Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: June 8, 2012

Transcription

1 MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for Appeal of Montecito Board of Architectural Review s Preliminary and Final Design Approval and Director s Land Use Permit Approval of Big Red Properties, Inc. Accessory Structures and Landscaping Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: June 8, 2012 Division: Development Review Case Nos.: 12APL Supervising Planner: Anne Almy (11BAR & 11LUP ) Supervising Planner Phone #: Environmental Document: Exempt pursuant to Staff Contact: Brian Banks Section of the CEQA Guidelines Planner s Phone #: OWNER/APPLICANT: Big Red Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 5370 Santa Barbara, CA Phone: (805) OWNER/APPLICANT S AGENT: Steven Amerikaner Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 21 East Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA Phone: (805) APPELLANTS: Douglas and Fiona Stone 660 Stonehouse Lane Montecito, CA Phone: (805) Applications Submitted: December 12, 2011 MBAR granted Preliminary/Final Approval: May 21, 2012 Director approved Land Use Permit: May 29, 2012 Appeals Filed: May 30, 2012 The project site is identified as AP No , located at 2225 Featherhill Rd., Montecito Planning Area, First Supervisorial District. 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of Douglas and Fiona Stone, to consider the appeal, Case No. 12APL [appeal filed on May 30, 2012], of the decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review to grant Preliminary and Final Approval, Case No. 11BAR , and the decision of the Director to approve the Land Use Permit, Case No. 11LUP , for the Big Red Properties, Inc. Accessory Structures and Landscaping, in compliance with Chapter of the Montecito Land Use and Development Code on property located in the 2-E-1 zone. The application involves AP No , located at 2225 Featherhill Road, in the Montecito Area, First Supervisorial District.

2 Page RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeal, Case No. 12APL , and uphold the decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review to grant Preliminary and Final Approval to Case No. 11BAR , and the decision of the Director to approve the Land Use Permit, Case No. 11LUP , for the Big Red Properties Accessory Structures and Landscaping, marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara (June 8, 2012) Montecito Planning Commission Attachments A-F," based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Montecito Community Plan, and based on the ability to make the required findings. Your Commission's motion should include the following: 1. Deny the appeal, Case No. 12APL , thereby upholding the decisions of Montecito Board of Architectural Review and the Director to approve Case Nos. 11BAR and 11LUP Make the required findings for approval of the project specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings. 3. Determine that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303, included as Attachment C. 4. Approve the project Case Nos. 11BAR and 11LUP subject to the conditions included as Attachment B. Refer back to staff if your Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION This project is being considered by the Montecito Planning Commission based on Sections A.1.a and A.3.d of Montecito Land Use and Development Code, which state, respectively, that a decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) to grant Preliminary and Final Approval and a decision of the Director to approve a Land Use Permit may be appealed to the Montecito Planning Commission. 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The proposed project includes revisions to the previously approved landscape plan associated with Case No. 10LUP (approved August 12, 2010) and construction of new accessory structures including: a pool pavilion of 144 sq. ft. with a height of 11 feet, 6 inches; an as-built bocce court with trellis of 600 sq. ft. and a height of 11 feet; an outdoor fireplace of 15 sq. ft. with a height of 8 feet from the new patio surface and approximately 12 feet from existing grade; and a new bbq grill counter on a patio attached to the dwelling. The project includes a new patio area south of the existing pool with garden walls of 4 feet in height. Less than 50 cu. yards of grading is proposed.

