ATTACHMENT 3 ZAB Page 1 of 21

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 21 From: John Tombari [mailto:jtombari9@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 02, :56 PM To: Planning Dept. Mailbox <Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us> Cc: ebrto@aol.com; John Tombari <jtombari9@gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Development at 2732 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA We are writing regarding the above referenced project located at 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley. Our mother owns and lives in the house next door at 2800 Piedmont Ave. I have called and spoken with the Owner of the property at 2732 Stuart, David Chow, and his Architect and reviewed our concerns with them. Based on the plans that they have prepared, we respectfully submit the following comments: Proximity of the second floor addition to the our house at 2800 Piedmont o Per City Zoning Code section 23D Development Standards, Table D the 4ft sideyard setback on their property to the new second floor addition would preclude any similar extension to our home based on a required distance separation of 12ft between structures which may not be able to be accommodated. The calculation of the overall size of the home vs. the allowable lot coverage ratios o Per City Zoning Code section 23D Development Standards, Table E, the maximum lot coverage is 40% and per the data on the plans submitted they are requesting 50% lot coverage ratio which is not in compliance with the Code. o It is noted in the data tabulation that they are reducing the coverage ratio from 55% to 50%. I do not understand how this is possible if the footprint of the home and overall area are both increasing. Per the Architect, this is being accomplished by removing the old deck, whereas, the definition of Lot Coverage (Section 23D of the Zoning Code) excludes "uncovered decks, porches, landings and stairs. Therefore, the demolition of the existing deck noted on the drawings does not reduce the lot coverage ratio. o This appears to be a non-conforming condition and request in either case. Useable open space o Per the City Zoning Code 23D Development Standards, Section F, there is a minimum requirement of 400SF of open space Per the tabulation chart they are only providing 302SF. Again, this does not appear to meet the minimum Code requirement. Parking and use of the garage as habitable space o Due to the addition of french doors in the back of the garage, and drywall finishes within the garage, we are led to believe that the intent is to create additional habitable space within the garage. This would effectively eliminate the parking space required under Code section 23E for Off- Street Parking and Loading Requirements. The existing 5

2 These are small lots and, as neighbors, we feel that the proposed modifications are over-building on this lot especially in light of the prescribed minimum Code requirements which are not being met. John and Ric Tombari driveway may be too short to accommodate the parking space Page 2 of 21 within the property line as required by Code. 6

3 Page 3 of 21 To: Cc: Subject: John Tombari ebrto@aol.com; alfie949@comcast.net RE: Proposed Development at 2732 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA From: John Tombari [mailto:jtombari9@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 02, :56 PM To: Planning Dept. Mailbox <Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us> Cc: ebrto@aol.com; John Tombari <jtombari9@gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Development at 2732 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA We are writing regarding the above referenced project located at 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley. Our mother owns and lives in the house next door at 2800 Piedmont Ave. I have called and spoken with the Owner of the property at 2732 Stuart, David Chow, and his Architect and reviewed our concerns with them. Based on the plans that they have prepared, we respectfully submit the following comments: Proximity of the second floor addition to the our house at 2800 Piedmont o Per City Zoning Code section 23D Development Standards, Table D the 4ft sideyard setback on their property to the new second floor addition would preclude any similar extension to our home based on a required distance separation of 12ft between structures which may not be able to be accommodated. The calculation of the overall size of the home vs. the allowable lot coverage ratios o Per City Zoning Code section 23D Development Standards, Table E, the maximum lot coverage is 40% and per the data on the plans submitted they are requesting 50% lot coverage ratio which is not in compliance with the Code. o It is noted in the data tabulation that they are reducing the coverage ratio from 55% to 50%. I do not understand how this is possible if the footprint of the home and overall area are both increasing. Per the Architect, this is being accomplished by removing the old deck, whereas, the definition of Lot Coverage (Section 23D of the Zoning Code) excludes "uncovered decks, porches, landings and stairs. Therefore, the demolition of the existing deck noted on the drawings does not reduce the lot coverage ratio. o This appears to be a non-conforming condition and request in either case. Useable open space o Per the City Zoning Code 23D Development Standards, Section F, there is a minimum requirement of 400SF of open space Per the tabulation chart they are only providing 302SF. Again, this does not appear to meet the minimum Code requirement. Parking and use of the garage as habitable space o Due to the addition of french doors in the back of the garage, and drywall finishes within the garage, we are led to believe that the intent is to create additional habitable space within the garage. This would effectively eliminate the parking space required under Code section 23E for Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. The existing driveway may be too short to accommodate the parking space within the property line as required by Code. These are small lots and, as neighbors, we feel that the proposed modifications are over-building on this lot especially in light of the prescribed minimum Code requirements which are not being met. 1

