SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for the Brogin Appeal

Transcription

1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for the Brogin Appeal Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: November 20, 2014 Division: Development Review Case Nos.: 14APL and 09BAR Supervising Planner: Anne Almy Supervising Planner Phone #: Environmental Document: Staff Contact: J. Ritterbeck Notice of Exemption - CEQA Exemption Planner s Phone #: OWNER / APPELLANT Nate and Wendy Brogin 5043 Matilija Avenue Sherman Oaks, CA (818) Project Location AGENT / ATTORNEY Douglas E. Fell 222 E. Carrillo St., Suite 400 Santa Barbara, CA (805) ARCHITECT Kurt Magness 2628 Borton Drive Santa Barbara, CA The project site is identified as Assessor s Parcel No , located at 1791 Ocean Oaks Road, on a 0.56-acre parcel in the 20-R-1 zone district, and within the coastal, rural area of the Toro Canyon Planning Area, First Supervisorial District. Land Use Permit application filed: April 15, 2009 Board of Architectural Review denial: June 6, 2014 Appeal filed: June 16, REQUEST Hearing on the request of Nate and Wendy Brogin, property owners, to consider Case No. 14APL , [application filed on June 16, 2014] to appeal the South County Board of Architectural Review s denial of 09BAR , in compliance with Article II, Section of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, on property located in the 20-R-1 zone district. The application involves AP No , located at 1791 Ocean Oaks Road in the coastal, rural area of the Toro Canyon Planning Area, First Supervisorial District.

2 Page RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeal, Case No. 14APL and deny the project de novo, Case No. 09BAR , based upon the inability to make the required findings for approval. Your Commission s motion should include the following: 1. Make the required findings for denial of the project (09BAR ), including CEQA findings in Attachment A; 2. Determine that the denial of the project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, included as Attachment B; 3. Deny the appeal, Case No. 14APL ; and 4. Deny de novo, the project, Case No. 09BAR , thereby affirming the decision of the South Coast Board of Architectural Review. Refer back to staff if the Planning Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION This project is being considered by the County Planning Commission based on A.1.a of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II), which states that any decision of the Board of Architectural Review to deny a project is appealable to the Planning Commission. Additionally, pursuant to H.3.a of Article II, if a decision of the Board of Architectural Review to deny preliminary approval is appealed, then the hearing shall be held on the appeal prior to the decision on the Coastal Development Permit. As such, P&D has not taken action to approve or deny the associated Coastal Development Permit, case no. 09CDP BACKGROUND INFORMATION On April 15, 2009, P&D received an application for a Coastal Development Permit along with the associated application for Design Review by the South County Board of Architectural Review (SBAR). At that time, the proposed development was for a new 3,200 square foot two-story single-family dwelling with a 900 square foot attached garage. The original 2009 application was submitted without grading quantities specified. In 2010, the applicants resubmitted plans and a revised application that proposed grading quantities estimated to be approximately 45 cubic yards of cut, 1,500 cubic yards of fill, 1,720 cubic yards of import, and the construction of retaining walls of up to 7 feet in height (see Attachment C). In total, the SBAR held a total of eight hearings on the project where both the SBAR and members of the neighborhood raised concerns about the design of the project (see Attachment D, SBAR minutes). The first SBAR hearing on the project was held on May 22, At this hearing, the SBAR members indicated that the plans did not accurately depict how the new home would be situated on the site and the