3 Page 3 MBAR granted Preliminary and Final Approval of the project and the Director of the Planning and Development Department (P&D) subsequently approved a Land Use Permit (LUP) for the project. The appellants appealed both of these decisions although the stated appeal issues focus on MBAR concerns. The LUP was appealed because its approval was based on an MBAR approval that is considered, by the appellants, to be an error. They oppose the number of accessory structures, the accessory structure placement, and the landscaping. 4.1 Design Review / Land Use Appeal The appeal for the Preliminary and Final MBAR and Land Use Permit approvals states: that the project includes an excessive number of accessory structures; that the proximity of the accessory structures to the appellants property impacts their right to privacy; that the proximity of the accessory structures and their use would generate excessive noise; and that the approved landscaping would not provide privacy and would block mountain views from the appellants property. The appellants contend that MBAR failed to make the required findings for approval, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in specifically addressing one neighbor s concerns regarding mountain views while ignoring the appellants request for similar consideration. MBAR reviewed the project at three separate meetings between January 2012 and May At the May 21, 2012 meeting, the MBAR concluded it could make the findings for approval and voted (four in favor, none opposed, and one abstained) to grant Preliminary and Final Approval with specific conditions. The following conditions were added to the MBAR motion to approve the project: 1) African Sumac trees shall be at foot on center spacing along driveway; 2) Privet hedge along driveway shall be maintained at a height of no greater than 10 feet; 3) lighting shall be eliminated at bocce court trellis; and 4) bocce trellis posts shall be planted with 5-gallon purple trumpet vine. P&D recommends that the Montecito Planning Commission uphold the MBAR decision, including the incorporation of these conditions into the project. P&D s review shows that the project, subject to certain conditions, complies with the applicable regulations of the Montecito Land Use and Development Code and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including Montecito Community Plan. Given these facts and a sustained MBAR Preliminary and Final approval, P&D recommends that the Montecito Planning Commission uphold P&D s decision to approve the Land Use Permit. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation Ordinance, Zone Site Size Present Use and Development Site Information Montecito Community Plan Area; Urban Area; Semi-Rural Residential (SRR-0.5) with density of 0.5units/acre Montecito LUDC, One-Family Residential (2-E-1) with minimum lot size of two (2) acres gross 1.62-acres gross Single-family residence, detached garage, cabana, pool

4 Page 4 Surrounding Uses/Zone(s) Access Public Services Site Information North: Single-family residence/2-e-1 South: Single-family residence/2-e-1 East: Single-family residence/2-e-1 West: Single-family residence/2-e-1 Featherhill Road (private) Water Supply: Montecito Water District Sewage: Private septic system Fire: Montecito Fire Protection District 5.2 Setting The 1.62-acre parcel is located in the Urban Area of the Montecito Community Planning Area, at the corner of Romero Canyon Road and Featherhill Road. The parcel is currently developed with an existing single-family dwelling of 5,472 (net) square feet, detached garage of 579 (net) square feet, a pool cabana of 735 (net) square feet, a 30 ft. x 18 ft. swimming pool, and a 40 sq. ft. pool equipment shed, for a total estate development 1 of approximately 7,600 square feet. The surrounding parcels, all under the same 2-E-1 zoning, range from approximately 0.33 to 3-acres in size and include total estate development that ranges from approximately 1,500 to 8,900 square feet in size. 5.3 Statistics Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard 800 SF. maximum per accessory structure (MLUDC) Structures (footprint, gross) Bocce Trellis: 600 SF Pool Pavillion: 144 Outdoor Fireplace: 15 BBQ Counter: 50 Total: 809 SF Max. Height of Structure(s) 12 feet (Overall Maximum Height) 16 feet (Overall Maximum Height) Grading Total: Less than 50 cubic yards No Standard 5.4 Description The proposed project includes revisions to the previously approved landscape plan associated with Case No. 10LUP (approved August 12, 2010) and construction of accessory structures including: a pool pavilion of 144 sq. ft with a height of 11 feet, 6 inches; an as-built bocce court with trellis of 600 sq. ft. and a height of 11 feet; an outdoor fireplace of 15 sq. ft. with a height of 8 feet from the new patio surface and approximately 12 feet from existing grade; and a new bbq grill counter on a patio attached to the dwelling. The project includes a new patio area south of the existing pool with garden walls of 4 feet in height. Less than 50 cu. yards of grading is proposed. 1 As used in this staff report, total estate development means single-family residences and accessory structures, including, but not limited to, attached and detached garages, cabanas, guesthouses, workshops, artist studios, and storage sheds.

