2504 dana street - berkeley, california · 2504 dana street zoning adjustments board page 2 of 16...

$: 2504 Dana Street - Berkeley, California · 2504 DANA STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 2 of 16 November 8, 2012 File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Dana\2504\UP 12-10000025\DOCUMENTS$
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

NOVEMBER 8, 2012

2504 Dana Street

Use Permit # 12-1000032 to convert and expand an existing Foster Care center to a Residential Triplex with a new foundation and significant interior modifications including new and renovated bathrooms and kitchens, a modified roofline, demolition of an existing garage and parking for three cars.

I. Background

A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: HDR – High Density Residential Zoning: R3 – Multiple Family Residential

B. Zoning Permits Required:

Use Permit to create three dwelling units, under BMC Section 23D.36.030; Use Permit to allow residential additions exceeding 16 feet in height, under BMC

Section 23D.36.070 C; Use Permit to allow the enlargement of a lawful non-conforming structure (with a

lot coverage of 50.18% where a maximum of 40% is allowed), under BMC Section 23C.04.070;

Use Permit to allow the vertical extension of a non-conforming front yard set back, under Section 23C.04.070 D;

Use Permit to allow the horizontal extension of a non-conforming 3rd floor side yard setback under Section 23C.04.070 B.

C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the

CEQA Guidelines “Existing Facilities” involving minor alteration of an existing structure with negligible expansion of use.

D. Parties Involved:

Applicant Victor Rasilla 2 Madsen Court Moraga, CA

2504 DANA STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 2 of 16 November 8, 2012

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Dana\2504\UP 12-10000025\DOCUMENTS FINALS\2012-11-08 ZAB_SR_2504 Dana.docx

Figure 1: Vicinity Map


Figure 2: Site Plan



Figure 3: Existing and Proposed Dana Street Frontage


Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Rear Elevation



Figure 5: Existing and Proposed South Side Elevations


Figure 6: Site Photos

View of Dana Street Frontage View of Rear Yard



North Side Yard South Side Yard View Southwest along Dana Street


Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning

District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Residential – Foster Care Center

R-3 HDR

Surrounding Properties

North 3 story, 9 unit apartment building

South 2 story, SFD

East 3 story, 10 unit apartment building

West 1 story, SFD

Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Applies to Project?

Explanation

Alcohol Sales/Service No

Creeks No

Density Bonus/ Inclusionary Housing No

Historic Resources No

Oak Trees No

Seismic Hazards No

Soil/Groundwater Contamination No

Green Building Score Yes 57 points

Table 3: Project Chronology

Date Action

June 20, 2012 Application submitted

September 6, 2012 Application deemed complete

October 25, 2012 Public hearing notices mailed/posted

November 8, 2012 ZAB hearing

Table 4: Development Standards Standard BMC Sections 23D.36.070&080

Existing Addition/ (Reduction)

Proposed Total

Permitted/ Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 5,235 0 5,235 5,325

Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 4,398 +1,245 5643 6,390*

Dwelling Units Total 1 +2 3

Building Height

Average 19’7” +12’2” 31’9” 35’

Maximum 36’9” 0 36’9” NA

Stories 3 0 3 3

Building Setbacks

Front 17.5’ 0 17.5’ 15’

Rear 29”1” +9’ 0.5” 38’ 0.5” 15’

Left Side 9’6” 0 9’6”` 4’ (6’ on 3rd

story)

Right Side 4’1” 0 4’1” 4’ (6’ on 3rd

story)

Lot Coverage (%) 53.56% (3.38%) 50.18% 40%

Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 365 est. (200 req’d)

+1,046 1,411 600

Parking Automobile 2 +1 3 3

Bicycle NA

* Based on 40% of lot coverage (2,130 sq. ft.) and 3 stories.



II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The project site is in a neighborhood featuring a mix of early 20th century single- family homes and 1960’s era apartment buildings. Many of the large single-family homes have been converted into multi-family rental units. Most buildings in the area are two to four stories in height.

