COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVED MINUTES Meeting of September 9, 2005 Robin Donaldson Chair Santa Barbara County Kathryn Dole Co-Vice Chair Engineering Building, Room 17 James King Co-Vice Chair 123 East Anapamu Street Bethany Clough Santa Barbara, California Pamela Ferguson-Ettinger (805) Valerie Froscher Chris Roberts Kris Miller-Fisher Peter Imhof The regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Architectural Review Committee was called to order by the Chair, Robin Donaldson, at 9:20 A.M., in the Santa Barbara County Engineering Building, Room 17, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Robin Donaldson Chair Kathryn Dole 1st. Vice Chair Bethany Clough Pamela Ferguson-Ettinger Chris Roberts Peter Imhof COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: James King, Valerie Froscher and Kris Miller-Fisher REPORTERS: None in attendance NUMBER OF INTERESTED PERSONS: Approximately 15± ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA: I. PUBLIC None. II. AGENDA STATUS REPORT: Clough moved, seconded by Roberts and carried by a vote of 5 to 0 (King, Froscher and Miller-Fisher absent) to: Continue Item #11 05BAR Taylor As-built Enclosed Deck to the meeting of September 16, 2005 at the request of the applicant. Continue Item #15 04BAR Bekins New Residence and Cabana to the meeting of September 16, 2005 at the request of Planning and Development. Drop Item #16 Montgomery Residence Addition 05BAR from the agenda at the request of the applicant. III. MINUTES: Dole moved, seconded by Roberts and carried by a vote of 3 to 0 (King, Froscher and Miller-Fisher absent, Dole and Clough abstain) to approve the Minutes of August 19, 2005.

2 Meeting of September 9, 2005 Page Discussion Ballantyne New Residence, Guesthouse and Barn Gaviota 05LUP (Allen Bell, Planner) Ridgeline: N/A Request of Santa Barbara Planning and Development for BAR to render its advice on a proposal by the owner, Lynn Ballantyne, for the construction of a new residence of 9,300 square feet with a basement of 696 square feet, new guesthouse of 800 square feet with attached garage of 568 square feet and new barn of 1,200 square feet. No structures currently exist on the parcel. The proposed project will require 6,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is a 17 acre parcel zoned AG-II-100 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 500 Farren Road in the Gaviota area, Third Supervisorial District. Project was a discussion item only, no action was taken. Applicant will resubmit for further discussion and a site visit. The following comments were made by the Board of Architectural Review members present for this project: Planner presentation (Tina Ryder): Initial analysis indicates that project is not consistent with policy or approvable as proposed (see planner memo). Applicant was presented with a 3 options: (1) redesign, (2) denial recommendation, or (3) withdraw application. Public Comment : Chris Pagliano, Rancho Embarcadero: No position, but has concerns about precedent. Project must conform to regulations. John Baltan, formed group to oppose Tecolote Preserve. Beautiful parcel, no objection to building per se, but concerned about visibility, conformity to LUE, County policy. Proposed design is not in character with rural landscape. Looks like school or condo development. Much additional development proposed nearby. Susan and David Schwartz, neighbors: Opposed to project. Impacts private and public views. Size is incompatible with Rancho Embarcadero homes. Very intrusive to public views. Noise impacts. Development should be downsized and relocated. Frank Goss, local art dealer: Supports project, recommended architect to applicant. Loves design of house. Project should not be limited by policy. Nanci Gardner, neighbor: Project invades the peacefulness of area. Project must comply with policy and zoning. Noise is real issue. Acoustical pocket causes echoes, reverberation. Traffic issues on Farren Road. from Ed Easton to Allen Bell: Concerned about informed BAR review. Concerns about visibility, size/bulk/scale. Landscaping will not screen. Applicant's response to Ed Easton: Project is not visible, lighting follows "dark skies" model. Scale in comparison with the neighbors: only negligible difference. Eclectic mix of existing architecture in area. BAR Comments: a. BAR s interest is to alert applicants to issues early on. There are big issues along the Gaviota Coast, and much pending development. Great care is required in designing new development in this area. Architecture must show a heightened sensitivity to these issues. (Highly visible house currently under construction above Glen Annie Golf Course is an example of why BAR must exercise extreme care.) b. Ridgeline: Location brings the project within the spirit, if not the letter, of the Hillside/Ridgeline Guidelines. House is in a de facto ridgeline location. c. BAR appreciates the contemporary design idea, materials, and green design concept. Well-designed contemporary architecture can fit within the Gaviota