5 Page 5 The proposed landscaping includes a comprehensive revision to the landscape plan previously approved with the remodel, addition, pool and accessory structures under Case Nos. 10LUP / 10BAR The proposed landscape plan would add several new specimen trees, screening hedges and driveway trees that differ from the previous approval as well as new accessory structures. Thus the project revisions require review and approval by MBAR. In addition, the proposed accessory structures require Land Use Permit approval, including the legalization of the 600 sq. ft. bocce trellis that was constructed without Land Use or Building permits. The LUP also authorized installation of the revised landscape plan. Several components of the landscape plan have already been installed, including multiple specimen trees, screening hedges, and garden walls. 5.5 Background Information 2010 Permit Approvals: As part of the MBAR review of the previous project approvals under Case Nos. 10LUP and 10BAR , the MBAR heard testimony from several neighbors, including the appellants, regarding the compatibility of the previous project with the neighborhood. The MBAR considered issues concerning landscape screening and potential impacts to existing mountain views enjoyed by neighbors. The MBAR requested story poles and a site visit, and after a total of four MBAR meetings from July 2010 to September 2010, ultimately approved the project and no appeals were filed. Because of the scope of the project and specific oak tree, lighting, parking and construction hour conditions that were required, a Permit Compliance Case (Case No.: 10PMC ) was opened so that P&D staff could monitor the project throughout construction. In addition, the Permit Compliance Case allowed staff to confirm that all required conditions of approval were satisfied prior to final occupancy clearance of the dwelling. As part of the routine permit compliance monitoring, on December 7, 2011, P&D staff became aware of modifications to the approved landscape plan and construction of the 600 sq. ft. bocce court trellis. Staff immediately informed the agent for the owner that a new MBAR and LUP approval would be required in order for these changes to be allowed. An application for MBAR and LUP approval was submitted in December of Violations: Subsequent to the applicant s submittal of MBAR and LUP applications, but prior to approval of Case Nos. 11BAR and 11LUP , on May 29, 2012, P&D compliance staff were notified of continued construction and landscape installation in violation of the existing LUP permit conditions. The agent for the owner was notified to stop all landscaping and accessory structure construction until the LUP had been issued. A Stop Work notice was posted on the property. The installed unpermitted landscaping and bocce court trellis are considered to be violations of the existing permit conditions. Approval of the project, Case Nos. 11BAR and 11LUP , would cure the existing zoning violations.

6 Page APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSES The appellant s appeal issues are enumerated below. As noted above, the appeal issues focus on MBAR concerns. The LUP was appealed because the appellants believe that the MBAR approval was granted in error. However, as in written in the MBAR and MPC findings for approval of the project included as Attachment A, the evidence below supports the required MBAR and MPC findings for approval. Please see Attachment D for the statement of appeal Number of Accessory Structures Issue: The appellants contend that MBAR did not make the required finding that the proposed additional accessory structures, in addition to the existing accessory structures on the site, are in proportion to the neighborhood with respect to the number of structures and the bulk and scale of the project. Response: The neighborhood surrounding the project site comprises lots ranging from 0.33 to 3-acres in size. These lots are developed with single-family dwellings and numerous accessory structures measuring in total square footage between 1,500-8,900 square feet. At 1.62-acres, and with a total of approximately 7,600 square feet of development, including accessory structures, the project on appeal is squarely within the norm for the neighborhood. The applicant submitted substantial evidence for MBAR to make the finding that site layout, orientation and location of structures will be in an appropriate and well designed relationship to one another. In addition, the evidence allowed MBAR to make the finding that the site layout, orientation and location of structures was appropriate to the environmental qualities, open spaces, and topography of the site with consideration for public views of the hillsides and the ocean and the semi-rural character of the community as viewed from scenic view corridors. Evidence considered by the MBAR included a comprehensive landscape plan, topographic site plans, and elevations with wall sections (Robert F. Adams, Earthknower Studio). MBAR considered the location, size and interrelationship of the proposed structures and found that the proposed project is internally well designed as conditioned, and is compatible with the neighborhood. 6.2 Harmonious Relationship with the Neighborhood and Noise Impacts Issue: The appellants contend that MBAR did not make the required finding that there be a harmonious relationship with the existing developments in the surrounding neighborhood given the need for dense screening and potential noise impacts of the accessory structure uses in close proximity to the appellants property line and dwelling. Response: The project site is located in a semi-rural residential area where residential noise contributes to the standard ambiance and property line screening is the norm. The MBAR considered the location, size and use of the proposed structures and found that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In their consideration of the bocce court, the MBAR noted that its nighttime use would be disruptive to the adjoining appellants development and so conditioned their approval to eliminate any night time lighting of the trellis. They also conditioned the trellis to be planted with Distictis to beautify that accessory structure. MBAR also affirmed that the pool pavilion and fireplace were in a well designed relationship to the pool and existing residence. Given these