B. Site Conditions:

The site is occupied by a 3-story building, with a steeply pitched roof, that was originally a single-family home but is now a 14 bedroom, 4.5-bath residence. It was permitted as a home for girls in foster care in the 1970’s. This use continued for a decade or longer, after which the space was rented to multiple tenants, essentially an unpermitted rooming house. There is a two-car garage in the back that may have been used as an unpermitted living space. The building has not been well maintained and is poor condition. The fire sprinkler system does not function, and the building cannot be legally occupied. There is virtually no landscaping in the front yard, while the left side yard is a paved driveway. The other sideyard is gated at the front and is narrow, bordered by a solid fence along the property line of the adjoining apartment building. Several large trees located in the yard of the large apartment building next-door shade the north side of the site.

III. Project Description The applicant proposes to convert the building from its original single-family configuration with internal staircases into a triplex with enlarged second and third floors and an external staircase. The dilapidated garage at the rear would be demolished and off-street parking for 3 cars would be provided in the rear yard. Unit A, on the ground floor, would consist of a 5 bedroom, 3-bath unit with 1,965 sf. Unit B, on the second floor, would have 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms with 1,865 sf. Unit C would have 5 bedrooms and 3 baths in 1,738 sf. The entrances to Units B and C would be located at the rear, with pedestrian access via a walkway in the north sideyard. The south sideyard would remain a driveway, accessing the parking in the rear. The floor area of the second and third floors would be increased by raising the walls and substantially reducing the pitch of the roof. The existing front porch configuration would be retained, while new and/or larger balconies would be added on the second and third floors to provide the necessary open space for each unit. Additional work would include a new foundation, a new kitchen in each unit, newly refurbished rooms throughout, a new residential sprinkler system, new energy efficient doors and windows, new insulation throughout, and exterior finish repairs as necessary.

IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting the application to the City, a pre-

application poster was erected by the applicant in July 2012. On October 25, 2012, the City mailed notices to adjoining property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations. No comments have been received to date.

B. Committee Review:

None required.


V. Issues and Analysis A. Change of Use from Foster Care to a Residential Triplex: Although the building is

currently permitted as a foster care home for orphaned girls, it has probably not been used for this purpose for 20 years or longer. The previous owners may have rented out the 14 bedrooms individually, primarily to students, as if the building were group living accommodations. At the present time the building is not legally habitable because of fire code violations. The current (new) owners are proposing to repair, upgrade, expand and modify the building, so that it will have three, 5- bedroom, 3-bath residential units.

Section 23D.36.030 of the Zoning Code permits multi-family dwelling units in the R-3 Zoning District subject to a Use Permit with a public hearing by the Zoning Adjustments Board. In order to approve the proposed use the Board must determine whether the proposed triplex is consistent with the purposes of the R-3 District and whether the proposed design for the enlarged structure is appropriately compliant with the R-3 District’s development standards.

Purposes A through D of the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District provisions are generally relevant to the proposed project. Purposes A and B call for the development of a relatively high density residential area to provide housing with a convenient location and a reasonable amount of useable open space. Purpose D encourages the construction of housing that would meet University-related student demand, ranging from dormitories to rooming houses.

The project would be consistent with purposes A and B, in that it would create 3 permitted dwelling units, in a location that is within easy walking distance of the University campus, and the Telegraph and Shattuck Avenue commercial districts. The amount of useable open space would vary by dwelling unit, with 365 sq. ft. on the ground floor unit (plus 255 sq. ft. of additional space under a covered front porch), 674 sq. ft. on the second floor unit (front and rear balconies), and 228 sq. ft. for the third floor unit (front and rear balconies). Since the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 200 sq. ft. of useable open space per dwelling unit, all three units would meet the open space requirement.