3 Page 3 applicant was directed to revise their plans to correctly reflect what was being proposed. The applicants were also encouraged to hire a professional architect to help them develop and present their project to the SBAR. The project returned to the SBAR on December 3, 2010 where the project received additional review and comments from the SBAR and the public. At the end of the hearing, the applicants were instructed to restudy the grading, the massing, the overall height, the use of retaining walls, and the overall style of the home and to return for further conceptual review. On February 4, 2011, a redesigned project was presented to the SBAR. After a site visit with story-poles, again, numerous comments were offered to the applicants. The SBAR members indicated that the design had not addressed some of the public concerns or SBAR s comments. Additionally, the proposed project presented a second-story element at the front of the house near the street that was inconsistent with other second story elements found in the neighborhood and as such, the design remained incompatible with neighborhood development. One year later, the applicants returned to the SBAR on February 17, 2012 with a redesigned project that began to address some of the SBAR s comments from the previous meetings. However, the SBAR indicated that the underlying issue of site grading, size, bulk and scale remained unaddressed. The SBAR directed the applicants to reduce the overall site grading, lower the finished floor of the home, reduce massing as seen from the street, and centralize the second-story element. Additionally, being the fourth time the project had been presented to the SBAR, they offered to take action to deny the project or allow the applicant to address their comments and return with a redesigned project. The applicant opted to redesign the project. On September 21, 2012, the applicant returned to the SBAR with a project that had been redesigned in an attempt to address SBAR concerns. This design eliminated the use of retaining walls, refined the architectural style, and massed the second-story element centrally on the home. However, the SBAR noted that the size, bulk and scale of the home still continued to need design refinement. Additionally, the redesigned home did not lower the elevation of the building pad and contrary to SBAR direction; the size of the home was not reduced. At the October 19, 2012 SBAR hearing, the project was dropped from the agenda at the request of the applicants in order to allow them more time to work on the project plans. On November 16, 2012, the applicants substantially redesigned the home and brought to the SBAR a project proposing construction of a new 3,998 square foot [gross] two-story single-family dwelling with an attached 925 square foot garage. Since the redesign was so substantial, the SBAR requested a second site visit with new story poles. The story-poles outlining this project have remained erected on the site. On September 20, 2013, the project was once again brought to the SBAR for review. The plans depicted a project that addressed SBAR comments regarding lowered plate heights and replacing gables with hip roofs. However, the SBAR concluded that the finished floor elevation of the building pad remained too high. The applicants were directed to restudy the building pad elevation and to consider the locations of adjacent homes when situating the second-story massing. Finally, on June 6, 2014, the applicants brought the proposed project to the SBAR for design review where action was taken to deny the project. At this final hearing, the SBAR noted that the applicants had failed to address their concerns for a lowered building pad. Although the pad was lowered 8-inches, the overall ridge height of the second-story had been raised 12-inches. Additionally, the size of the dwelling

4 Page 4 had not been reduced and the instructions to restudy moving the home further back on the lot had been largely ignored. With a vote of 6-0, the SBAR denied the proposed project based upon the following findings: 1) the size, bulk, and scale of the residence is not compatible with the neighborhood; 2) second story as designed is not in proportion and scale to adjacent structure; 3) the amount of fill is excessive and the SBAR continues to ask that the pad be lowered and the fill reduced; 4) the project is not harmonious with surrounding development; and 5) the site layout and orientation of structure is inappropriate in relation to the existing neighborhood. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation Ordinance, Zone Site Size Present Use & Development Surrounding Uses / Zoning Access Public Services Coastal, Rural, Toro Canyon Planning Area, Single-Family Residential Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, 20-R-1 (Minimum Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. [net]), Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet 0.56-acres / 24,829 square feet [net] Currently a vacant lot that was previously farmed with rows of Cherimoya Trees. North: Residential / 1-E-1 Residential South: Residential / 20-R-1 Residential East: Residential / 20-R-1 Residential West: Residential / 1-E-1 Residential Access taken from Ocean Oaks Road Water Supply: Carpinteria Valley Water District Sewage: Private Septic System Fire: Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Department Police: Santa Barbara County Sheriff 5.2 Project Description The project, case number 09BAR is the design review for a new single-family residence of approximately 3,998 square feet [gross] and a 925 square foot [gross] attached garage. A total of approximately 60 non-native Cherimoya trees would be removed as a part of the project. Grading would involve approximately 718 cubic yards of cut and 695 cubic yards of fill. The parcel would be served by the Carpinteria Valley Water District, a private septic system, the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Department, and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff s Department. Access will continue to be provided off of Ocean Oaks Road. The property is a 0.56-acre parcel zoned 20-R-1 and shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , located at 1791 Ocean Oaks Road in the Toro Canyon Planning Area, First Supervisorial District.