3 Meeting of September 9, 2005 Page 8 Coast context. But this project must go much further to address fundamental design issues related to this highly visible site and the environmental setting. The project represents an opportunity for good design. If designed with the high level of skill and sensitivity required, it could help to set a good example for other development proposals in the area. d. Current debate about acceptable size of Gaviota houses. Apparent mass/bulk/scale and visibility are what is important. Visibility is primary issue. Size per se is not as important. The larger a house gets, the more difficult the design problem becomes. e. Length of façade: Football field length of structure causes concern. The length of the structure increases its visual impact and apparent mass. The house reads as a large, unbroken mass. The façade and roofline do break skyline. f. Use of glass, reflectivity of materials, internal lighting would make house very visible, especially at night. g. There are many other possible design approaches for the structure to inhabit a site following green principles (e.g., sod roofs, burrowing into hillside). Roland Coates house as example. As presently designed, there is no clear hierarchy to the structure. h. Potential building sites appear to be limited on this property. Building should be sited so that can work more seamlessly with landscape, topography. i. A model would help to understand how the house fits onto the site. j. Sensitivity to site means respecting the history of the area, naturalization of landscape forms, and use of native materials. Architecture and landscaping must both respect the character of the surrounding natural setting and resources. k. Landscaping of site will be important, but the visibility of house must be addressed independently of landscaping. The architecture must stand on its own. l. Texture, rhythm and forms of land must be the organizing factor for landscaping. Both agricultural and natural landscapes exist on Gaviota. The landscape design should pick and relate to one or the other theme. m. The landscaping proposal accentuates, rather than lessens, the problem of visibility. The landscaping proposal emphasizes the development and draws attention to, rather than screens, the structure. n. Native plants (selected from within 20 miles) should be used in the landscape design. o. Prominence and visibility of access roadway need to be diminished, not strengthened. Road is fighting natural contours of land. Row of trees proposed along length of road only emphasizes it. p. A site visit is needed. Applicant request to continue BAR review, site visit. BAR motion for joint BAR/PC site visit. Toro Canyon/Summerland/Carpinteria Areas BAR Taylor As-Built Enclosed Deck Toro Canyon 05CDH (Errin Briggs, Planner) Ridgeline: N/A Request of James Macari, agent for the owner, Rowena Taylor, to consider Case No. 05BAR for conceptual review of an existing enclosed deck of approximately 357 square feet and approximately 12 feet in height. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a residence of approximately 993 square feet and guest house of approximately 1,292 square feet. The proposed project will not require grading. The property is a 9,583 square foot parcel zoned 8-R-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 3557 Padaro Lane in the Toro Canyon area, First Supervisorial District. ACTION: Clough moved, seconded by Roberts and carried by a vote of 5 to 0 (King, Froscher and Miller absent) to continue 05BAR to the September 16, 2005 BAR meeting. See Agenda Status Report.

4 OF SANTA BARBARA APPROVED MINUTES Meeting of November 18, 2005 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Robin Donaldson Chair Santa Barbara County Kathryn Dole Co-Vice Chair Engineering Building, Room 17 James King Co-Vice Chair 123 East Anapamu Street Bethany Clough Santa Barbara, California Pamela Ferguson-Ettinger (805) Valerie Froscher Chris Roberts Kris Miller-Fisher Peter Imhof The regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Architectural Review Committee was called to order by the Chair, Robin Donaldson, at 9:00 A.M., in the Santa Barbara County Engineering Building, Room 17, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Robin Donaldson Chair James King 2 nd Vice Chair Bethany Clough Pamela Ferguson-Ettinger Valerie Froscher Chris Roberts Kris Miller-Fisher Peter Imhof COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathryn Dole. REPORTERS: None in attendance NUMBER OF INTERESTED PERSONS: Approximately 15± ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA: I. PUBLIC None. II. AGENDA STATUS REPORT: Clough moved, seconded by Roberts and carried by a vote of 5 to 0 (Dole, Froscher and King absent) to: Drop 05BAR Smyth Demolition/New Residence and Garage from the agenda at the request of the Applicant and Planning and Development. III. MINUTES: Clough moved, seconded by Fisher-Miller to table the minutes of October 28, 2005 and a November 4, 2005 to the meeting of December 2, 2005.