Purpose D may not apply directly to triplexes, the housing type that is proposed in this application, but it may be relevant to the Board’s consideration of the project. This is because the design appears to be more targeted toward students than toward families. This is evident in the floor layout that calls for 5 bedrooms (and 3 baths) in each unit, and the building layout that places the entrances to the upper story units at the back of the structure, away from the street frontage. These design characteristics, which staff believes would be unusual for dwelling units targeted toward nuclear families, may be more appropriate in this Zoning District, where housing focused toward the student market is specifically encouraged, by Purpose D.

Accordingly, staff believes that the Board can make the finding that the change of use would be consistent with the purposes of the R-3 Zoning District and would not be detrimental to the qualities of the immediate neighborhood.

B. Height and Bulk of the Proposed Design: The R-3 Zoning regulations require a Use

Permit for residential additions that exceed 16 feet in height, up to the District limit. The proposed design would increase the height of the front elevation by approximately 18 feet, while the height of the rear would increase by about 19 feet. To accommodate this, the Board must approve a Use Permit under Section 23D.36.070 C, and make the appropriate findings, including the finding that the design will not be detrimental to adjacent properties, the surrounding area or the neighborhood.



With the larger second and third floors and deceased roof pitch, the building would have a much greater bulk. From the front it would appear much taller, with full width second and third stories, a large balcony on the second floor, and a smaller balcony on the third floor. The increase in bulk would also be very apparent from the north and south sides. The apartment building to the north (2500 Dana) is only 12 feet away from the project, and the increased bulk would further shade the walkways and apartment entrances on the second and third floors. Two or three of the apartments would lose most of their direct access to sunlight for much of the year, as the roofline of the project would extend above the roof of their building. This impact would affect several more of the apartments, except they are already shaded by the trees on their site. The pruning of these trees (where they overhang the project site) will be required in order to construct the proposed addition, which, in turn, may marginally increase the sunlight exposure in one or two other apartments at 2500 Dana.

The increased bulk of the project would have less effect on the building to the south (2508 Dana) because it would experience little or no shading impact and none of its useable open areas (front yard and back yard) would be adjacent to the project’s higher walls.

To deny the Use Permit for a major residential addition, the Board would have to find that the proposed addition would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views. While there would be reduced access to sunlight along the second and third floor walkways at 2500 Dana, and to the windows of two to three apartments along those walkways, staff believes that this would not be an unreasonable obstruction considering the circumstances in which the walkways and apartment entrances were designed and built to face the side yard with a small (8 foot) setback.1 To ensure that sunlight access reductions are minimized, staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to thin and prune the tree cover overhanging the project site, so as to both facilitate construction and increase sun exposure on the adjacent units at 2500 Dana.

Staff believes that the Board can make the findings related to views and air because the increased height and bulk of the project would not affect any important views available from surrounding buildings, and it would not decrease any existing setbacks such that the air circulation to and around adjacent buildings would be impaired.

C. Expansion of a Non-Conforming Structure and Extension of Non-Conforming

Setbacks: The existing residential structure was built before Berkeley had a Zoning Ordinance and, to the extent that it does not conform to the development standards of the current zoning, it is a legal non-conforming building. The Zoning Ordinance, section 23C.04.070, allows additions and enlargements of legal non-conforming structures that comply with applicable laws, if the existing use of the property is conforming. Since the use has been residential, and would continue to be residential, the enlargement of the structure could be approved, subject to necessary Use Permits.

Approval would require three use permits under Section 23C.04.070: A Use Permit to allow the enlargement of a lawful non-conforming structure where the enlargement does not increase the non-conforming lot coverage; a Use Permit to allow the horizontal extension of a non-conforming 3rd floor side yard setback; and a Use Permit to allow a vertical extension

1 It is noted that the apartment windows facing the walkways are high and small, and do not appear to be a

major source of sunlight or outside views for the occupants. (This can be seen in the Rear Yard View (See Figure 6, above). The apartment’s primary viewing windows appear to overlook Dwight Way, on the other side of the building.


of the front porch, a portion of the building that encroaches into the required front yard setback.

