130 feet deep. The front portion of the lot is developed with a two-story, single-family house with an attached garage that accesses the public right-of-way via a seven-foot wide driveway that is located towards the center of the property.

III. Project Description

The applicant is proposing to lift an existing single-family residence by two feet, thereby horizontally extending a non-conforming 15-foot front yard setback where 20 feet is required. The project proposes minor additions to the existing first and second story, and proposes a new third story. The driveway would be widened from 11.25 feet to 16 feet to allow access to both the one-car, attached garage and a newly proposed uncovered parking space in the right (south) side yard. The project proposes the establishment of a child care center on the first floor, including a kitchen, two classrooms, lunch room, dramatic play area, and two bathrooms. The main entrance to the child care would be located on the left (north) side of the house. For a detailed summary of the project, see Table 4 below. The applicants are dedicated to green building and have incorporated several measures into their proposed project, including adding insulation to the walls, floors and roof; installing low-flow plumbing fixtures and energy efficient appliance; and replacing and upgrading to high-performance windows. The applicants are hoping to install a vegetated roof, a rainwater collection system, a vegetated “green screen” around the second story, and use permeable paving for the driveway. Additionally, the applicants are proposing construction with low impact materials such as cement plaster, fiber-cement panel siding, reclaimed wood and recycled steel. Also, in order to limit the amount of impervious surface on the lot, the applicants have designed the renovation with a minor increase in lot coverage, and instead, choosing to construct a new third story.




Table 4: Proposed Changes at the Property

Use Existing Proposed

Residential Single family

Two floors

2,631 square feet

One covered parking space

Single family

Two floors

2,607 square feet

One covered parking space

Child Care Center

No child care center on site 1,362-square-foot child care center

Up to 15 children

Ages 2.5 - 5 years old

Hours of operation 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday

Staggered drop off 7:30-9:30 am

12 noon or 3:00 pm pick up

One outside employee

One resident employee

One uncovered parking space

Incidental activity associated with typical maintenance, operation and administration of the center

Structure Existing Proposed

Two stories

2,631 square feet

20.5-foot average height

Three-stories

3,969 square feet

28.5-foot average height

IV. Community Discussion

A. Neighbor/Community Concerns:

A pre-application poster, installed by the applicant, has been visible to passersby at the project site since May 11, 2010 through present. On February 23, 2012 staff posted the public hearing notices on this item at and around the project site, and sent the notices to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject site. Staff has received numerous comments from members of the public, both in support and in opposition to the project. To summarize, concerns from residents within the neighborhood include:

Increased vehicular traffic and parking in the neighborhood

Unsafe drop off and pick up for children

Increased noise and activity on site

Massing and style not a fit for the neighborhood

Neighborhood already inundated with school uses




Blocked views of the Bay

Detrimental shadowing impacts

Supporters of the proposed expansion contend that:

Need for preschools, particularly bilingual, in the neighborhood

Increased “vibrancy” on the street

Applicants are respected community members

Design preserves open space/large back yard area

See Attachment 6 for all correspondence received as of publication of this staff report. Due to the contentious nature of the project, staff referred the parties to mediation. The city mediator, however, did not believe that the project was “ripe” for mediation. Please see Attachment 5 for the letter from the mediator explaining his position.

B. Committee Review: This project is not subject to advisory committee review.

V. Issues and Analysis A. Key Issues:

Changes in Use of the Property

1. Establishment of a Child Care Center: Unlike a family day care, which is considered a use incidental to a residence, a child care center is a commercial entity that is considered a separate use from the dwelling unit and could, therefore, increase the intensity of use on the subject site. However, child care centers are a conditionally permitted use in all residential districts and have been determined to be compatible with residential uses. The current site is located near numerous schools (elementary through secondary) and could provide a convenient location for families wishing to bring their pre-school aged children to a facility near their older siblings’ schools. Additionally, the subject site has a large rear yard area that would be suitable for outdoor activities for a group of 15 children. Staff believes on-site activities and operations of the day care center would not result in an over intensification of use on the site and or to the neighborhood.

2. Noise: All noise within the City is subject to the Noise Ordinance (BMC §13.40) that sets limits for permissible noise levels during the day and night according to the zoning of the area. If the ambient noise (the general level of noise in the area) exceeds the standards, that ambient noise level becomes the allowable noise level. Per the City of Berkeley General Plan, the ambient (average day-night


http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6078



levels) noise level of the subject area is 65dBA, which is greater than the Ordinance’s maximum outdoor level of 55dBA for periods of more than 30 minutes in any hour during daytime hours.

