1400 Queens Road - City of Berkeley

ZAB Staff Report TemplateZ 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]
1400 Queens Road
Use Permit #11-10000012 to Demolish and Rebuild a Single Family Residence
I. Application Basics
A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R1(H): Single Family Residential; Hillside Overlay District
B. Zoning Permits Required:
Demolition Permit, under BMC Section 23C.08.020; Construct new Dwelling Unit, under BMC Section 23D.16.030; Front Yard Reduction, under BMC Section 23E.96.070.C; and Unenclosed Spa, under BMC Section 23D.08.060.C.
C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302 of the
CEQA Guidelines (“Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures”) and Section 15303(a) (“Single Family Residences”)
D. Parties Involved:
Applicant Jason Kaldis Architect, Inc. 1250 Addison St., Studio 210 Berkeley, CA 94708 Briana Olson, Job Captain
Property Owner John T. Groves 1400 Queens Road Berkeley, CA 94708
1400 QUEENS ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 2 of 16 January 26, 2012
File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Queens\1400\UP 11-10000012\ARCHIVE\2012-01-26_ZAB_1400 Queens\2012-01-26 ZAB RPT.docx
Figure 1: Vicinity Maps
Site
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 1400 QUEENS ROAD January 26, 2012 Page 3 of 16
Figure 2: Site Plan
Figure 3: Views of Existing Residence from Queens Road
View toward the North from Queens Road
View toward the South from Queens Road
Figure 4 : Downslope Views of Existing Residence
Downslope View of North Side of Existing Residence from Adjacent Utility Corridor
Downslope View of South Side of Existing Residence
Figure 5 : Elevations – Queens Road Frontage, Existing and Proposed
Figure 6: Elevations – South Side, Existing and Proposed
Figure 7: Elevations – West Side, Existing and Proposed
Table 1: Land Use Information
Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation
Subject Property Single Family Residential
R-1 (H) Low Density Residential
Surrounding Properties
South/ East/ West
Single Family Residential
Seismic Hazards Yes Geotechnical Investigation was submitted and peer reviewed. See below.
Soil/Groundwater Contamination No
December 1, 2011 Application deemed complete
January 12, 2012 Public hearing notices mailed/posted
January 26, 2012 ZAB hearing
Table 4: Development Standards
Existing Addition/
Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,542 + 2,111 3,534 N/A
Dwelling Units 1 0 1 1
Building Height
Stories 2 + 1 3 3
Building Setbacks
Right Side 4’ 7” - 7” 4’ 4’
Lot Coverage Footprint (sq. ft. / %) 1,021 / 18 + 1,182 / 21 2,203 / 39 2,268 / 40
Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 4,778.38 - 1,311.36 3,467.02 400
Parking Automobile 0 1 1 1
II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description:
The project site is in a hillside residential neighborhood of single-family dwellings west of Grizzly Peak Boulevard. The neighborhood is heavily forested with mature, large trees and is defined by narrow, winding quiet streets, steep hillside lots populated with homes that vary in age, size and architectural style.
B. Site Conditions:
The project site is a steep downslope lot (-38% gradient) extending between Queens Road, above, and Campus Drive, below. The existing residence at 1400 Queens Road is a 2-bedroom, 2-bath, 1,542 sq. ft. home. It has access from Queens Road and the main floor level lies below street-grade. This, as well as the flat roof, give it a very low street profile. It has no off-street parking, as what was formerly a one-car garage was converted to living space at some time in the past. The lot is not formally landscaped, but features a moderately dense cover of understory vegetation shaded by several tall pine and eucalyptus trees. The site lies adjacent to an undeveloped City of Berkeley path and utility right-of-way. The residential lots surrounding the site are developed with single-family homes, ranging in size from 687 to 3,767 square feet1.