4 John and Ric Tombari Page 4 of 21 2

5 Page 5 of 21 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: John Tombari <jtombari9@gmail.com> Friday, September 02, :30 PM ebrto@aol.com; alfie949@comcast.net Re: Proposed Development at 2732 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA High Immanuel, If you have sent me anything since you responded to my in January you must have sent it to the wrong address. I will review your comments and get back to you. Thanks for sharing this with me. John Tombari On Sep 2, 2016, at 10:12 AM, <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us> wrote: Good morning Tombari, I am writing this e mail to inform you that the Planning Department will forward this application to the Zoning Adjustments Board with a positive recommendation. I have previously sent requesting if you can contact me, but no response has been received as of today. In any event, the below clarifies some of the questions you ve raised. If you d like to discuss with me in detail the content of this or the project, please feel free to contact me at (510) or via at ibereket@cityofberkeley.info This is a follow up to your . In compliance with Berkeley Municipal Code 23D (D), the proposed second story addition maintains four feet side yard setback. The building separation requirements apply to buildings on the same parcel. The proposed addition would not preclude a future addition you may pursue. The parcel is lawfully non conforming for lot coverage. Because the addition is over existing footprint (garage), it does not change the lot coverage. The addition does not change the lot coverage in any way shape or form. o The City definition of lot coverage is located in BMC 23F (Definition) and has been reproduced in its entirety below: o Coverage Area: All the area of a lot, as projected on a horizontal plane, which is enclosed by the exterior walls of buildings or enclosed Accessory Structures; or covered by decks, porches, stairs and/or landings which cover an enclosed space or paved ground area. Also see Section 23D Because the decks they re removing cover paved ground area, it is considered reduction in lot coverage. So, the overall project would in fact reduce lot coverage by 5% by removing the decks in the rear and would also increase rear yard setback from the existing five feet to 1o feet, which is still lawfully non conforming since the district minimum requirements is 20 feet. Useable open space: The parcel is lawfully non conforming for lot coverage. However, the addition and the proposed improvement do not change reduce usable open space. Parking and Use of the garage as habitable space: 1

6 o The proposed floor plan for the garage shows use of space as a garage even though Page it has 6 of 21 a French door in the rear. o The City s approval would condition this application that the garage shall not be insulated to ensure the use of the space continues to be a garage. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Immanuel Bereket Immanuel Bereket Associate Planner City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA (510) ibereket@cityofberkeley.info From: John Tombari [mailto:jtombari9@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 02, :56 PM To: Planning Dept. Mailbox <Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us> Cc: ebrto@aol.com; John Tombari <jtombari9@gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Development at 2732 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA We are writing regarding the above referenced project located at 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley. Our mother owns and lives in the house next door at 2800 Piedmont Ave. I have called and spoken with the Owner of the property at 2732 Stuart, David Chow, and his Architect and reviewed our concerns with them. Based on the plans that they have prepared, we respectfully submit the following comments: Proximity of the second floor addition to the our house at 2800 Piedmont o Per City Zoning Code section 23D Development Standards, Table D the 4ft sideyard setback on their property to the new second floor addition would preclude any similar extension to our home based on a required distance separation of 12ft between structures which may not be able to be accommodated. The calculation of the overall size of the home vs. the allowable lot coverage ratios o Per City Zoning Code section 23D Development Standards, Table E, the maximum lot coverage is 40% and per the data on the plans submitted they are requesting 50% lot coverage ratio which is not in compliance with the Code. o It is noted in the data tabulation that they are reducing the coverage ratio from 55% to 50%. I do not understand how this is possible if the footprint of the home and overall area are both increasing. Per the Architect, this is being accomplished by removing the old deck, whereas, the definition of Lot Coverage (Section 23D of the Zoning Code) excludes "uncovered decks, porches, landings and stairs. Therefore, the demolition of the existing deck noted on the drawings does not reduce the lot coverage ratio. o This appears to be a non-conforming condition and request in either case. Useable open space 2