5 Page Appeal Issues and Staff Response 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The appellants and property owners, Nate and Wendy Brogin, timely submitted an appeal of the SBAR denial of their project (included as Attachment E). In that appeal application, they cited four appeal issues. Those issues are identified below and are followed by staff s responses. Issue #1: The appellants contend that the South Board of Architectural Review (SBAR) did not give the subject application a fair and impartial hearing. Staff Response: The design on appeal was reviewed by the SBAR at eight separate hearings over the course of five years. The project received two site visits with story-poles and thoughtful design review at each of the hearings, as evidenced by the meeting minutes. The SBAR s concerns over the siting of the structure and the grading of the lot, the size, bulk, scale, mass, and height of the proposed SFD and attached garage, and the inclusion of a second story element in the predominantly one story neighborhood are clearly and repeatedly expressed in the meeting minutes. At the fourth hearing on the project, the SBAR offered to act to deny the design and to allow the applicant the option of appealing the denial to your Commission. At that time, the applicants chose to continue to refine the design pursuant to SBAR comments. The appellants cite to the hearing of June 6, 2014 as in their minds indicative of the SBAR s lack of fairness and impartiality. They provide selective quotes from over the course of the design review by the Chair of the SBAR, claiming that points which were intended to guide the SBAR discussion were not heeded by the SBAR. The Chair of the SBAR is tasked with maintaining order, and as the appellants state, effectively drive the discussion. However, specific findings must be made for a project to receive approval by consensus of the SBAR. Specifically, the applicable findings in Article II, Section (Subsections.2,.3,.7, and.8, respectively) indicate that new development must be: in conformance with the scale and character of the existing community ; in proportion to and in scale with other existing or permitted structures on the same site and in the area surrounding the property ; be in a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments ; and finally that site layout, and the orientation and location of structures be appropriate. Thus, the SBAR discussion in this regard was appropriate, fair and impartial. The project had extensive, fair, and objective design review from the SBAR. Comments were consistent throughout each design review hearing and the SBAR performed its duties responsibly in respect to balancing the need for neighborhood compatibility of the project and keeping in mind the disability needs applicants/appellants. A lively discussion of the project was held on June 6, 2014 by the SBAR as evidenced in the transcript provided by the applicants/appellants prior to the denial of the project because the required findings could not be made. Of note is the fact that the SBAR denial of the design was unanimous and included the vote of the Chair.

6 Page 6 Issue #2: The appellants contend that the SBAR applied standards of review which were not clear and logical. They also object to the approved meeting minutes as being the primary record of the hearings. Staff Response: The SBAR meetings are reflective of the review authority granted to them by the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Article II, Section tasks the Board of Architectural Review with the authority to ensure excellence in design throughout the County s Coastal Zone. In design review hearings, the SBAR members provide critiques with the motivation of achieving excellence in design. Comments made by the SBAR on the proposed project were consistent throughout each of the review hearings as it performed its duties responsibly in respect to this project and the applicants/appellants. At a first hearing on a design, the Board listens to the design presentation by the applicant, agent or architect and responds to the design with reference to the fundamentals of design, including, siting, grading, size, bulk, mass, scale, height, and style. These fundamentals relate to the findings the SBAR ultimately needs to make to approve a project. Comments from the SBAR on any project pertain directly to these findings. In subsequent design review hearings, the Chair or appointee will read the previous meeting minutes into the record for edification of all parties to the design review and to remind the SBAR members of their previous comments. Again, design review comments focus on the elements of design reflected in the required findings for approval. Those findings are as follows: 1. In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places. 2. In areas designated as urban on the land use plan maps and in designated rural neighborhoods, new structures shall be in conformance with the scale and character of the existing community. Clustered development, varied circulation patterns, and diverse housing types shall be encouraged. 3. Overall building shapes, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, fences, screens, towers or signs) are in proportion to and in scale with other existing or permitted structures on the same site and in the area surrounding the property. 4. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be well integrated in the total design concept. 5. There shall be harmony of material, color, and composition of all sides of a structure or building. 6. A limited number of materials will be on the exterior face of the building or structure. 7. There shall be a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments, avoiding excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted. 8. Site layout, orientation, and location of structures, buildings, and signs are in an appropriate and well designed relationship to one another, respecting the environmental qualities, open spaces, and topography of the property. 9. Adequate landscaping is provided in proportion to the project and the site with due regard to preservation of specimen and landmark trees, existing vegetation, selection of planting which will be appropriate to the project, and adequate provisions for maintenance of all planting. 10. Signs including their lighting, shall be well designed and shall be appropriate in size and location.