III. Project Description The plans call for demolition of the existing home (with the possible exception of some foundation elements and several interior walls) and the construction of a new, larger, single-family home in the same location. The new home would have 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms with 3,534 sq. ft. of gross floor area plus a 244 sq. ft. attached one car garage. The new home would have three split-levels that would terrace and step down the hill. The main floor, at elevation 1,037.09 feet, would be at approximately the same elevation as the main floor of the existing residence. The new 244 sq. ft. garage would be slightly higher than the main floor level, bringing it closer to street level to facilitate access. A 300 sq. ft. mezzanine loft would rise about 4.5 feet above the garage. The reconstructed main floor would be 296 sq. ft. larger than the main floor of the existing residence, and would include a new kitchen, bathroom, entryway and study. Portions of the existing living and dining rooms would be retained. It would also feature a large west-facing deck, integrated onto the roof of the floor below. The lower floor would be reconstructed to include a new master bedroom (with bathroom), new bathroom, new family room, two new bedrooms, new laundry room and new storage space. It would add 1,047 sq. ft. to this level, which currently has about 435 sq. ft. Finally, two additional new storage spaces would be constructed at the lowest level, beneath the master bedroom. Although the building would have four levels (and a split-level lower floor), it would not be more than three stories high (the loft would be open to the main floor, and is not a
1 Of 25 dwellings adjacent to the site, based on Alameda County Assessor’s information.
separate story), and the average and maximum heights would be below the maximum permitted. The roof lines would feature low slopes (1.5:12) angled to create a shallow V configuration when seen from the Queens Road frontage. The exterior of the house would be finished in horizontal wood plank siding, stained in earth tones, on the main floor, loft and garage. The chimney and lower levels would have painted stucco siding. A standing seam, pre-finished metal roof is proposed. Powder coated metal window frames are proposed throughout. One storage room at the lowest level would feature a projecting window bay, finished in horizontal wood plank siding like the upper floors. Areas for landscaping would be developed in the front yard and in a level rear yard area between the two lower floors. The rear yard’s level landscaping space would be supported behind a new retaining wall, and a spa tub would be installed just below the retaining wall, inside the side yard setback. The remainder of the rear yard will remain as it is today. An exterior stairway would step down the slope to connect the front and rear yards and the front and rear of the house.
IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns:
The project plans were reviewed by adjacent and confronting neighbors and no objections were expressed. Prior to submitting the application to the City, the applicant posted a pre-application poster at the site in March 2011. For the ZAB hearing, on January 12, 2021, the City mailed 431 public hearing notices to adjoining property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations. No letters or comments have been received to date.
B. Committee Review:
V. Issues and Analysis A. Seismic Risk Analysis:
According to the California Geological Survey’s seismic hazard map, (CGS, Richmond Quadrangle, 2003) the project site is located in a portion of Berkeley where hazards of earthquake-induced landsliding may exist locally. The City’s seismic landslide hazard map (Miles and Keefer, 2001) places the site in an area with moderate seismic landslide hazard.
A site-specific geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the applicant by Alan Kropp & Associates (included in Attachment 2), and peer reviewed by Cotton, Shires and Associates. The study evaluates the site’s geotechnical characteristics and provides design and construction criteria for the project. The study involved both surface reconnaissance and sub-surface borings. The study found no surface or sub- surface evidence of significant landsliding within or near the site. The study determined that the site is underlain by bedrock at shallow depth and, furthermore, suggests that a portion of the existing foundation should be reused, as it is well
anchored in bedrock. The study concluded that it is unlikely the site would be susceptible to ground failure during an earthquake.
Because of the steeply sloping terrain there is always a possibility of shallow sliding and erosion of surficial soils. To mitigate these risks, the geotechnical engineers provided recommendations for foundation designs that will extend well into the underlying bedrock, and for measures to control the collection and discharge of surface water so as to minimize the potential for erosion and shallow slope instability. Conditions of approval that incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical engineers are included in Attachment 1, Findings and Conditions. It is also noted that because these site-specific geotechnical reviews conclude that the site is not subject to high seismic landslide hazards, they support the CEQA determination that the project is Categorically Exempt, even though the project is located in an area of the City mapped as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides.
