A. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).

Transcription

1 L A N D M A R K S P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N S t a f f R e p o r t FOR COMMISSION ACTION NOVEMBER 5, Greenwood Common Structural Alteration Permit LM # for a voluntary seismic upgrade and, within the existing footprint, to excavate an existing basement area to create additional floor space and install a new door and other features, including skylights; (Prepared by Jay Claiborne, Acting Secretary) I. Application Basics A. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation). B. Parties Involved: Architect Property Owner Bennett Christopherson, AIA; Design Studio, 6101 Colby Street, Oakland, CA Nancy & James Russell, 2 Greenwood Common, Berkeley, CA Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: rmeyerson@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 Page 2 of 8 November 5, 2009 Figure 1: Vicinity Map

3 2 GREENWOOD COMMON November 5, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Figure 2: Site Plan

4 Page 4 of 8 November 5, 2009 Table 1: Project Chronology Date Action Sept 2, 2009 Oct 2, 2009 Oct 15, 2009 Nov 5, 2009 Application submitted Application deemed complete Public hearing notices mailed/posted LPC hearing Dec 2, 2009 [?] PSA deadline 1 Project must be approved or denied within 60 days after being deemed complete if exempt from CEQA, or 60 days after adoption of a negative declaration, or 180 days after adoption of an EIR (Govt. Code Section 65950). II. Background Greenwood Common, located off Greenwood Terrace between Buena Vista Way and Rose Street in North Berkeley and defined by Lots #1-10 and the open space between them was designated a City-designated Landmark on March 19, The Notice of Decision lists the following character-defining features: An example of a designed landscape which incorporates as an integral part thereof, residential buildings as conceived of by William Wurster, then Dean of the College of Environmental Design at the University of California, Berkeley and designed by the prominent landscape architect, Lawrence Halprin; The eight residential buildings designed by a group of prominent California architects, including, #1 Donald Olsen(1955), #2 Robert Klemmedson (1957), #3 Joseph Esherick (1954), #4 Harwell Hamilton Harris (1954), #7 Rudolph Schindler (1932), #8 Howard Moises (1953), #9 Henry Hill (1954), and #10 John Funk (1952); The most significant and integrated example of the Second Bay Tradition design philosophy in the City of Berkeley and a prototype of the Second Bay Tradition architectural and landscape design movement in the Bay Area and California Low maintenance gardens, native and exotic plants (flowering plum trees and juniper), textured concrete surfaces embedded with gravel or small rocks, unpainted fences and structures which open onto gardens; Structures stained in subdued earth tones, often with window trim of unstained redwood but sometimes featuring earthtone paint, tar and gravel or shake roofs often flat or slightly gabled or sloping, creating a unique design relationship between the houses and the landscape Built in 1957, #2 Greenwood Common was lived in by the original owners until 2008 when it was acquired by the current owners. During this time, no permanent changes inside or out have been made to the property. After acquiring the property, the current owners made application for a Mills Act contract, which was approved by the City in December 2008.