7 Page The proposed development is consistent with any additional design standards as expressly adopted by the Board of Supervisors for a specific local community, area, or district pursuant to Section A of this Article. 12. Other findings, identified in Division 15 (Montecito Community Plan Overlay District), are required for those parcels identified with the MON overlay zone. Throughout the County, each of the Boards of Architectural Review (BARs) have a senior planner assigned to them specifically to take minutes of the proceedings. The BARs take their draft meeting minutes very seriously and at the subsequent hearing ensure that the members are satisfied that the minutes accurately reflect the record prior to voting to approve those minutes. Although SBAR meetings are recorded as a courtesy, they are not required to be recorded, and the approved minutes constitute the formal record of the proceedings. The minutes for all of the design review hearings for the project were made available to the applicants/appellants and to the members of their team. Issue #3: The appellants contend that the SBAR adopted findings for denial which were not supported by the record. Staff response: The SBAR applies each of the applicable findings for approval to each project brought before it on a case-by-case basis. For this project, the findings for denial were articulated by SBAR member, Dylan Chappell in the June 6, 2014 minutes, and were based on the following: 1. The size, bulk, and scale of the residence is not compatible with the neighborhood; 2. The second story as designed is not in proportion and scale to adjacent structures; 3. The amount of fill is excessive and the SBAR continues to ask that the pad be lowered and the fill reduced; 4. The project is not harmonious with surrounding development; and 5. The site layout and orientation of structures are inappropriate in relation to the existing neighborhood. The reasons for denial, as stipulated, were discussed at all of the SBAR hearings on the project by the SBAR members after site visits to the neighborhood. Neighbors were very involved in the design review process for this project and provided testimony that the design of the house was not compatible with their primarily single story neighborhood. Repeatedly throughout the minutes on this project, the SBAR is recorded as having expressed concern regarding the following: First, the size, bulk and scale of the design differed greatly from the size, bulk and scale of existing homes in the established neighborhood (including the recent approval of the Calderon project, as cited by the appellants) to the extent that this proposed design was determined incompatible. Second, the location of the second-story element was problematic with respect to the mass of the house and in respect to the streetscape, as well as with all other two-story homes on the street (including the Calderon project), which are all situated further back on the lots and away from the streetscape. The SBAR was not opposed to the second story itself. Indeed, minutes from the SBAR meeting of 9/21/12 show that the then proposed location of the second-story had improved the design. Regardless, the absence of harmony in size, bulk and scale with surrounding development was key to the SBAR s concern about the second story, as all other two-story homes are set further back on their respective lots. The siting of the two-story house immediately up against the street front is inappropriate in the context of the established neighborhood and not in harmony with the surrounding development.

8 Page 8 Third, the amount of grading, estimated at 718 cubic yards of cut and 695 cubic yards of fill, and site alteration necessary to create a plinth at the front of the lot was excessive and unacceptable to the SBAR as it caused the structure to loom over the streetscape unnecessarily. Furthermore, the SBAR stated that the house could and should be sited further back on the lot. Grading for such a design would allow for a gently sloping driveway to a level building pad, lower in height than the proposed and with less site alteration, while also accommodating the applicants/appellants disabilities. Siting the home further back on the lot could be determined harmonious with the neighborhood. None of these were issues newly identified at the final SBAR hearing and all of the issues had been repeatedly discussed throughout the design review process. As such, the denial was squarely based on evidence in the record. Issue #4: The appellants contend that the SBAR ignored the evidence submitted by the applicant regarding their personal needs. Staff response: The appellants/applicants presented the fact of their physical disabilities to the SBAR at each hearing on the project. As a result, each member of the SBAR was very aware of the applicants mobility issues. It is clear from the minutes and from the transcript of the June 6, 2014 hearing, that the SBAR was in fact considerate of the applicants needs and understood their mobility issues and hence the need for a level pad area on the lot. In their final hearing on the matter, the SBAR was clear that a flat pad could be constructed with balanced cut and fill further back on the property allowing for a gentle driveway grade down to the house and level areas all around. Furthermore, as cited by the appellants, Appendix B to the Santa Barbara County Housing Element sets forth a process for the Director to waive zoning ordinance requirements in order to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities. The zoning ordinance requirements that may be waived include: setbacks, height limits, site coverage, parking, landscaping, open space, and any other zoning requirement deemed appropriate by the Director. The applicants not only requested no such waivers from zoning requirements, the proposed home, as currently designed meets all applicable zoning standards and requires no such waiver from any zoning standard. However, all design standards related to neighborhood compatibility still apply. 6.2 Environmental Review The de novo denial of case number 09BAR is exempt from environmental review based upon Section [Projects Which are Disapproved] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (see Attachment B). 6.3 Comprehensive Plan Consistency