7 o Per the City Zoning Code 23D Development Standards, Section Page F, 7 of 21 there is a minimum requirement of 400SF of open space Per the tabulation chart they are only providing 302SF. Again, this does not appear to meet the minimum Code requirement. Parking and use of the garage as habitable space o Due to the addition of french doors in the back of the garage, and drywall finishes within the garage, we are led to believe that the intent is to create additional habitable space within the garage. This would effectively eliminate the parking space required under Code section 23E for Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. The existing driveway may be too short to accommodate the parking space within the property line as required by Code. These are small lots and, as neighbors, we feel that the proposed modifications are over-building on this lot especially in light of the prescribed minimum Code requirements which are not being met. John and Ric Tombari 3

8 Page 8 of 21 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: John Tombari <jtombari9@gmail.com> Monday, September 05, :07 PM ebrto@aol.com; alfie949@comcast.net Re: Proposed Development at 2732 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA _Inc ltr_ 2732 Stuart Street.pdf High Immanuel, With regard to your responses please note the following: 1. Your determination regarding lot coverage is inconsistent with the Code. The applicant s plans have increased the lot coverage in excess of the allowable 40% maximum. Not all of the area beneath the existing decks os paved. 2. The amount of open space does not comply with the minimum Code requirement and, contrary to your statement, the new design does reduce the useable open space. 3. It is obvious that the intent is to use the Garage as a habitable space based on the addition of french doors and connection of the design to the remainder of the house. This is not allowed by Code. 4. Per your letter to Mr Chow dated 12/22/15 (attached) you reviewed the plans submitted and "determined that the following items are needed to complete our review of your application - How have each of these issues been specifically addressed? o 1. Shadow Studies: Please submit a shadow study to meet the Land Use Planning Division s complete requirements. Step-by-step instructions for shadow studies may be found at deline%20iii.a.7%20shadow%20study%20instructions.pdf One of the findings staff must make in order to support an addition above 14 feet is that the proposed addition, although satisfies all other applicable development standards, would not obstruct sunlight, air or views (BMC 23D ). 2. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 (A): Please prepare and submit a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 (A) form for the project. The 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: planning@cityofberkeley.info o o Via Transmission Only: dciao2000@yahoo.com 1

9 Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. page1image17640 Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. page1image17960 Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. page1image17800 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. page1image18120 Page 9 of 21 o o 2732 Stuart St (ZP ) Page 2 of 3 o DPR 523 form should provide a historic record and evaluation of the structure, along with background information on the structure so as to determine whether not the building eligible for registry with the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. o This documentation is required in order to Categorically exempt the proposed project pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines ( In-Fill Development Projects ). To do so, we have to ensure 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 2

10 site pursuant to Government Code Section , and (f) the project will Page not affect 10 of any 21 historical resource. 3. Garage: Per BMC 23D , the property must provide one off-street parking. The existing garage satisfies this requirement. However, the proposed alteration to the garage doors appears to change the use of the garage from a garage to habitable space. Please provide garage door (opening) dimensions on the north elevation so as to ensure its use as a garage space. Please note parking in the required front yard setback requires an AUP under BMC Section 23D B. 4. Sheet 3: Please label all new and existing windows on all elevations. 5. Sheet 3 (east elevation): Due to privacy concerns, please identify window material of all new opening above 14-ft. It is strongly recommended the new windows on the second floor on east elevation consist of translucent material so as to reduce privacy concerns. I note the neighbor to the east has expressed a concern regarding the addition. The Use Permit application will be on hold pending the submittal of the requested materials. If you do not respond within 60 days of the date of this letter, your application may be deemed withdrawn and materials will be sent back to you. Please call me at (510) or me at ibereket@cityofberkeley.info if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Immanuel Bereket Associate Planner CC: File, ZP On Sep 2, 2016, at 4:29 PM, John Tombari <jtombari9@gmail.com> wrote: Immanuel, If you have sent me anything since you responded to my in January you must have sent it to the wrong address. I will review your comments and get back to you. Thanks for sharing this with me. John Tombari On Sep 2, 2016, at 10:12 AM, <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us> wrote: Good morning Tombari, I am writing this e mail to inform you that the Planning Department will forward this application to the Zoning Adjustments Board with a positive recommendation. I have previously sent requesting if you can contact me, but no response has been 3