The existing structures cover 53.56% of the lot, while the R-3 zoning regulations allow a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Although the proposed design would decrease the lot coverage to 50.18% by removing the garage and former laundry room, it would still be over 40% and would require a Use Permit under Section 23C.04.070 C. This section links lot coverage with height, and prohibits the enlargement of a structure that would exceed both the allowable lot coverage and allowable height limit. While the average maximum height of the project is proposed to increase from 19’7” to 31’9”, it would not exceed the height requirement, which permits an average maximum height of 35 feet. Accordingly, the Board would be able to allow the enlargement of the structure with a lot coverage of 50.18% under Section 23C.04.070 C.

Section 23C.04.070 B addresses the enlargement of structures that vertically or horizontally extend non-conforming yard setbacks. The existing structure at 2504 Dana is set back approximately 4’1” from the north property line. This would conform to the zoning code with respect to the first and second floors, where a setback of 4 feet is required, but not with respect to the 3rd floor where a 6-foot setback is required, per section 23D.36.070 D. The enlargement of the 3rd floor, which would extend horizontally about 6 feet in each direction at the floor level and 16 feet in each direction at the ceiling level, would substantially increase the bulk of the building at the 3rd floor, reducing the access to sky and sunlight from a portion of the adjoining apartment building (2500 Dana). The effects of this are assessed above with regard to the project’s height and bulk, where it is noted that there would be reduced access to open sky and sunlight along the second and third floor walkways at 2500 Dana, and to the windows of two to three apartments along those walkways. As noted, staff believes that this would not be an unreasonable obstruction under the circumstances of this project and site, and notes that a condition has been included to require pruning and thinning of the landscape trees that currently shade several of the units whose access to sun and sky would be reduced by the enlarged 3rd floor.

Section 23C.04.070 B is also applicable in considering the proposed vertical extension of the existing front porch, to create a balcony on the second floor, which would become available open space for the second floor unit. Currently, the front wall of the building is set back more than 17 feet from the property line, and would meet the required front yard setback of 15 feet, were it not for the front porch. The concrete porch and metal porch roof extend the width of the building and are approximately 10 feet deep, thereby encroaching more than 7 feet into the required front yard.2 The project plans call for replacing the metal porch roof with a constructed porch roof/balcony of the same width and depth.

The replacement of the front porch and its vertical extension to make it a balcony for the second level may be authorized subject to a Use Permit under Section 23C.04.070 B, assuming that the affected structure is legal. Staff notes that the metal awning above the porch was not a part of the original structure, but was added in 1957, after the home’s original porch, which was setback more than 17 feet, was incorporated into the first floor living space. Because the front porch was a permitted addition to the home, Staff believes that the Board could approve a Use Permit for its vertical extension. However, staff notes that the added on porch and aluminum awning protrudes further into the front yard setback than any of the other porches or entryways on the remaining former homes found on the

2 The survey shows that the building is not perfectly aligned with the property lines. On the north side the

building is 17’ 10” from the front property line, while on the south side it is 17’ 2.5” from the front property line. Accordingly the front porch encroaches into the front yard setback by 7’ 2” on the north side and 7’ 9.5” on the south side.



west side of the 2500 block of Dana, and that none of the other porches extend the full width of the respective buildings. This group of buildings is a noteworthy assemblage of well preserved and nicely restored early 20th century homes, and provide an important context for the proposed project.3 Staff believes that allowing the full width of the front porch to remain and to allow its vertical extension to create a large second floor balcony would be detrimental to the character and quality of this noteworthy streetscape, and thus recommends a condition of approval to limit the width of the front porch to no more than 60% of the building width (approximately 22 feet) so as to reduce the amount of encroachment into the front yard setback, and to present a building façade that is more consistent with other buildings of the same vintage that are on the block. Staff envisions that the front yard space opened up by removal of a portion of the concreted porch would be devoted to landscaping. Staff also feels that the depth of the porch could feasibly be reduced so as to provide a 10-foot setback from the front property line and that removal of the balcony over the 3rd level deck would simplify the design and improve the façade’s aesthetics. Recognizing that these changes will affect the available open space for the second floor unit, staff recommends that the Board require modifications to the design to ensure that the open space requirements for all the units can be met, subject to approval by the Zoning Officer (please refer to Condition #10).