B. Front Yard Setback: The existing home at 1400 Queens Road has a 3’9” front yard setback, and the proposed design would reduce this setback to zero. The underlying R-1 zoning requires a 20’ front yard setback, however the Hillside Overlay District regulations allow modifications in the standard yard (and height) requirements when justified by steep topography, unusual street conditions or other special aspects of the hillside (BMC 23E.96.020 D). Several other homes in the vicinity of the site have reduced front yard setbacks. A quick visual survey noted that portions of the structures at 1384, 1394, 1398 and 1419 Queens are all as close as 10 feet from the edge of the pavement, or closer. The architect notes that the former2 garage door was located in a wall perpendicular to the street and the driveway swept in from the south and across the front yard at an elevation approximately 3 feet below the street level, making for difficult egress and access.
This application calls for a zero front yard setback so that a new garage and driveway that are close to the existing street elevation can be built. This design would provide for convenient access to the garage and would facilitate improved drainage. The driveway will continue to swing in from the south, but it would be at approximately the same elevation as the street. The garage wall would be 5-6 feet from the edge of the pavement, and the short driveway would be 19 feet 8 inches wide at the pavement edge, narrowing to 10 feet 7 inches as it swings 90 degrees to access the garage door. Staff believes that this design will provide an accessible, practical and workable driveway and garage space. Accordingly, the project would provide an off-street parking space with a high likelihood of being used, at a site where there is no off-street parking at the present time. Based on this staff believes that the reduced front yard setback is justified.
C. Views: The topography of the site provides views generally to the west and southwest, framed by a fairly dense tree canopy. Queens Road runs generally perpendicular to
2 The garage was converted to living space at some unknown time in the past.
the viewshed, and the lots along it are situated so that homes on upslope lots will be able to have views over the homes on downslope lots and home on adjoining lots will have minimal interference with each other’s views toward the Bay.
The existing home is set three feet lower than the elevation of Queens Road, and the proposed project would retain this elevation for the main floor, while the lower levels would step down the lot and would be located downhill in relation to the existing home. The elements of the proposed project with the potential to adversely affect views from neighboring homes are the 300 sq. ft. loft addition that would rise above the profile of the existing home, and the horizontal extensions to the rear. Views from three neighboring homes would be affected, as described below: 1407 Queens Road3. This home is uphill, to the east and slightly south. The project architects took photos from the living room of this home and considered the affects on this view in designing the project. The loft was situated on the north side of the building to minimize view impacts, and to avoid any loss of Bay views from the main floor living area at 1407 Queens. Furthermore the applicant removed several large eucalyptus trees on the project site, which opened views toward the North Bay from 1407 Queens that had been previously unavailable. Some views toward the North Bay from the basement room at 1407 Queens that are now available would be affected by the project. However, views west toward San Francisco and the Golden Gate would not be affected. While the project would change views from 1407 Queens, no important views would be blocked and the overall impacts would be less than significant. The project application, Attachment 2, includes a visual simulation of the view of the proposed project from the upper floor of 1407 Queens Road.
1398 Queens Road. This home lies to the north of the project site. The project would not affect any Bay views from 1398 Queens, however the north sidewall of the project would be visible from some of the side windows, including the window over the kitchen sink. The view from the south side yard facing dining room window would be unaffected. The increased massing on the lower levels of 1400 Queens would be below the view from the kitchen window at 1398 Queens and the replacement of the existing solid wood railing on the main floor deck with an open metal railing would partially open this view relative to current conditions. In summary, while the project would be visible from some side windows at 1398 Queens, the overall impacts on views would not be significant. A visual simulation of the project, seen from the kitchen window at 1398 Queens Road is included in Attachment 2.
1399 Queens Road: This home lies north, east and uphill of the site. No existing views would be affected due to the horizontal and topographic separation from the project.
1406 Queens Road. This home lies south of the site. No existing views would be affected due to the horizontal and topographic separation from the project.
D. Shadows:
The project architect has prepared shadow studies of the project to ascertain potential shading impacts on the adjacent properties at 1398 and 1406 Queens
3 The home at 1407 Queens Road was severely damaged in a recent structural fire, and is currently unoccupied.
Road. The shadow studies show small increases in the shading on the south side of 1398 Queens in the morning hours of the fall and winter months, and a small increase in shading on the north side of 1406 Queens in the evening hours of the summer months. These impacts would not be significant, and would only affect one or two side windows on each of the respective homes. Furthermore, the shading of the existing tree canopy would attenuate the effects of shading from the new structure because the tree cover is fairly extensive and the trees are much taller than the affected buildings.
