MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for McKinley Appeal of Webb Single Family Dwelling

Transcription

1 MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for McKinley Appeal of Webb Single Family Dwelling Staff Report Date: June 29, 2016 Case No.: 16APL , 16APL Environmental Document: Notice of Exemption - CEQA Sections 15303(a) and (e) Deputy Director: Jeff Wilson Division: Development Review Supervising Planner: Errin Briggs Supervising Planner Phone #: Staff Contact: Kathryn Lehr Staff Contact Phone #: OWNER / APPLICANT: Robert Webb 572 Toro Canyon Road Santa Barbara, CA (805) AGENT/ARCHITECT: Tom Ochsner Tom Ochsner Architect 10 East Yanonali Street Santa Barbara, CA (805) APPELLANT: William and Susan McKinley 1520 Las Tunas Road Santa Barbara, CA (805) AGENT/ATTORNEY: Derek Westen 1800 Jelinda Drive Santa Barbara, CA (805) This site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number , located at 860 San Ysidro Road, within the Montecito Community Plan Area, 1 st Supervisorial District. Application Submitted: January 7, 2016 MBAR Approval April 4, 2016 Director s Approval of Land Use Permit: April 5, 2016 Appeals Filed: April 14, 2016

2 Page REQUEST Hearing on the request of Derek Westen, agent for William and Susan McKinley, to consider [applications filed on April 14, 2016] to appeal the Montecito Board for Architectural Review s approval of Case No. 15BAR and the Director s approval of Case No. 16LUP , in compliance with Chapter of the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, on property located in the 2-E-1 zone district. The site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) , located at 860 San Ysidro Road in the Montecito area, 1 st Supervisorial District. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeals, Case Nos. 16APL and 16APL , and conditionally approve Land Use Permit Case No. 16LUP and the preliminary design, Design Review Case No. 15BAR "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara, July 20, 2016, Montecito Planning Commission Attachments A-H", 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 appeals, Case Nos.16APL and 16APL ; 2. Make the required findings for approval of Design Review Case No. 15BAR and Land Use Permit Case No. 16LUP , included as Attachment A, including CEQA findings; 3. Determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) and (e), as specified in Attachment C; and 4. Grant de novo approval of Design Review Case No. 15BAR and Land Use Permit Case No. 16LUP , subject to the conditions included as Attachment B. Alternatively, refer back to staff if the Montecito Planning 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 Section (Appeals to the Montecito Planning) of Montecito Land Use and Development Code which states that any decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) to grant preliminary approval and any decision of the Director to approve a Land Use Permit is appealable to the Commission.

3 Page ISSUE SUMMARY The appeal is of the Director s approval of Case No. 16LUP and MBAR s preliminary approval of Case No. 15BAR The appeal states that siting, height, configuration, and the size, bulk and scale of the proposed project is not compatible with the existing developed neighborhood and is inconsistent with the Montecito Community Plan. The appeal also asserts that the proposed guesthouse and cabana are sited too close to the southern parcel boundary. The proposed residence has been reviewed by MBAR, and meets all required setbacks, height limits and floor area recommended in the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards. Furthermore, the proposed project has been revised over the course of MBAR review to move the location of the proposed cabana and guest house further north from the southern property boundary by approximately 10 feet from the originally proposed location. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation Ordinance, Zone Site Size Present Use & Development Surrounding Uses/Zone(s) Access Public Services Site Information Urban, Inland, Montecito Community Plan area, Single Family Residential, SRR- 0.5 (one dwelling unit per 2 acres) MLUDC, 2-E-1 zone (2-acre minimum) 2.79 acres Residential Existing single family dwelling and attached carport North: 2-E-1; Developed Residential South: 2-E-1; Developed Residential East: 2-E-1; Developed Residential West: 2-E-1; Developed Residential Private driveway via San Ysidro Road Water Supply: Montecito Water District Sewage: Montecito Sanitary District Fire: Montecito Fire Department Police Services: Santa Barbara County Sheriff 5.2 Project Description The project is for a Land Use Permit to allow demolition of an existing one-story single family dwelling and removal of a pool, and construction of a new two-story single family dwelling, a guesthouse, a cabana, two detached garages, and a pool. The dwelling to be demolished is 3,957