11 received as of today. In any event, the below clarifies some of the questions Page 11 of 21 you ve raised. If you d like to discuss with me in detail the content of this or the project, please feel free to contact me at (510) or via at ibereket@cityofberkeley.info This is a follow up to your . In compliance with Berkeley Municipal Code 23D (D), the proposed second story addition maintains four feet side yard setback. The building separation requirements apply to buildings on the same parcel. The proposed addition would not preclude a future addition you may pursue. The parcel is lawfully non conforming for lot coverage. Because the addition is over existing footprint (garage), it does not change the lot coverage. The addition does not change the lot coverage in any way shape or form. o The City definition of lot coverage is located in BMC 23F (Definition) and has been reproduced in its entirety below: o Coverage Area: All the area of a lot, as projected on a horizontal plane, which is enclosed by the exterior walls of buildings or enclosed Accessory Structures; or covered by decks, porches, stairs and/or landings which cover an enclosed space or paved ground area. Also see Section 23D Because the decks they re removing cover paved ground area, it is considered reduction in lot coverage. So, the overall project would in fact reduce lot coverage by 5% by removing the decks in the rear and would also increase rear yard setback from the existing five feet to 1o feet, which is still lawfully non conforming since the district minimum requirements is 20 feet. Useable open space: The parcel is lawfully non conforming for lot coverage. However, the addition and the proposed improvement do not change reduce usable open space. Parking and Use of the garage as habitable space: o The proposed floor plan for the garage shows use of space as a garage even though it has a French door in the rear. o The City s approval would condition this application that the garage shall not be insulated to ensure the use of the space continues to be a garage. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Immanuel Bereket Immanuel Bereket Associate Planner City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA (510) ibereket@cityofberkeley.info 4

12 To: Subject: Page 12 of 21 Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) RE: 2732 Stuart Street addition: notice of public hearing not sent until after the hearing From: Karen Meckstroth Sent: Sunday, September 11, :43 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Cc: Mike Linn Subject: 2732 Stuart Street addition: notice of public hearing not sent until after the hearing Correction with address. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Karen Meckstroth wrote: Dear Berkeley Zoning Board, Months ago, we sent our objection to our neighbor's proposed addition on his small lot and the notice for the public hearing was not postmarked until the day of the hearing and we did not receive it until Saturday after the hearing on Thursday. This does not meet standards for a public hearing and it needs to be repeated. Our other neighbor also submitted complaints, so I have cc'd him as well. Sincerely, Karen Meckstroth & Mike Linn 1

13 Page 13 of 21 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Karen Meckstroth Thursday, September 15, :09 PM Re: Project application for 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley Dear Mr. Bereket, That is a summary of our concerns since we cannot speak to the building codes. We hope that the codes in Berkeley exist to protect the value of homes and the experience of neighbors when someone requests to greatly expand their home on a very small lot where the homes are already very close. We will send a couple photos to demonstrate the dramatic change we would experience if he builds this addition. Thank you, Karen & Mike From: "" <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us> To: "karenrme@yahoo.com" <karenrme@yahoo.com> Cc: "'mbrianlinn@yahoo.com'" <mbrianlinn@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, :01 PM Subject: Project application for 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley Good afternoon Ms. Meckstroth: The attached is the only communication I received from you prior to today s . This will be part of the documentation that will go to the Zoning Adjustments Board. If there are additional documents you d like us to include, please let me know. Regards, Immanuel Bereket Immanuel Bereket Associate Planner City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA (510) ibereket@cityofberkeley.info 1

14 To: Subject: Page 14 of 21 Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) RE: 2732 Stuart Street addition: notice of public hearing not sent until after the hearing From: Karen Meckstroth Sent: Sunday, September 11, :43 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Cc: Mike Linn Subject: 2732 Stuart Street addition: notice of public hearing not sent until after the hearing Correction with address. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Karen Meckstroth wrote: Dear Berkeley Zoning Board, Months ago, we sent our objection to our neighbor's proposed addition on his small lot and the notice for the public hearing was not postmarked until the day of the hearing and we did not receive it until Saturday after the hearing on Thursday. This does not meet standards for a public hearing and it needs to be repeated. Our other neighbor also submitted complaints, so I have cc'd him as well. Sincerely, Karen Meckstroth & Mike Linn 1

