Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: March 28, 2013

Transcription

1 MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for Appeal of Montecito Board of Architectural Review s Preliminary Denial of Handtmann Demo/New Single Family Dwelling, Guesthouse, Cabana, Pool, and Agricultural Structures Project Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: March 28, 2013 Division: Development Review Case No.: 13APL Supervising Planner: Zoraida Abresch Supervising Planner Phone #: Environmental Document: CEQA Staff Contact: Brian Banks Planner s Phone #: OWNER/APPELANT: Jan Handtmann 2160 Ortega Ranch Rd. Santa Barbara, CA Phone: (805) OWNER S AGENT: Jennifer Siemens Dudek 621 Chapala St. Santa Barbara, CA Phone: (805) OWNER S ATTORNEY: Richard Monk Hollister & Brace 1126 Santa Barbara St. Montecito, CA Phone: (805) The project site is identified as AP No , located at 145 Tiburon Bay Lane, Montecito Area, First Supervisorial District. Application Submitted: October 15, 2012 MBAR Preliminary Denial: January 28, 2013 Appeal Filed: February 6, REQUEST Hearing on the request of Jan Handtmann, to consider the appeal, [appeal filed on February 6, 2013], of the decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review to deny Preliminary approval, Case No. 12BAR , for the Handtmann Demo/New Single Family Dwelling and Accessory Structures project in compliance with Section of the Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, on property located in the AG-I-5 zone. The application involves AP No , located at 145 Tiburon Bay Lane, in the Montecito Area, First Supervisorial District.

2 Page RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeal,, and affirm the decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review to deny preliminary approval of Case No. 12BAR for the Handtmann Demo/New Single Family Dwelling and Accessory Structures project, based upon the project's inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Montecito Community Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan, and based on the inability to make the required findings. Your Commission's motion should include the following: 1. Make the required findings for denial of the preliminary MBAR approval for Case No. 12BAR , specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings; 2. Determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, as specified in Attachment B; and 3. Deny the appeal,, thereby affirming the decision of Montecito Board of Architectural Review to deny preliminary approval of Case No. 12BAR 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 Section A.1 of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), which states that a decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) to deny preliminary approval may be appealed to the Montecito Planning Commission. Hearings on appeal from the MBAR to the Montecito Planning Commission are de novo. 4.1 Background 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The project on appeal before the Commission was reviewed by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) at a conceptual level on October 29, 2012 and at a preliminary level on January 28, At the October 29, 2012 conceptual review hearing, the MBAR reviewed the proposed project and heard comments from a number of neighbors directly, and received written comments from several other neighbors. The MBAR expressed concern with the intensity of the development proposed on the parcel and specifically commented that the scale of development and number of structures proposed were too much for the 1.5-acre development envelope. The MBAR directed the applicant to return for further review (please see the October 29, 2012 MBAR minutes included as Attachment D). In response to the MBAR comments from the October 29, 2012 conceptual review hearing, the applicant proposed a revised project and requested to return to MBAR on January 28, 2013 for further