4 Page 4 square feet in size. The proposed new structures include a two- story single-family dwelling totaling 6,335 square feet with a 1,956 square foot basement, an 800 square foot guest house, a 466 square foot cabana, a 794 square foot detached three car garage, a 540 square foot detached two car garage, and a 630 square foot pool. Grading will include 650 cubic yards of cut and 650 cubic yards of fill. No native trees will be removed. The parcel will continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, Montecito Sanitary District, and the Montecito Fire Protection District. Access will be provided off of San Ysidro Road. The property is a 2.79-acre parcel zoned 2-E-1 and shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , located at 860 San Ysidro Road, in the Montecito Area, 1st Supervisorial District. 5.3 Setting The project site is located in the Montecito area, approximately 2 miles north of Highway 101. The project site has varying slopes from 0-7%, and no geologic hazards or environmentally sensitive habitats are located on site. The site is currently developed with a 3,957 square foot one-story single family residential dwelling with a basement and an attached garage and a pool. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by single and two story single family dwellings, ranging from 1,498 square feet on a 0.97 acre lot to 11,206 square feet on a 2.57 acre lot. 5.4 Appeal Description The appellants are appealing both the MBAR s April 4, 2016, decision to grant preliminary approval to Case No. 15BAR , and Planning and Development s subsequent approval of Land Use Permit Case No. 16LUP on April 05, The appellants assert that the siting, height, configuration, and the size, bulk and scale of the proposed project results in significant and unnecessary impacts to neighbors along the southern portion of the property. The appellants further maintain that the proposed structures will stand almost 50 above the southern neighboring property and impact the neighbor s privacy and views, therefore making the project inappropriate and incompatible with the existing developed neighborhood, and inconsistent with the Montecito Community Plan. Lastly the appellants state that the proposed project should be subject to the Hillside and Ridgeline section of the zoning ordinance. 6.1 Appeal Issues 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The appellants submitted narrative that distills their appeals of the MBAR s preliminary approval and the LUP into a single set of issues. The appellants appeal issues have been summarized below and are followed by staff s responses. Please see Attachment D for the statement of appeal.

5 Page 5 Issue 1: The appellants state that the size, bulk and scale of the proposed project would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood. the size, bulk and scale, of the proposed project, which includes four (4) separate accessory buildings plus a pool, results in significant and unnecessary impacts to the neighbors to the south, impacting their privacy and views, is inappropriate and incompatible with the existing developed neighborhood, and therefore is inconsistent with the Montecito Community Plan. Staff Response: The Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards (MAGDS) provides guidelines for MBAR when determining whether the size, bulk and scale of proposed projects are compatible with existing neighborhoods. As specified by the MAGDS, the floor area is defined as the total area of all floors of a building as measured to the interior surface of walls, excluding attics, basements and unenclosed porches, balconies, decks, garages and attached garages of 800 square feet or less. The proposed project has a floor area of 6,335 square feet (sq.ft.), or 86% of the recommended total floor area for the size of the subject lot (7,343 square feet recommended by the MAGDS for a 2.79-acre lot). Staff prepared a floor area study for the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment H) and found that the average floor area of the immediately adjacent parcels is 87% of the MAGDS-recommended floor area. Adjacent parcels are comprised of both single and two story homes ranging in size from 1,498 sq.ft. to 11,206 sq.ft. (see Attachment G for floor area study). Overall, the proposed project would be the fifth largest residence within the immediate vicinity. When reviewing parcels of similar size to the subject lot between 2.2 and 3.7 acres within a 1,000 ft radius of the proposed project site, the average floor area is 122% of the floor area recommended in the MAGDS. Furthermore, as designed, the proposed residence is under the floor area as specified in MAGDS for 2.8 acre lots. While the project is proposed to include two detached garages, a cabana and a guest house, detached accessory structures are common in the surrounding neighborhood. Many of the surrounding lots are developed with one or more detached accessory structures and pools. The MBAR considered the project as a whole including the residence and the accessory structures and found that it is well-designed, and that the mass, bulk and scale is compatible with neighboring properties. At their April 4, 2016 hearing, the MBAR granted the project preliminary approval and stated, Mass, bulk, and scale on site and as viewed from neighboring properties are compatible. (Floor area) is below recommended maximum and is consistent with other project approvals in area. Issue 2: The appellants state that height, siting and configuration of the proposed project is inappropriate and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the four proposed accessory structures would be looming almost 50 above the neighbor s property and impacting their privacy and views. The appellant further states that the proposed project should be governed by the Hillside and Ridgeline sections of the zoning ordinance, and is therefore taller than allowed by the Montecito Community