7 Page 7 comments, as noted in their minutes (Attachment E), it is clear that MBAR was deliberate in their action. 6.3 Good Neighbor Policies Issue: The appellants contend that MBAR did not properly consider and address the Good Neighbor Policies set out in the MBAR Guidelines. The appellant asserts that the location of the accessory structures in close proximity to the appellants property line and dwelling, and the proposed landscape screening plants do not adequately provide visual and noise privacy. Response: As noted above, MBAR was deliberate in their action to approve the project with conditions. These conditions, which eliminated the lighting at the bocce court and maximized screening along the property lines were founded in, and provide consistency with, the Good Neighbor Policies. MBAR considered the location, size and use of the proposed structures and found that the proposed project is compatible with the context of the neighborhood. The Good Neighbor Policies are meant to guide project owners and applicants to consider in their design effort the proposed project s view and privacy impacts on neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policies are not findings that MBAR must make to approve a project. 6.4 Protection of Mountain Views Issue: The appellants contend that MBAR did not properly consider and address the Good Neighbor Policies set out in the MBAR Guidelines with respect to protecting the appellants mountain views. Response: As described in section 6.3 above, the Good Neighbor Polices are to be considered when designing a project in order to ensure privacy and minimize view impacts of the project on neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policies are not findings that MBAR must make to approve a project. While public views of the mountains and ocean are protected by policy, private views are not. Regardless, consideration was given to the appellants mountain views in the MBAR s approval of a mixed property line landscape palette that provides plants of varying heights in order to retain some mountain views while ensuring privacy. 6.5 Inconsistent MBAR Objectives Issue: The appellants contend that the MBAR acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by approving the accessory structures while previously stating that the number of accessory structures should be limited. Response: The minutes from the MBAR meetings of January 2012, March 2012, and May 2012 (Attachment E) of the approved project do not reflect any direction by MBAR regarding limiting the number of accessory structures. This appeal issue is therefore without merit. 6.6 Inconsistent Protection of Mountain Views Issue: The appellants contend that the MBAR acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by specifically addressing another neighbor s concern regarding mountain views while ignoring the appellants request for similar protections.