15 Page 15 of 21 From: Karen Meckstroth Sent: Thursday, February 25, :06 AM To: Planning Dept. Mailbox Cc: Mike Linn Subject: Project application for 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley Dear Mr. Bereket, We live behind the property owned by David Chow and have owned this house for over 13 years. David met with us about his proposed addition and we discussed our concerns with him and noted with our signature that we have objections to the project. We offered to help pay for new plans if he was willing to avoid building almost 25 feet above his garage. We understand that his neighbors on each side have objections and have submitted them to the city as well. We would love for David to have a house that allows him to be happy and encourages him to care for it. We are particularly concerned that he is greatly expanding the size of his house which is very close proximity to our house. His new addition will have a bedroom that is directly across from our 12-year-old daughter s bedroom upstairs, which now faces sky and trees. We are concerned about privacy and view from upstairs. Our other concern is the experience from our main living area, our kitchen. We spend much of our family time in the kitchen, since both of like to cook. Currently, our double window faces sky and trees, the only gap between very close homes on that side and it aligns with our window, as was likely planned 100 years ago. Although his home is to the north and will not shadow direct light, it will dramatically change our experience of having sky and trees out our window to being completely surrounded by walls. We realize that your decision balances many interests. We have heard from friends who are architects about various building size regulations that David is trying to work around. We have also heard that there is more concern about expanding dwellings over space that is not currently part of the home, like his garage. Although we do not understand the details of the regulations, we hope you will include our concerns in your decision. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Karen Meckstroth & Michael Linn 2804 Piedmont Ave. Berkeley 94705

16 Page 16 of 21 From: Karen Meckstroth Sent: Thursday, February 25, :06 AM To: Planning Dept. Mailbox Cc: Mike Linn Subject: Project application for 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley Dear Mr. Bereket, We live behind the property owned by David Chow and have owned this house for over 13 years. David met with us about his proposed addition and we discussed our concerns with him and noted with our signature that we have objections to the project. We offered to help pay for new plans if he was willing to avoid building almost 25 feet above his garage. We understand that his neighbors on each side have objections and have submitted them to the city as well. We would love for David to have a house that allows him to be happy and encourages him to care for it. We are particularly concerned that he is greatly expanding the size of his house which is very close proximity to our house. His new addition will have a bedroom that is directly across from our 12-year-old daughter s bedroom upstairs, which now faces sky and trees. We are concerned about privacy and view from upstairs. Our other concern is the experience from our main living area, our kitchen. We spend much of our family time in the kitchen, since both of like to cook. Currently, our double window faces sky and trees, the only gap between very close homes on that side and it aligns with our window, as was likely planned 100 years ago. Although his home is to the north and will not shadow direct light, it will dramatically change our experience of having sky and trees out our window to being completely surrounded by walls. We realize that your decision balances many interests. We have heard from friends who are architects about various building size regulations that David is trying to work around. We have also heard that there is more concern about expanding dwellings over space that is not currently part of the home, like his garage. Although we do not understand the details of the regulations, we hope you will include our concerns in your decision. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Karen Meckstroth & Michael Linn 2804 Piedmont Ave. Berkeley 94705

17 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Page 17 of 21 Karen Meckstroth Sunday, September 18, :30 PM Mike Linn Re: Project application for 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley 2732 Stuart proposed addition location-4.jpg; 2732 Stuart proposed addition location-3.jpg; 2732 Stuart proposed addition location-2.jpg; 2732 Stuart proposed addition location-1.jpg Dear Mr. Bereket, Please also include the attached photos to illustrate the impact of this proposed addition on our home. All of the primary windows on that side of our home (the side with the main living areas) are situated in the space between the two houses. This space would be eliminated by this addition and we would be surrounded by a solid wall that is taller than our house. Sincerely, Karen Meckstroth & Mike Linn 2804 Piedmont Ave. p.s. I can send larger files if that would be helpful. I made the files small to attach them to a single . From: "" <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us> To: "karenrme@yahoo.com" <karenrme@yahoo.com> Cc: "'mbrianlinn@yahoo.com'" <mbrianlinn@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, :01 PM Subject: Project application for 2732 Stuart Street in Berkeley Good afternoon Ms. Meckstroth: The attached is the only communication I received from you prior to today s . This will be part of the documentation that will go to the Zoning Adjustments Board. If there are additional documents you d like us to include, please let me know. Regards, Immanuel Bereket Immanuel Bereket Associate Planner City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA (510) ibereket@cityofberkeley.info 1

18 Page 18 of 21

19 Page 19 of 21

20 Page 20 of 21

21 Page 21 of 21