6 Page 6 Plan. Additionally, the appellant states that the accessory buildings along the southern portion of the property should be moved farther north. Staff Response: As designed and conditioned, the approved project complies with all applicable provisions of the County Comprehensive Plan, including the Montecito Community Plan as well as with all applicable zoning requirements of the MLUDC, as discussed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 below. While private views are taken into consideration by the MBAR during design review, they are not protected by County policy or ordinance requirements. During their review on January 25, 2016, MBAR suggested that the finished floor elevations be lowered by one to two feet, which the applicant performed. The MBAR required the installation of story poles and also conducted a site visit on January 25, 2016 to assess the potential impacts of the structure s location and height. The MBAR found that the proposed residence would not block mountain views from the southern neighboring parcel. Additionally, through the design review process the proposed guesthouse was relocated approximately 10 feet back from the setback and cabana was relocated approximately 12 feet from the setback, several feet further than was originally proposed, specifically to address the various comments and concerns from both the MBAR and the appellants, who reside immediately south. As proposed, the existing oaks trees along the southern parcel boundary will be maintained and several pine trees will be planted to supplement the foliage buffer and protect neighbor views. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 27 feet and 9 inches, which adheres to the MLUDC Section Residential Zones Development Standards height restriction of two stories and 35 feet. The proposed garages and cabana are 14 feet and 11 inches in height, and the proposed guesthouse is 15 feet and 3 inches in height; these structures adhere to the MULDC Section which limits the height of accessory structures to 16 feet. While the proposed residence is located on an elevated portion of the property, it does not meet County definition of Hillside/Ridgeline in Section B, 16 foot drop in elevation within 100 feet in any direction from the proposed building footprint ; therefore it is not subject to the Ridgeline/Hillside Guidelines height limit of 25 feet. The final design, as approved by MBAR, was determined to be compatible as viewed from neighboring properties. During their preliminary approval hearing on April 4, 2016, the MBAR stated, Mass, bulk, and scale on site and as viewed from neighboring properties are compatible. 6.2 Environmental Review The project, Case No. 16LUP , was found exempt from environmental review based upon Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15303(a) exempts the construction of a new single family dwelling and Section 15303(e) exempts the construction of new small accessory structures. See Attachment C to this staff report for a detailed discussion of these exemptions.

7 Page Comprehensive Plan Consistency REQUIREMENT Land Use Element Development Policy #4: Prior to issuance of a land use 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 Montecito Community Plan GOAL LU-M-l: In order to protect the semi-rural quality of life, encourage excellence in architectural and landscape design. Promote area-wide and neighborhood compatibility; protect residential privacy, public views, and to the maximum extent feasible, private views of the 'mountains and ocean. Montecito Community Plan Policy VIS-M- 1.3: Development of property should minimize impacts to open space views as seen from public roads and viewpoints. Montecito Community Plan Policy LU-M-2.1: New structures shall be designed, sited, graded, and landscaped in a manner which minimized their visibility form public roads. SERVICES AESTHETICS DISCUSSION Consistent: The project site would continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, the Montecito Sanitary District and the Montecito Fire District. Water for the pool will be provided through a third party operator, Aero Pure (see Attachment F for will serve letters). The proposed project would not generate new traffic except for temporary construction trips, and the surrounding roads are adequate to serve the proposed development, including construction related traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Consistent: The project site currently supports an existing single-family dwelling. There are no open space views over or through the lot. The project on appeal is not visible from its driveway entrance off of San Ysidro Road or other public viewing areas. The Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) reviewed the proposed project on four occasions and found that it would not block mountain views from the residence to the south, and that the mass, bulk, scale onsite and as viewed from neighboring properties are compatible. Furthermore, the MBAR noted that the floor area is below the recommended maximum and is consistent with other project approvals in the area. As required by Condition #3, the project would require final BAR approval prior to issuance of the LUP. Montecito Community Plan Policy LU-M-2.2: Lighting of structures, roads and properties shall be minimized to protect privacy, and to maintain the semi-rural residential character of the community The proposed project would include landscaping to screen and soften neighboring views. Proposed landscaping would include the maintenance of existing oaks, olive trees and installation of new pines.