8 Page 8 Response: MBAR considered the location, size and species of the proposed landscape components and found that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. MBAR specifically considered the need for privacy screening along the appellant s property line and determined that the design of the landscaping, including the species, size, and number of plantings would provide effective privacy screening. As noted above, the mixed property line landscaping will result in a planted screen of variable height which will allow for some mountain views. 6.7 Oak Tree Protection Issue: The appellants contend that MBAR failed to properly protect and preserve one large Live Oak specimen tree adjacent to the dwelling and swimming pool by approving the location of the proposed BBQ counter. The appellants further believe that the approved plans are inaccurate, and request confirmation that the placement of the BBQ counter would not negatively impact the tree. Response: The approved BBQ counter is located in a patio area approved for resurfacing with permeable flagstone pavers. The original patio area was constructed by previous owners and was covered with a non-permeable tile surface. Some shallow ground disturbance will be required to level and install the permeable flagstone pavers. However, the LUP is conditioned with comprehensive tree protection and mitigation measures should any unanticipated damage to the oak occur as a result of the project. This condition requires the Owner/Applicant to hire a P&D-approved arborist/biologist to assess any damage and recommend mitigation measures under the direction of P&D prior to any further work occurring onsite. 6.8 Incomplete Information Issue: The appellants contend that the MBAR abused its discretion in approving the project and state that MBAR did not have a comprehensive landscape plan to consider that included the size, name and location of all plantings. Response: At the January 2012 and March 2012 MBAR meetings, staff and MBAR requested that the applicant provide greater detail on the landscape plan. The applicant provided a complete landscape plan for MBAR s Preliminary and Final approval at the May 2012 hearing that included a plant list with location, species, and size of the proposed plantings. 6.9 Inconsistent MBAR Comments Issue: The appellants contend that the MBAR acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing to follow through on comments made at the January 2012 and March 2012 Conceptual review hearings regarding relocation of the accessory structures, privacy screening along the shared property line, and the direction for the applicant to work with the appellant on the pavilion and fireplace. Response: Conceptual design reviews are dynamic and BARs change design direction on the basis of more information. The minutes from the MBAR meeting of January 2012 (Attachment E) reflect the following: 1. Schinus molle along driveway should remain at 45 on center spacing. 2. Privet hedge along drive needs to be kept to a reasonable height.

9 Page 9 3. Consider relocating pool pavilion. 4. Fireplace appears isolated and out of place. 5. All accessory structures should be pulled away from the south property line. 6. Applicant advised to work with neighbors on pavilion and fireplace. The project then returned to MBAR in March 2012 with a revised landscape plan that provided more detail, and included a plant list with location, species, and size of the proposed plantings. Based upon the revised plans, MBAR found that the project could be approved if a screening plan was acceptable to the appellant, but stipulated that no lighting of the bocce court area would be allowed. The minutes from the MBAR meetings of March 2012 (Attachment E) reflect the following: 1. Need a specific landscape plan for screening along the south property line; will need layers of landscaping for successful screening. 2. Upon resolution of neighbor issues and a successful plan for screening, MBAR could support the project. 3. Bocce ball court and trellis should be unlit; too close to property line for night activities. The applicant then prepared a final plan that refined the landscape screening along the property line and the project returned to MBAR in May 2012 for Preliminary and Final approval. The minutes from the MBAR meetings of March 2012 (Attachment E) reflect the following: 1. Rhus lining the driveway are appropriate height but spacing at 10 on center will create a wall effect. Need more spacing between trees to improve aesthetics. Additionally, privet hedge along property line at driveway will need to be managed at 8-10 feet in height as it is the controlling visual barrier to the neighbors view over the driveway. 2. South property line will be well screened as proposed. However, not in favor of lighted trellis over the bocce court as it does not relate well to the rest of the development on the property as a night time activity. 3. Pavilion and fire pit relate well to pool. 4. Project received preliminary and final approvals with the following conditions: Rhus shall be at foot on center spacings along driveway. Privet hedge shall be maintained at a height of no greater than 10 feet. Lighting shall be eliminated from trellis. Trellis posts shall be planted with Distictis. It is apparent by the appellants filing an appeal that a satisfactory resolution on the screening was not reached between the owner and the neighbors as encouraged by the MBAR in the meetings of January 2012 and March However, in their consideration of this final landscape plan, the MBAR considered the location, size and species of the proposed landscape components and found that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. MBAR specifically considered the need for privacy screening along the appellant s property line and determined that the design of the landscaping, including the species, size, and number of plantings would provide effective privacy screening. Therefore, MBAR made the required findings and approved the project.