3 Page 3 conceptual and preliminary review, including a site visit by the MBAR members. On January 28, 2013, the MBAR conducted a site visit, reviewed the revised project, and again heard comments from a number of neighbors. At that meeting, the MBAR again expressed concern that the amount and scale of development proposed with the revised project, including the number of trees proposed for removal, was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the MBAR found that the proposed amount of structural development 1 was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and denied preliminary approval of the project (please see the January 28, 2013 MBAR minutes included as Attachment D). On February 6, 2013 the owner submitted a timely appeal of MBAR s denial of preliminary approval of the project. The appellant states in the appeal application that the MBAR s decision to deny preliminary approval of the project is not supported by the MBAR findings. The appeal letter is included as Attachment C. 4.2 Design Review Appeal / Coastal Development Permit Status Pursuant to Section of the CZO, the application for preliminary and final approval by the MBAR shall only be accepted if the application is accompanied by a development application or if the Department is processing an existing development application for the proposed project. The proposed project is accompanied by Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Case No. 12CDP which has not been approved by the Director because the preliminary MBAR approval was denied. Pursuant to Section H.3 of the CZO, the decision on the CDP has been stayed until the MPC renders a decision on the MBAR appeal. 5.1 Site Information PROJECT INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation Ordinance, Zone Site Size Present Use and Development Surrounding Uses/Zone(s) Access Public Services Site Information Coastal, Urban Area, Agriculture I (A-I-5), one dwelling unit per five acres, Montecito Community Plan Area, Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Agriculture I (AG-I-5), five acre minimum lot size 5.00-acres gross/net Single-family residence/barn, pumphouse/barn North: Vacant, Agriculture (orchard)/ag-i-5 South: Single-family residence, orchard/ag-i-5 East: Single-family residence, orchard/ag-i-5 West: Single-family residences/1-e-1 Tiburon Bay Lane (private) Water Supply - Domestic: Montecito Water District 1 As used in this staff report, total structural development means single-family residences and accessory structures, including, but not limited to, attached and detached garages, cabanas, guesthouses, workshops, artist studios, barns and stables.

4 Page Setting Site Information Water Supply - Agriculture: Existing shared well Sewage: Montecito Sanitary District Fire: Montecito Fire Protection District The project site is a 5.00-acre parcel located in the Coastal Zone in the Urban Area of Montecito approximately 850 feet north of North Jameson Lane between San Ysidro Road and Sheffield Drive. The subject lot is a result of Case No. 08TPM / Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 14,758), approved by the Montecito Planning Commission on December 16, 2009, which allowed for the subdivision of one acre lot into two 5.00-acre lots. The subject lot includes a 1.50-acre development envelope that encompasses existing development on the lot (one barn/garage structure that includes a small residential unit and one agricultural accessory structure that also houses the agricultural well pump/infrastructure and additional agricultural storage). The lot supports existing avocado and lemon orchards (approximately 440 trees) and is in active agricultural production. Access would be taken from two driveways off Tiburon Bay Lane, a private road that runs along the eastern edge of the lot. The property is located in a small urban agricultural block, commonly known as the Montecito Avocado Ranch (MAR), with lots zoned for agriculture (density of one dwelling per five acres) and ranging in size from 0.9 to five acres. The MAR is currently developed with thirteen residences. The remainder of the surrounding neighborhood is composed of residential zoned lots, varying in size from 0.4 to 1.5 acres, and is developed with single family dwellings and residential accessory structures. San Ysidro Creek is located approximately 500 feet east-southeast from the subject lot at its closest point, separated by agriculture and residential development. 5.3 Statistics Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard Dwelling, Net Square Feet SFD: 4,732 SF 5,150 net SF 2 (Recommended FAR) Dwelling, Gross Square Feet SFD: 5,663 Residential Accessory Structures, Gross Square Feet Attached Garage: 676 SF Attached Carport: 401 Guesthouse: 800 GH Covered Patio: 257 Cabana: 147 Cabana Covered Patio: SF maximum 800 SF maximum 800 SF maximum 800 SF maximum 800 SF maximum 2 The Recommended FAR is based upon the 1.50-acre envelope rather than the 5.00-acre lot size per the project description for Case No. 08TPM The project description, Condition Number 1 of TPM 14,758, was modified by the Montecito Planning Commission at the request of the applicant at the hearing of December 16, 2009 to require the FAR based upon the 1.50-acre envelope.