5 2 GREENWOOD COMMON November 5, 2009 Page 5 of 8 III. Project Description (taken from the applicant statement) The applicant proposes to: 1. Bring structure up to modern standards for seismic resistance as outlined in the Renovation and Rehabilitation plan submitted to the LPC and the City as part of the Mills Act contract application; 2. Construct a shear wall supporting a collector beam at the rear of the building and a manufactured shear panel supporting a collector beam at the front, both of which will be concealed within the roof framing; 3. On the rear façade, install stacked, double-sided plywood sheathed shear walls, six feet wide to replace existing glass windows and sliding doors in the master bedroom closet/dressing area and, directly above, in lieu of a glass and siding area at the upper floor half-bath, where a window is replaced with a skylight; 4. Finish an area high on the wall at each level, where original hopper vents are located, in a horizontal band of matching natural wood to continue the line of the hoper vents, matching the appearance of adjacent panels; 5. Add two additional skylights to serve the kitchen area, centered in the six-fot rhythm of the existing modular layout and aligned with the existing half-bath skylight (the small scale of the skylights is typical for residences built in the 1950s and, located on the back side of the low-slope roof, will not be readily visible either the front or back ground levels; 6. Convert an unexcavated area under the living room to create a family room and a laundry/storage room; 7. Replace an existing storage room door on the west façade of the basement area with a pair of glazed doors leading to the sideyard; 8. Provide a screen wall installation of the east façade under the existing ramp to conceal an on grade storage area; and 9. Replace existing, deteriorated privacy screens, fences and gates added over time by the previous owner with consistently designed screening that matches the original 50% open vertical slat fence that encloses the south and west sides of the living room courtyard. IV. Issues and Analysis The project is located within a Historic District and is under a Mills Act contract. Comment: The structural alterations for seismic upgrade, as described in the applicant s statement, require introduction of additional shear wall areas and structural beams. These changes are designed to create minimal visual change to the interior. The alterations to the exterior resulting from elimination of several large paned window areas to provide shear wall structure are restricted to the north facing elevation on the opposite side of the Common and are under an extended deck and roof overhang. The new glazed doors for the expanded basement space lead to a sideyard which is not highly visible from the Common. The added skylights are on the north facing roof slope and are not visible from the Common and only minimally so from the ground level at the rear.

6 Page 6 of 8 November 5, 2009 The expanded basement area is entirely below grade and does not change the visual character of the residential building. The submitted plans (See Project Plans, Attachment 2) show the expanded space partitioned into a family room and a storage/laundry room. There is some concern that the basement space could potentially be used as a separate, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), requiring an Administrative Use Permit. If an ADU is not planned, the recordation of a Deed Restriction may be required to make is clear that such a use is not being approved as part of the project. Staff has identified the following relevant criteria pertinent to this project from the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Review Standards and Criteria (Section C) 1. For permit applications for construction, alteration or repair: a. For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district. Comment: The proposed alterations are in keeping with the criteria for a historic district.. b. For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation. Comment: The subject property is not a structure of merit. The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Comment: The building will not undergo any significant architectural changes to continue its most recent use as a single unit residential home. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Comment: The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. The new work will restore, rehabilitate, or replace, where required, portions of the historic

7 2 GREENWOOD COMMON November 5, 2009 Page 7 of 8 building, including windows, wood trim, screening materials, and skylights. The characteristic features, spaces, and spatial relationships associated with the architectural style of the building will be preserved. 2. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Comment: The proposed project will not lead to any changes that will create a false sense of historical development. 3. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Comment: The proposed project will not affect any changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right. 4. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Comment: The required alterations and repairs to the exterior of the building will not affect any distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. In the case of screening material, non-characteristic materials are being removed and replaced with materials and a pattern in keeping with the original character. 5. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Comment: The home has been kept in good repair and there are no deteriorated historic features proposed for removal. The screening that is deteriorated will be replaced to match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. 6. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 1. Comment: Chemical or physical treatments will be used on the interior of the building to clean the existing masonry and wood trusses. All treatments will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to the historic materials will not be used. 7. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

8 Page 8 of 8 November 5, 2009 Comment: There are no known archaeological resources located at this site. 8. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Comment: The new addition is a basement level excavation under the existing ground floor living room and does not add to the existing footprint of the home. The only increase in footprint is a small excavation to serve the glazed doors to the west sideyard. 9. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Comment: The proposed restoration, rehabilitation, and new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. V. Recommendation Because the proposal will not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark nor the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the building and its contribution to the Greenwood Common Historic District, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting and because it meets the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation, Staff recommends approval of the request pursuant to Section and subject to the attached findings (see Attachment 1). Additionally, Staff recommends that any further details and/or alterations be brought back to the LPC or a designated subcommittee for direction and approval. Attachments: 1. Draft findings 2. Project plans, date stamped September 2, Landmark Designation Notice of Decision (NOD) 4. Public Hearing Notice Staff Planner: Jay Claiborne, jclaiborne@ci.berkeley.ca.us, (510)