10 Page Unpermitted Structure and Landscape Installation Issue: The appellants contend that the MBAR erred in taking into consideration the fact that the bocce court trellis had been built without a permit in allowing the structure to remain. Further, the appellant states that MBAR erred in taking into consideration that the applicant had already planted several trees and plants which were inconsistent with the previously approved landscape plan associated with Case Nos.: 10LUP and 10BAR Response: MBAR considered the proposed structures and landscape plan and found that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. MBAR had the discretion to deny the project or to require modifications, including that the unpermitted structure and plantings be removed before approving the project. However, MBAR made the required findings for approval, and thus the unpermitted structures would ultimately be validated by the decision. 7.1 Environmental Review 7.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed project may be found exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section exempts the construction of small structures, including accessory structures in a residential zone. The project consists of accessory structures and the project is in a residential zone. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA. Attachment C of this staff report contains the Notice of Exemption. 7.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency REQUIREMENT Land Use Development Policy 4: Prior to issuance of a development permit, the County shall make the finding, based on information provided by environmental documents, staff analysis, and the applicant, that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed development... Hillside and Watershed Protection Policy 7: Degradation of the water quality of groundwater basins, nearby streams, or wetlands shall not result from development of the site. Pollutants, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, and other harmful waste, shall not be discharged into or alongside coastal streams or wetlands either DISCUSSION Consistent: The parcel is currently developed with an existing single-family dwelling and accessory structures. The parcel would continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, a private septic system, and the Montecito Fire Protection District. Access for the parcel would continue to be provided off Featherhill Road (a private road). The project will not create a new significant demand for these services. Consistent: The residential use of the subject property would not generate considerable amounts of pollutants such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage or other harmful wastes. In order to ensure that construction-related materials (i.e. concrete wash, paint, solvents, etc.) are contained and disposed of properly during construction, Condition of Approval No. 6 included in Attachment B would

11 Page 11 REQUIREMENT during or after construction. Policy BIO-M-l.17: Oak trees, because they are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions, shall be protected to the maximum extent feasible. All land use activities, including agriculture shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to native oak trees. Regeneration of oak trees shall be encouraged. Hillside and Watershed Protection Policy 1: Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain. Hillside and Watershed Protection Policy 2: All developments shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible... Visual Resources Policy 3: In areas designated as urban on the land use plan maps... new structures shall be in conformance with the scale and character of the existing community... DISCUSSION require the designation of a material wash-out area where such materials can be contained and removed from the site. Consistent: No oak trees would be impacted by the proposed project. The project includes a BBQ counter located in a patio area of previously approved permeable flagstone pavers that is in close proximity to a large specimen oak tree. Because the proposed BBQ counter area is located in a previously developed impermeable patio area, the addition of the BBQ counter would not damage the existing oak tree. Condition of Approval No. 5 included in Attachment B contains comprehensive tree protection measures that would apply to this oak and recommends that any unanticipated damage to oak trees be mitigated with tree replacement on a 10:1 basis. Consistent: The project involves development in a previously disturbed area of residential landscaping. The proposed project will require less than 50 cubic yards of grading. All structures have been sited and designed to minimize cut and fill operations and preserve natural features, landforms, and oak trees. Consistent: The area of proposed development is not visible from public roads and therefore, will not affect public views. Further, the proposed accessory structures and landscaping will be in conformance and in character with the scale and style of the adjacent structures and the overall community. The surrounding parcels range from approximately 0.33 to 3-acres in size and include total estate development that ranges from