5 Meeting of November 18, 2005 Page 7 Isla Vista/Goleta/Gaviota Areas/Hollister Ranch 8. 05BAR Lee Commercial Signage (Sushiya) Goleta 05SCC (Amy Trester, Planner) Jurisdiction: Sign Request of Jeachoul Shin, agent for Dong Sik Lee, to consider Case No. 05BAR for conceptual review of 3 wall signs of approximately 25.5 total square feet. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a commercial building. The proposed project will not require grading. The property is a.44 acre parcel zoned C-2 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 955 Embarcadero Del Mar in the Goleta area, Third Supervisorial District. Project received conceptual review only, no action was taken. The following comments were made by the Board of Architectural Review members present for this project: a. Information from planner needed about conformity with sign ordinance. b. Back-lit (internally lit) signs are not favored. c. Photos of neighboring businesses are desirable. d. IV Masterplan contemplates subtle lighting. Wood, externally lit or pin-mounted letters are preferred. e. Size of sign is acceptable. 9. Discussion Ballantyne New Residence, Guesthouse and Barn Gaviota 05LUP (Allen Bell, Planner) Jurisdiction: Section c Request of Santa Barbara Planning and Development for BAR to render its advice on a proposal by the owner, Lynn Ballantyne, for the construction of a new residence of 9,300 square feet with a basement of 696 square feet, new guesthouse of 800 square feet with attached garage of 568 square feet and new barn of 1,200 square feet. No structures currently exist on the parcel. The proposed project will require 6,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is a 17 acre parcel zoned AG-II-100 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 500 Farren Road in the Gaviota area, Third Supervisorial District. (Continued from 9/09/05 and Site Visit 11/15/05) Project was a discussion item only, no action was taken. The following comments were made by the Board of Architectural Review members present for this project: Staff presentation: BAR discussion item. Staff seeks BAR input on visual resource policy interpretation. Applicant is advised that BAR full comments may become binding in the event that BAR review is required as a project condition. Public Comment: Mike Lunsford: Procedural abnormalities. Where project has already been determined inconsistent by staff, BAR shouldn't review. Raises false expectations that minor tweaking of design will solve problems. Superficial changes won't solve fundamental issues. Importance of keeping Gaviota Coast rural and agricultural. Project is starkly in contrast to surrounding environment, disrespectful of landscape. Changes don't solve inconsistencies. House triggers Hillside/Ridgeline Development Standards. Requests that BAR reject review until project conforms to policy and ordinance. Green features also don't solve issues. Collean Beall, GCC: Supports staff memo findings. Important site. GCC is confused and concerned about process. At what point do appeals occur? Public can't see plans. Landscape plan doesn't show trees or fence. Site shouldn't have been stripped bare. Berming does not minimize grading.

6 Meeting of November 18, 2005 Page 8 Ed Easton: Commends original BAR comments and staff comments. Project design not acceptable on Gaviota Coast. Size, stark modern design, contrived landscaping make house stand out. Highly visible on ridgeline, breaks skyline. Landscaping can't solve problems just by screening. Intent of visual resource is policy is clear. Nancy Gardines, neighbor: Closest neighbor. Bought lot in 80s on Vereda del Padre. Visual resource policies afford protection. Project seeks exception to rule. Joan Bolton, neighbor: Three issues: (1) Skyline, house does protrude into, (2) Roof lines of accessory structures. Is a wellhouse proposed that is not on plans? (3) Aesthetics. House looks institutional. Landscaping is excessive, will require lots of water. 10,000 ft.² of turf is excessive. Heavy irrigation could affect slope stability. Applicant's Rebuttal: Project is not on Gaviota Coast. Project is immediately adjacent to urban development [but is in rural area]. Peter Brown for applicant: Staff memo contains the same language as before. Length is same. The decisionmakers can override staff recommendations. Gaviota Coast commentary treats all parcels the same. Letter sent to staff re: compatibility. BAR Comments: Bethany Clough disclosure: spoke with applicant. a. BAR supports staff position. Project places many issues at stake. Visually the subject parcel is part of the Gaviota Coast, which is at a crossroads. Projects that affect Gaviota must be closely scrutinized. Ridgeline development guidelines apply to this site. b. Broad question of policy: visibility of houses. There is a substantial overlap of BAR findings and visual resource policies. c. Scale and design of house are not compatible with natural environment. House proposed is too large. Design does not take an organic enough approach. Program exceeds the site's "carrying capacity." Site could handle a large house if it does not intrude into the skyline. This house could be sited differently to avoid visual impacts. d. Project breaks skyline and is not subordinate to land forms. House design does not meet policy. Given curve of house layout, the length of the house should be measured as a circumference, not as an orthographic projection. Landscape screening can't be relied on to screen structure. e. Stylistically, a long mass of glass will not work in this setting. A barn-like structure nestled into landscape would be more appropriate. f. For this location, landscaping must be closely scrutinized. This area has the natural, smooth look of grassland and pasture. Use of citrus is a good idea, but planting arrangement must create natural flows. If citrus is used, it must mirror patterns of Gaviota orchards. Orchards might be more appropriate on the back side of the hill, so that rolling grasslands are emphasized from 101. g. Firs or pines do not reflect native vegetation and are not appropriate to the site. Shadowing structure behind with trees will not work on this ridge. h. Too much turf is proposed. Take a closer look at materials and plants. Follow natural criteria and patterns. Utilize native plants and materials. i. BAR is on front line of defense against impacts of big houses. BAR is being pushed into Planning Commission role, and policy rather than design discussions. BAR is uncomfortable with request to step into this role. A joint PC/BAR discussion may be desirable.