The addition of a 15-child childcare would increase noise in the immediate vicinity during hours of operation both from children playing outside, as well as from parents dropping off and picking up their children. It is likely that the sound of 15 children playing outdoors could exceed 65dBA. The ZAB, however, has not established a precedent for requiring noise studies for large family day cares (for up to 14 children) and/or day care centers of this size. Any noise impacts from the day care operation would be limited, as the day care schedule proposes no more than one hour of time outdoors during the day, which also includes lunch time. The outdoor play time would never occur before 9:30 am and is officially scheduled for 11:15-12:15. Additionally, some outdoor time would be spent at Becky Temko Tot Park. Based on the limited scheduled outdoor time, and the time of day in which it would occur, staff does not believe that the potential noise impacts of the proposed project would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.

3. Parking: Child Care Centers do not have a set off-street parking standard but are required to provide the number of spaces as determined by the Board, based on the amount of traffic generated by the particular use and comparable with specified standards for other uses (BMC §23D.28.080). The current project proposes the retention of a one-car garage to supply the required parking for the dwelling unit (and for use of the resident day care director), and would provide an additional, uncovered parking space in the side yard setback for use by the non-resident day care employee. In order to access both parking spaces, the project proposes to widen the existing driveway from 11.25-foot-wide driveway to 16 feet. The driveway widening would result in the loss of one on-street parking space located between the subject property’s driveway and the neighboring to the south. While this on-street space is not standard length, it is long enough to accommodate smaller cars as evidenced by staffs’ field visits and Google Earth Street View, which shows a car parked there (see figure 4). Planning staff referred the application to the City’s Traffic Engineer for review and comment. Traffic Engineering generally does not support the loss of public on-street parking to accommodate one, private off-street parking space; however, in this case, Traffic Engineering felt that the project would “add” potentially two temporary off-street spaces (i.e. tandem parking in the driveway) available for use during drop off and pick up times, which could help mitigate parking impacts on the neighborhood.




Figure 4: On Street Parking to be Eliminated

Although there would be a net increase of one to two temporary parking spaces, Traffic Engineering believes that the day care operation could generate a short-term, twice-a-day, parking demand and impact on the neighborhood—including double parking and blocking driveways—that the center would not be able to accommodate. The issue is further compounded in that being a day care for pre-school aged children, there is no sidewalk drop off; parents need to disembark their vehicle and walk their child into the center. Although the applicant states that parents would be encouraged to walk or bike their children to the proposed child care facility, this stipulation cannot be incorporated as a project condition, nor can it be assumed as a baseline. Several neighbors have voiced concern that the project would exacerbate already difficult on-street street parking conditions. The neighbor to the north submitted photos showing the existing parking situation (see Attachment 4). Staff made two site visits in the mid-afternoon to gauge the availability of on-street parking. During each visit, there was on-street parking available, but it was limited (e.g. not available in front of the subject site, but down the street). Although the new use would increase the demand for parking during pick-up/drop-off, the impact would be mitigated by the staggered drop off and pick up times. The day care schedule provides a two hour window (7:30 – 9:30 am) for parents to drop off their children, and pick up would be divided between “early bird” pick up (12:30 – 1:00 pm) and standard dismissal at 3:00 pm. Additionally, staff recommends the following condition be placed on project approval to address parking impacts: “The applicant shall have each day care patron sign that he/she agrees to a parking policy that includes the following: Day care patrons should use on-street parking spaces directly in front of the

day care home or in the subject site’s driveway, when available;

On-Street Parking Space to be Eliminated

Subject Site




Day care patrons may use other on-street parking spaces provided that children are escorted or can safely travel between the day care home and parking;

Day care patrons shall drive safely and follow all traffic regulations and be mindful of adjacent property owners’ concerns when driving to and from the site;

Day care patrons shall not make U-turns or park in, or block neighboring driveways;

Under no circumstances shall day care patrons double park, park in the middle of the street, or park on the wrong side of the street;

Day care patrons shall turn off their engines when parked during pick-up and drop-off periods;

Barring an emergency, day care patrons shall not blow their car horns while picking up and dropping off their children;

Day care patrons shall not J-walk, but cross streets at the corner.” Due to the staggered nature of both drop off and pick up times and adherence to the above condition, staff does not believe that parking impacts would result in significant detriment.

4. Traffic: Due to the number of schools in the immediate vicinity, the neighborhood is traffic impacted during school peak hours (7:30-8:30 am and 2:30-3:30 pm). Additionally, the 2300 block of Grant Street can experience “cut through” traffic during these times, as the 2300 block of McKinley does not allow pass through traffic during school hours (see Figure 5 below).

Figure 5: Temporary Barricades on 2300 Block of McKinley

The proposed day care facility would generate up to 16 additional car trips twice a day (15 children plus one non-resident employee), the majority which would fall into the peak traffic hours for the surrounding educational uses. Staff reviewed

Subject Site

Looking south on 2300 block of McKinley during school hours




the project with the Traffic Engineer who did not believe that the maximum 16 additional vehicle trips warranted a traffic study for this location. Due to the amount of traffic already experienced on the subject block, and due to the staggered drop off and pick up times described in the Parking Analysis section above, staff believes that the proposed project is unlikely to substantially alter existing traffic patterns in the area.