D. 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 proposed project is an infill project that would repair, renovate and enlarge an existing residential structure that is in poor condition and has a history of building code violations. It would provide multi-family housing, geared toward the student market, which is consistent with the neighborhood and neighboring land uses. While the design would retain the existing structure’s footprint, the architecture would be substantially changed, leaving only a few recognizable links to the well-preserved row of early 20th century homes immediately to the south.

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: Consistency with the applicable zoning standards is evaluated above. The project would be compatible with the scale and land uses of the surrounding area in that it would provide additional residential space in a building that would be larger than some of its neighbors and smaller than others.

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

3 A photo of this row of homes is included in the Southside Area Plan as an illustration of typical housing stock in

the RMD subarea.


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 design character of the immediate neighborhood is very diverse, with many buildings dating back to the early 20th century, when the area was first developed, inter-mixed with apartment buildings that were constructed 50 to 70 years later. There are also many examples of early single-family homes that have been converted into multi-family structures, as is proposed with this project. Accordingly, the project, which involves the conversion of a former single- family structure into a triplex, would reinforce a pattern of development that is common in the neighborhood and would be consistent with the context and character of the area.

5. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Staff Analysis: The enlargement of the second and third floors of the existing building would increase shading and decrease solar access to a portion of the adjoining 3-story apartment building to the north, which was built 12 feet away from the project. These issues are addressed above in section V, A 2.

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 proposed project would create additional housing opportunities in a building that was formerly housing, but cannot be legally occupied at the present time.

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 applicants have competed a Green Building Analysis, and have computed a whole building score of 57, where the minimum is 50.

E. Southside Area Plan Policy Analysis: The Southside Area Plan, adopted in 2011, also contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. Policy LU-A4: Encourage and promote the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing

housing in the area, especially older buildings with architectural and/or historic merit. 2. Policy LU-F3: Conserve, rehabilitate and improve the maintenance of existing housing in

the Residential Subareas. Staff Analysis: The project involves the rehabilitation of an older residential building in the R-3 Residential Subarea, which is deteriorated to the point where it can no longer be legally inhabited.

3. Policy CC-F2: Encourage tree and other landscape plantings on private properties, particularly in front yards, with an emphasis on native tree species. However, plantings should not be located or allowed to grow so as to interfere with sidewalk lighting.



Staff Analysis: The project site currently contains no landscape plantings. A condition of approval has been added to require plantings in the front yard setback.

4. Policy CC-F8: Take into account shading impacts on adjacent structures and sidewalks in reviews of building design in an effort to allow as much natural light as possible.

Staff Analysis: The shading impacts of the proposed project are assessed in the analysis of Key Issues, 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: A. APPROVE the following Use Permits for Application 12-1000025, pursuant to Section

23B.32.040 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1):

A Use Permit to create three dwelling units, under BMC Section 23D.36.030; A Use Permit to allow residential additions exceeding 16 feet in height, under BMC

Section 23D.36.070 C; A Use Permit to allow the enlargement of a lawful non-conforming structure, under BMC

Section 23C.04.070; A Use Permit to allow the horizontal extension of a non-conforming 3rd floor side yard

setback under Section 23C.04.070 B.

B. APPROVE a Use Permit to allow the vertical extension of a non-conforming front yard set back, under Section 23C.04.070 D, subject to the Condition that the project design be modified so that the front porch and balcony shall not cover more than 60% of the width of the building and that the front yard space opened up as a result shall be landscaped.

Attachments:

1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, received August 31, 2012 3. Notice of Public Hearing 4. Selected Building Records

Staff Planner: Greg Powell, [email protected] , (510) 981-7414; Consulting Planner: Doug Donaldson, [email protected] (510) 528-3684

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2504 dana street - berkeley, california · 2504 dana street zoning adjustments board page 2 of 16...

Documents