7 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA APPROVED MINUTES Meeting of June 2, 2006 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Kathryn Dole Chair Santa Barbara County Robin Donaldson Vice Chair Engineering Building, Room 17 Pamela Ferguson Ettinger 123 East Anapamu Street Valerie Froscher Santa Barbara, California Chris Roberts (805) Jeremy Roberts Alice Daly The regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Architectural Review Committee was called to order by the Chair, Kathryn Dole, at 9:15 A.M., in the Santa Barbara County Engineering Building, Room 17, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathryn Dole Chair Robin Donaldson Vice Chair Pamela Ferguson Ettinger Valerie Froscher Chris Roberts Jeremy Roberts Alice Daly COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Robin Donaldson and Valerie Froscher REPORTERS: None in attendance NUMBER OF INTERESTED PERSONS: Approximately 15± ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA: I. PUBLIC None. II. AGENDA STATUS REPORT: J. Roberts moved, seconded by Ferguson-Ettinger and carried by a vote of 4 to 0 (Donaldson and Froscher absent) to: Drop Item 1 06BAR Cingular Wireless Communications Facility from the agenda at the request of Planning and Development. Drop Item 2 06BAR Infranext Unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility from the agenda at the request of Planning and Development. III. MINUTES: J. Roberts moved, seconded by C. Roberts and carried by a vote of 4 to 0 (Donaldson and Froscher absent) to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2006.

8 Meeting of June 2, 2006 Page BAR Burman Demo Rebuild New Residence, Garage and Artist Studio Goleta 06CDH (Peter Imhof / Virgina Gardner Planner) Jurisdiction: Coastal Request of Robert Foley for Robert Paul Design, architect for the owners, Tom and Bari Burman, to consider Case No. 06BAR for further conceptual review of a new residence of approximately 3,890 square feet, garage of approximately 440 square feet and artist studio of approximately 800 square feet. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a residence of approximately 3,233 square feet with attached garage of approximately 400 square feet to be demolished. The proposed grading to be determined. The property is a.77 acre parcel zoned 20-R- 1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 5297 Austin Road in the Goleta area, Second Supervisorial District. (Continued from 4/21/06) Project received further conceptual review only, no action was taken. Applicant to return for preliminary approval. The following comments were made by the Board of Architectural Review members present for this project: a. Simplified design is much more successful. Elevations are simple and elegant. b. Change of material breaks up the scale and strengthens the plans. c. Still suggest that the glass rail be replaced by another material. Consider horizontal cables with wood caps. A green vine element to ground the building is good. Suggest red trumpet vine. Can return for preliminary review BAR Evans New Residence, Carport and Garages Goleta (No Assigned Planner) Jurisdiction: Request of Douglas Beard, architect for the owners, Scott and Julie Evans, to consider Case No. 06BAR for conceptual review of a new residence of approximately 6,198 square feet, carport of approximately 511 square feet and two garages of approximately 630 square feet each. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a guest house of approximately 800 square feet with attached garage of approximately 525 square feet, a tool shed of approximately 700 square feet and two temporary trailers to be removed. The proposed project will require approximately 1,355 cubic yards of cut and no fill. The property is a acre parcel zoned MT-GOL-40 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 1555 San Antonio Creek Road in the Santa Barbara area, Second Supervisorial District. Project received conceptual review only, no action was taken. Applicant to return for preliminary approval. The following comments were made by the Board of Architectural Review members present for this project: a. A one story structure works well on the site. b. Clerestory windows look better than skylights. c. Consider another material for walls. Break them up with landscaping and different materials. Inca major or similar with stone would look good. d. Bring a landscape plan that accurately shows the size of existing trees. e. Can return for preliminary. 6. Discussion Ballantyne New Residence, Guesthouse and Barn Gaviota 05LUP (Allen Bell, Planner) Jurisdiction: Section c Request of Santa Barbara Planning and Development for BAR to render its advice on a proposal by the owner, Lynn Ballantyne, for the construction of a new residence of 9,300 square feet with a basement of 696 square feet, new guesthouse of 800 square feet with attached garage of 568 square feet and new barn of 1,200 square feet. No structures currently exist on the parcel. The proposed project will require 6,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is a 17 acre parcel zoned AG-II-100 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 500 Farren Road in the Gaviota area, Third Supervisorial District. (Continued from 9/09/05 and Site Visit 11/15/05 & 11/18/05)