Changes to the Physical Building

5. Views: The site and vicinity are located in a relatively level area and view corridors— a significant view of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island or any other significant vista that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property (BMC §23.04.010)—are generally not available. Any view that is available is low-level, over the rooftops of buildings in the area.

The neighbor to the rear of the subject site, however, raised concern about the project blocking views of the Bay. Staff visited the neighbor’s property and stood on the second floor, west-facing deck. Although the proposed project would block some views of street trees, there are no significant view corridors that are enjoyed by this property. Additionally, the neighbor to the north has commented and presented simulations showing that the view from their southern windows, which currently show sky and some tree tops, would be dominated by the neighbors’ new structure should it be approved (please see photos in Attachment 4). The ZAB has not recognized low-level views of this nature as significant for preservation. Staff, therefore, believes that the proposed project would not substantially affect views from surrounding properties.

6. Bulk and Massing: The project proposes to extend a non-conforming front yard setback and to exceed the 28-foot average height limit, but otherwise meets the development standards for the District. The resultant three-story building would be 29½ feet in average height (30 feet maximum). The applicants have chosen to expand the structure by predominantly building up; the width of the structure is also slightly expanded, but the existing 58.5-foot rear yard setback remains the same, thereby preserving the large (approximately 2,925-square-foot) rear yard area.

The neighborhood is a mix of one- to three-story structures, and is a mix of single-family, smaller multi-family, and institutional (educational and religious) uses. Several of the buildings on the subject block have non-conforming front yard setbacks. The proposed project would, therefore, be compatible with the existing development pattern on the block. Additionally, the third story would be setback from the front of the home, thereby mitigating any “looming” presence the new structure would have from the public right of way.




Therefore, as designed, the proposed project would meet two of the three purposes of the District in that it is a low medium density-type of residential development with reasonable open and spacious type of development and the project would make available housing for persons who desire a range of housing choice with a relatively large amount of open space (BMC §23D.28.020.A & B). Staff, therefore, believes that the bulk and massing of the proposed project would meet the purposes of the District and would be compatible with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood.

7. Architectural Style/Neighborhood Context: The neighborhood has a mix of building types and architectural styles that are predominantly residential in nature. The project proposes paving most of the front yard and raises the second-story residential entry on the front façade while the first story entry to the child care facility is not visible from the street. These elements, combined with the additional massing, and contemporary architectural style present a departure from the existing stucco bungalow and neighboring homes. The proposed green screen, upon maturity and with proper maintenance, would soften the façade. Staff recommends, however, that the applicants soften the transition to the street and the northern property by including additional landscaping.

8. Sunlight/Shadows: Both the applicant and the neighbor to the north submitted

shadow studies for the proposed project (see Attachments 3 & 4). Though the shadow study submitted by the neighbor depicts greater shadowing impacts, the shadow study submitted by the applicant still indicates that the neighboring home to the north would experience significant shadowing impacts from the proposed project during the winter months. During the winter months, significant shadowing would affect the northern neighbors’ main living areas: living room, dining room, and kitchen. As proposed, not only would the new structure have a new third story, but would have a reduced left (north) side yard setback as well. Although the applicants modified the project by reducing the height of the structure by approximately a foot, the changes did little to alleviate the shadowing impacts. Staff does not believe that the applicants have made adequate attempts to address the shadowing impacts. Options available could include shifting the massing towards the south side of the site (doing so may require placing the uncovered parking on the north side—staff has not reviewed the potential impacts of such a change). The ZAB may also wish to consider whether to eliminate the off-street parking for the day care center, thereby allowing further design options to shift the massing. Another option is to increase the overall footprint on the first and second story, while reducing (or eliminating) the third story. Although the applicants have adamantly expressed the desire to retain the large rear yard for both environmental and day care operation reasons, staff believes alternative designs




are available that could reduce the rear yard while still retaining ample open space.

VI. Recommendation

Based on the shadow studies submitted by both the applicant and the neighbor, staff concludes that sunlight impacts on the neighboring property to the north would be unreasonable, especially as other options for project design are possible. The third purpose of the Restricted Two-Family Residential District is to protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air (BMC §23D.28.020.C). Staff believes that the project, as currently designed, contravenes this purpose. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board: HOLD a public hearing, DIRECT the applicant to enter into mediation with impacted neighbors and work to revise the project to reduce the detrimental shadow impacts and CONTINUE the project off calendar.

Attachments: 1. Project Plans, received March 1, 2012 2. Notice of Public Hearing 3. Shadow Study from Applicant, plus power point, received March 1, 2012 4. Shadow Study from Neighbor at 2325 Grant Street, plus Parking and Traffic information, received January

31, 2012 5. Mediator’s Report, dated February 8, 2012 6. Correspondence Received Staff Planner: Leslie Mendez, [email protected], (510) 981-7426


2329 grant street - cityofberkeley.info › uploadedfiles...jun 14, 2012 · z o n i n g a d j u s...

Documents