E. Construction Related Effects:
Noise: Construction of the project would involve the use of trucks and other heavy equipment, impact tools, air compressors, generators and other noisy equipment (but no pile drivers). Demolition and removal of demolition debris would require a few days of noisy work at the beginning of the project; foundation construction and grading work would require intermittent use of trucks and excavators for the following 6 – 8 weeks, or more; and materials delivery would bring trucks to the site at intermittent times throughout the entire construction period.
The City’s Noise Ordinance recognizes that construction activity may generate short- term noise levels that exceed the adopted noise standards and accordingly limits the hours of construction work and requires construction work to meet noise levels of 75 dBA on weekdays and 60 dBA on weekends and holidays, unless it is not technically and economically feasible to do so.
Since some equipment that is likely to be used during construction has the potential to generate noise over 75 dBA, and the City imposes a standard condition of approval to reduce potential noise impacts during construction, as follows:
The applicant shall notify residents within 300 feet of the site at least two weeks prior to beginning construction, and provide a copy of the notice to the Zoning Officer.
Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 am and noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.
Vehicle engines and equipment motors shall be properly maintained and equipped with mufflers achieving the greatest feasible noise reduction;
Rather than impact equipment, quieter procedures for drilling shall be used;
Where unavoidable, impact tools (e.g. demolition hammers) shall be hydraulic or electric rather than pneumatic to avoid noise from compressed air exhaust. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, air exhaust mufflers shall be used.
External jackets on power impact tools shall be used whenever feasible; and,
Stationary noise sources (e.g. generators, air compressors) shall be located to minimize noise transmission over a property line, equipped with adequate mufflers and enclosed within insulated sheds.
To ensure compliance with the City of Berkeley’s Noise Ordinance, the Zoning Officer is authorized to place additional limitations on the hours of operation and/or halt construction until corrective measures are taken.
Construction Transportation/Traffic. Trucks accessing the site for the delivery of construction materials, equipment and for the removal of excess excavated soil material (estimated at 86 cubic yards) could potentially create adverse traffic and noise effects if trucks operate inappropriately or use inappropriate streets when coming to or leaving the site. To minimize these impacts, the City imposes a standard condition of approval that will require the applicant to secure the City Traffic Engineer’s approval of a Traffic Management Plan for construction of the project. The Traffic Management Plan shall include, at a minimum, a designated truck route to and from major arterial streets, designated locations for material and equipment storage, worker parking, a schedule of site operations that may block traffic, and provisions for traffic control. The City Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction-related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood.
F. General and Area Plan Consistency:
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. Staff Analysis: The project involves the replacement of an older home with a new, larger home built to modern standards for seismic strength, energy conservation and livability. It would have a relatively low profile so as not to block important views from neighboring homes, and would have an architectural style an scale that would be compatible with nearby development in this residential neighborhood.
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. Staff Analysis: The proposed project would be consistent with applicable zoning standards and compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood.
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. Staff Analysis: The proposed design features a low profile on the uphill, Queens Road side and cascades downhill, respecting the steep topography of the area.
The project’s architectural style would add variety to the relatively eclectic mix of architectural styles that characterize the neighborhood and has been developing more rapidly in the past decade or so.
5. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Staff Analysis: Solar access in this neighborhood is constrained by the heavy tree canopy. The project would not significantly affect that. It would have little detrimental shadow impact, as reviewed above.
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. Staff Analysis: The project would have no effect on the number of housing units in Berkeley, although it would replace an older and somewhat deteriorated house with a newly constructed home.
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.)
8. Policy UD-33–Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings. Staff Analysis: The project applicants have completed the Green Building consultation.
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. APPROVE Use Permit #11-10000012 to demolish and rebuild a Single Family
Residence pursuant to Section 23B.32.040 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).
Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions 2. Application and Project Plans, dated January 17, 2012 3. Notice of Public Hearing 4. Correspondence Received
Staff Planner: Greg Powell, [email protected] , (510) 981-7410; Doug Donaldson, consulting planner, (510) 528-3684.

1400 Queens Road - City of Berkeley

Documents

Transcript of 1400 Queens Road - City of Berkeley