9 Meeting of June 2, 2006 Page 6 Project received a discussion only, no action was taken. The following comments were made by the Board of Architectural Review members present for this project: Public Comment: Mike Lunsford, Gaviota Coastal Conservancy: Viewline would depend upon mature height of orchard trees. Burden of enforcement of tree maintenance would be on the County. Design is inconsistent with zoning limitations. Not good to compare Rancho Embarcadero w/ Ballantyne: different rules apply. Eastern Gaviota Coast sets the tone here. Phil McKenna: Should be considered part of the Gaviota Coast. Should be compatible with natural landforms. What happens if the orchard fails? Nancy Gardiner: No exceptions should be made on visual policies for public views. Landscaping should not be the vehicle for visual compliance. Edward Easton: Concerned about cut and fill quantities. Orchard will merely call attention to the site. The faux orchard will take 3 years to grow to full height. Farren Rd is a public viewshed in its entirety. Use of landscape screening in Montecito Guidelines is not applicable here. Joan Bolton, Friends of Tecolote Canyon: Made calls for tree growth information. Agriculture expert told her it would be a longer time frame than 3 years for potential growth and to fill the gaps in canopies. Orchard screening must be treated with skepticism. Christina McGinnis: Very concerned about SBAR role in visual resource policy application. This is a precedent-setting project. Concerned about mansionization of the Gaviota Coast. SBAR Comments: a. Unfortunately, two members of the SBAR are absent today. b. Regarding Visual Resources Policy 2, it is not appropriate to get into a specific discussion of the architecture and landscaping. An orchard cannot be counted upon for screening. Screening must be done by topography. c. SBAR supports P&D in their application of the Visual Resources Policy. d. Should consider coordination between CBAR and SBAR on interpretation of visual resources for future projects in rural transition areas. e. Continue discussion to a later date. Mission Canyon/Santa Barbara/Hope Ranch Areas 7. 06BAR Tabasgo Trust Demo/New Residence Santa Barbara 04LUP (Mark Walter, Planner) Jurisdiction: Ridgeline - Rural Request of Neumann, Mendro Andrulatitis, architect for the owner, Tabasgo Trust, to consider Case No. 06BAR for a site visit of a new residence of approximately 7,973 square feet with an attached garage, covered patio of approximately 2,000 square feet, two water storage tanks of approximately 20,000 gallons each, and demolition of existing residence of approximately 2,323 square feet (covered porch will be built on portion of existing pad.) (Additionally there will be a second residential unit of approximately 1,200 square feet not on for BAR review.). The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a residence with carport of approximately 2,323 square feet, pool cabana of approximately 100 square feet, enclosed gazebo of approximately 100 square feet, three accessory structures of approximately 100 square feet each, three water storage of approximately of approximately 5,000 gallons each and one water storage of approximately 10,000 gallons. The proposed project will require approximately 2,500 cubic yards of cut and approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill. The property is a acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number ,

10 located at 1297 West Mountain Drive in the Santa Barbara area, First Supervisorial District. (Continued from 3/24/06)