9 Page 9 The proposed project is inconsistent with the following policies of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan and the Toro Canyon Plan: REQUIREMENT Policy GEO-TC-6: Excessive grading for the sole purpose of creating or enhancing views shall not be permitted. Typically, grading should not place more than five (5) feet of fill above natural grade. 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. 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. Visual Resource Policy 2: In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, DISCUSSION Inconsistent: As proposed, the project is estimated to require approximately 718 cubic yards of cut and 695 cubic yards of fill in order to create the desired elevation for a building pad for the construction of a new two-story residence, with panoramic ocean and mountain views, which could accommodate the appellants disabilities. However, as designed, the lower side of the proposed home (southern elevation) would require approximately eight (8) feet of fill above natural grade. This amount of grading would be inconsistent with the SBAR s direction to minimize cut and fill operations while still accommodating the applicants/appellants disabilities. The SBAR suggested that the grading could be redesigned to situate the house further back on the lot to reduce the need for elevating the building pad and alteration of the natural terrain. The SBAR was specific in noting that such a redesign would still accommodate the disabilities of the applicants/appellants. As such, the proposed development would be inconsistent with the applicable policies to minimize grading to fit the site. On June 6, 2014, the SBAR denied the proposed development based in-part upon the excessive fill required by the design in order to maximize panoramic ocean and mountain views from the proposed second story (see Attachment D). In fact, as noted in the June 6, 2014 SBAR minutes, in response to SBAR s direction to lower the building pad, which was intended to lower and effectively bunker the entire home further into the hillside, the applicants proposed design lowered the pad 8-inches, but also increased the plate heights within the home in order to increase the overall height of the structure by 20-inches from the previous design. The new design was therefore a net increase in height of 12- inches, when the direction of the SBAR was to lower height of the home. Inconsistent: The proposed design locates the new two-story home on a plinth of up to eight feet of fill

10 Page 10 REQUIREMENT the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places. DISCUSSION on the southern end of the house. The excessive fill to create an elevated pad would not follow the natural contours of the landscape. Additionally, the structure is located very close to the street with the secondstory mass fully forward on the house causing the design to loom over the street, incompatible with the existing surrounding natural environment. There are no technical requirements which preclude compliance with this policy. 6.4 Zoning: Land Use and Development Code Compliance Section [Architectural Review Standards] of Article II specifies that the total height of cut slopes and fill slopes, as measured from the natural toe of the lowest fill slope or the natural toe of the lowest cut slope to the top of the cut slope, shall be minimized. The total vertical height of any graded slopes for a project, including the visible portion of any retaining wall above finished grade, shall not exceed 16 vertical feet. The project does not comply with this zoning ordinance requirement since the proposed grading for the project has not been minimized. The proposed elevated pad does not follow the natural contours of the site and requires an excessive amount of fill material to be used to create a level building pad on a sloping lot. 7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the 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 Denial [Case No. 09BAR ] B. Environmental Document: Notice of Exemption C. Coastal Development Permit Application D. SBAR Approved Minutes, dated: May 22, 2009, December 3, 2010, February 4, 2011, February 17, 2012, September 21, 2012, October 19, 2012, November 16, 2012, September 20, 2013, and June 6, 2014 E. Appeal Application w/attachments F. Reduced Plan Sheets