12 Page 12 REQUIREMENT Policy N-M-1.1: Noise-sensitive uses (i.e., residential...) shall be protected from significant noise impacts. Development Standard N-M-1.1.1: All site preparation and associated exterior construction activities shall take place between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays only. DISCUSSION approximately 1,500 to 8,900 square feet in size. If approved, the total estate development on the acre parcel would total approximately 7,600 square feet, which is squarely within the range for the neighborhood. Finally, Condition No. 4 included in Attachment B requires that the bocce court trellis structure shall remain unlit. Consistent: The proposed project would have the potential to create short-term construction-related noise impacts on neighboring residences and during construction. Condition No. 7 included in Attachment B would require that construction activities be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The project would not cause any significant long-term noise impacts to the surrounding area. 7.3 Zoning: Land Use and Development Code Compliance The project will conform to the use, height, setback, and other applicable standards of the Montecito Land Use and Development Code. Some of the principal standards are discussed below. Allowed Land Uses. The proposed residence and accessory structures are listed permitted uses in the 2-E-1 zone (Section , Table 2-7). Height. The height limit for accessory structures other than barns and stables is 16 feet unless located within the rear setback, in which case the height limit is 12 feet (Section B.3.a). The proposed accessory structures comply with these height limits. The pool pavilion has a height of 12 feet, the fireplace has a height of approximately 8 feet, and the bocce court trellis has a height of approximately 11 feet. The pool pavilion and fireplace are located outside of setbacks. A portion of the bocce court trellis extends into the required rear setback as allowed by zoning regulations (Section B.4.a), and does not exceed the 12 foot height limitation. Setbacks. The project complies with the zoning setback requirements. The 1.62-acre parcel is a corner lot because it has a street frontage on both Romero Canyon Road and Featherhill Road. As a result, the rear setback parallels the east property line and the side setback parallels the south property line. Accessory structures may not be located within the front or side setbacks, but may located within the rear setback. A portion of the bocce court trellis extends into the required rear setback as allowed by zoning regulations (Section B.4.a).

13 Page Design Review MBAR reviewed the project on January 09, 2012, March 5, 2012, and May 21, Attachment E of this staff report contains the approved minutes from these meetings. MBAR s initial comments focused on the location of the accessory structures, the screening provided along the southern property line, and the density and height of the vegetation along the driveway. The MBAR directed the applicant to work with the neighbors on pavilion and fireplace with a goal of the neighbors agreeing on an acceptable screening plan. At the March 5 meeting, MBAR continued to express concerns about the plan for landscape screening along the southern property line and directed the applicant to provide a specific landscape plan for screening the southern property line. The MBAR related that the plan will need layers of landscaping for successful screening. The MBAR further related that if the neighbor issues could be resolved and a successful screening plan proposed, then MBAR could support the project. However, the MBAR indicated that no lighting would be permitted at the bocce court as the MBAR felt the structure was too close to the property line for night activities. At the May 21 meeting, based on a complete planting plan, MBAR concluded it could make the findings for approval and voted (four in favor, none opposed, and one abstained) to grant Preliminary and Final Approval with specific conditions. The following conditions were added to the MBAR motion to approve the project: 1) African Sumac trees shall be at foot on center spacing along driveway; 2) Privet hedge along driveway shall be maintained at a height of no greater than 10 feet; 3) lighting shall be eliminated at bocce court trellis; and 4) bocce trellis posts shall be planted with 5-gallon purple trumpet vine. 8.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Montecito Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within 10 calendar days of said action. The appeal fee to the Board of Supervisors is $643. A. Findings ATTACHMENTS B. Conditions of Approval, Land Use Permit 11LUP C. Notice of Exemption D. Appeal Letter, Montecito Board of Architectural Review Preliminary and Final Approval, Case No. 11BAR , and Land Use Permit, Case No. 11LUP (May 29, 2012) E. Montecito Board of Architectural Review Minutes (Case No. 11BAR ) F. Site Plan G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\APL\2000s\12 cases\12apl Big Red Appeal\Staff Report MPC 12APL doc