8 Page 8 Montecito Community Plan Policy AQ-M-1.3: Air pollution emissions from new development and associated construction activities shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. These activities shall be consistent with the Air Quality Attainment Plan and Air Pollution Control District guidelines. Montecito Community Plan Policy AQ-M-1.4: The County shall, in its land use decisions, protect and enhance the air quality in Montecito consistent with California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Montecito Community Plan Policy BIO-M- 1.17: 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. Land Use Element Historical and Archeological Sites Policy #2: When developments are proposed for parcels where archaeological or other cultural sites are located, project design shall be required which avoids impacts to such cultural sites if possible. AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES Pursuant to Condition #10, which requires approval of a lighting plan, the proposed project would be required to use lights that are hooded and ensure that no unobstructed beam of exterior light shall be directed toward any area zoned or developed residential as specified in Section of the MLUDC. Consistent: All development would be required to adhere to air quality control measures as specified in Condition #5 to avoid significant deterioration of air quality (dust minimization) and to maintain consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan and Air Pollution Control District guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies. Consistent: No removal of onsite native oaks or other protected trees would be included as a part of the proposed project. Proposed landscaping would include the planting of additional pines along the western and southern portions of the property boundary to help screen views from surrounding neighbors. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. No archaeological or cultural sites are known to exist on the property. Implementation of Condition #6 would require stop work and County notification if any cultural resources are uncovered during construction.

9 Page 9 Land Use Element Hillside and Watershed 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. Areas of the site which are not suited to development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space. Montecito Community Plan Policy GEO-M- 1.2: Grading form future ministerial and discretionary projects in Montecito shall be minimized to the extent feasible in order to prevent unsightly scars in the natural topography due to grading, and to minimize the potential for earth slippage, erosion, and other safety risks. Montecito Community Plan Policy N-M-1.1: Noise-sensitive uses (i.e., residential and lodging facilities, educational facilities, public meeting places and others specified in the Noise Element) shall be protected from significant noise impacts. Montecito Community Plan Development Standard WAT-M-l.2.1: Landscape plans, where required for development, shall include drip irrigation systems and/or other water saving irrigation systems. GEOLOGIC PROCESSES NOISE Water Resources The proposed development would utilize the existing building pad so as to avoid unnecessary site disturbance. No native trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Proposed grading onsite would include a balanced cut and fill of 650 cubic yards. There are no known soils, geologic, flood or emotional hazards on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies. Consistent: The proposed project could create construction related noise in excess of 65dB. Under Condition #8, construction hours would be restricted to between 7:00am and 4:30pm. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Consistent: The proposed project is subject to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). As required by Condition #10, the project would be required to implement water efficient systems such as automatic irrigation controllers, sensors, and strategic placement of these devices so as to prevent and minimize irrigation water flows onto non-targeted areas. 6.4 Zoning Montecito Land Use and Development Code The proposed project is consistent with all laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to uses, height,

10 Page 10 parking, setbacks, and other applicable provisions of the Montecito LUDC. Section A Purpose of the E-1 Single-Family Residential zone states: The E-1 zone is applied to areas appropriately located for family living at a reasonable range of population densities, consistent with sound standards of public health, safety, and welfare. This zone is intended to protect the residential characteristics of an area and to promote a suitable environment for family life. The proposed project on appeal is in conformance with the purpose and intent of the E-1 zone district of the Montecito LUDC and meets Section minimum lot size of 2 gross acres. As discussed in detail in Section 6.1 (Issues 1 & 2), the project on appeal is consistent with all applicable ordinance standards including height and setbacks. The subject lot is an interior lot and as required by Section of the MLUDC, all structures are setback to a minimum of at least 10 feet from property boundaries and the total setback area equals the total area of all setbacks as required by the E-1 zone district. At 27 feet, the proposed residence and accessory structures adhere to the height requirements of Section of the MLUDC for the E-1 zone district. The proposed garages, guesthouse and cabana are all permitted uses in this zone district, and adhere to Section of the MLUDC which limits accessory structures to 16 feet in height. Additionally, the project complies with all residential parking requirements for the E-1 zone. The overall design of the proposed development adheres to all ordinance development standards and would be consistent with sound standards of public health, safety and welfare as well as protecting the residential characteristics of the area and promoting a suitable and secure environment for family life. 6.5 Design Review The proposed project is subject to review by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR). The project was reviewed by the MBAR on four occasions. During their review, design revisions were made to the proposed project which ultimately enabled the MBAR to make the required findings for preliminary approval on April 4, Complete MBAR Approved Minutes are included as Attachment E. Pursuant to Montecito Land Use and Development Code (MLUDC) Section , projects located within the Montecito Planning Area are required to be consistent with the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards (MAGDS). MAGDS contains both permissive and mandatory requirements to assist the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) in making required findings under Section F. of the MULDC. Thus, in order to evaluate a project, the MBAR considers neighborhood compatibility, size, bulk and scale, views and privacy protection, and site location in regards to the guidelines as provided in the MAGDS. As discussed in Section 6.1 of this Staff Report, the proposed development is under the recommended floor area maximum as identified within the MAGDS, and was found to be in conformance with development on similar sized parcels in the immediate area as noted in the Floor Area Study (Attachment H). As proposed, the residence and detached garages will utilize

11 Page 11 the existing building pad, and the guesthouse and cabana will be located along the southern parcel boundary on the lower end of property. Under the request of the MBAR and the appellants, both the guesthouse and cabana have been relocated approximately 10 feet and 12 feet, respectively, further north, from the 10 foot southern setback, several feet further than what was originally proposed. The proposed guesthouse and cabana are located over 130 ft from the closest structure on the southern neighboring parcel, and adhere to all MLUDC development standards in regards to height, size and location. As proposed within the landscape plan, maintenance of the existing significant trees ( Significant Tree means any tree which is in good health and is more than 12 inches in diameter as measured 4 feet 6 inches above the root crown. Any tree of the Quercus (oak) genus which is in good health and is more than 6 inches in diameter as measured 4 feet 6 inches above the root crown is considered a significant tree as defined by the MAGDS on page 18) and additional pine tree plantings will further buffer and screen the accessory structures from the southern neighbors. Furthermore, the MBAR required the installation of story poles and conducted a site visit on January 25, 2016 to assess the potential impacts of the structure s location and height. The MBAR found that the proposed residence would not block mountain views from the southern neighboring parcel. As proposed, the project is not visible from surrounding roads as it is an interior lot bordered by numerous trees and shrubbery, and is accessed via a 300 foot-long driveway off of San Ysidro Road. The project was well received by the MBAR, which stated the architecture and design were nice and found that the architectural details, (i.e. proposed color, textures and material) work with the proposed structures. Additionally, during their last review when the MBAR granted preliminary approval, the board determined that the mass, bulk and scale on site and as viewed from neighboring properties was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 7.0 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 $ ATTACHMENTS A. Findings for Approval B. [de novo] Land Use Permit with Conditions of Approval C. CEQA Exemption D. Appeal Application E. Approved MBAR Minutes F. Will Serve Letters G. Plan Sheets H. Neighborhood Floor Area Study