5 Page 5 Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard 2,609 SF Agricultural Accessory Structures, Gross Square Feet Stable: 4,900 Barn: 1,736 Well Bldg: 324 6,960 SF Total Structural Development (Gross SFD + Gross Accessory Structures) Max. Height of Structures (Overall Maximum Height) SFD: 15,232 SF 27 feet, 3 inches 35 feet Garage/Carport: 15 feet, 6 inches Cabana: 14 feet, 8 inches Guesthouse: 15 feet, 10 inches 16 feet 16 feet 16 feet Stable: Barn: Well Bldg: 20 feet, 1 inch 24 feet, 6 inches 11 feet, 5 inches 35 feet 35 feet 16 feet Grading (cubic yards) Cut: 1,720 CY Fill: 720 CY Export: 1,000 CY 5.4 Description The proposed project is to allow for the demolition of the existing 1,612 sq. ft. dwelling and 1,972 sq. ft. barn/well pump house, and construction of a new single family dwelling, attached garage & carport, cabana, guest house, swimming pool & spa, barn, well pump house, stable, new landscaping, and access driveways. The new two-story dwelling would be 4,732 net square feet in size with a height of 27 feet, 3 inches (roof pitch of 6:12). The garage & carport (with attached breezeway) would be 1,077 square feet in size with a height of 15 feet, 6 inches (roof pitch of 6:12). The cabana would be 120 net square feet in size with a height of 14 feet, 8 inches (roof pitch of 5:12), and includes a covered patio of 328 square feet. The guest house would be 800 square feet in size with a height of 15 feet, 10 inches (roof pitch of 5:12), and includes a covered patio of 257 square feet. The barn would be 1,736 square feet in size with a height of 24 feet, 6 inches (roof pitch of 7:12). The well pump house would be 324 square feet in size with a height of 11 feet, 5 inches (roof pitch of 2:12). The stable would be 4,900 square feet in size with a height of 20 feet, 1 inch (4:12 roof pitch). Estimated grading would include 1,720 cubic yards of cut, 720 cubic yards of fill with 1,000 cubic yards of export. A total of

6 Page orchard trees and three landscape trees (one (1) 2 oak, one (1) 2 magnolia and one (1) 12 palm) are proposed for removal. The project would include 101 replacement trees (both orchard and ornamental). The parcel would be served by the Montecito Water District, Montecito Sanitary District and the Montecito Fire Protection District. Access will be provided via two driveways off of Tiburon Bay Lane. The property is a 5.0-acre parcel zoned AG-I-5 and shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , located at 145 Tiburon Bay Lane in the Montecito Area, First Supervisorial District. 6.0 APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSES Your Commission reviews appeals from the MBAR de novo. As such, your Commission will independently determine whether the facts presented support making the required findings. The appellant raises many issues questioning the relevance and sufficiency of evidence relied on by the MBAR. While the sufficiency of the MBAR s determination is not before your Commission, a discussion of these issues may assist your independent review. Accordingly, the appellant s appeal issues have been summarized below and are followed by staff s response. Please see Attachment C for the statement of appeal Land Use Issues vs. MBAR Findings Issue: The appellant contends that MBAR s denial is not supported by the evidence presented for consideration. The appellant contends that MBAR could not make a decision regarding neighborhood compatibility without considering the land use issue of whether or not horse-related structures should be allowed on the parcel. Staff Response: The MBAR did not find that horses were not a compatible use on the parcel. In fact, staff very specifically related to the MBAR at the January 28, 2013 meeting that consistent with the Agricultural zoning of the parcel, raising of horses on the subject site is considered a permitted use (Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance Section AG-1 Zone Permitted Uses). Rather than weigh-in on the land use issue, the MBAR simply found that the number of accessory structures, including the proposed stable of approximately 4,900 square feet, when combined with the proposed single family dwelling, garage/carport, guesthouse, cabana, barn and well building, would result in an excessive amount of development within the 1.5-acre development envelope. Some MBAR members expressed that the proposed horse related accessory structures are inextricably linked to the land use issue of the suitability of the parcel for raising horses, and therefore the issue should be decided by the Montecito Planning Commission. Nevertheless, as discussed in section 6.4 of this staff report, and as evidenced in the neighborhood study included as Attachment E to this staff report, the MBAR correctly applied the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards regarding neighborhood compatibility and found the amount of proposed development incompatible with the neighborhood. 6.2 Tree Removal and Development Envelope

7 Page 7 Issue: The appellant contends that the MBAR did not adequately consider the approved 1.5-acre development envelope on the parcel, and the associated restrictions imposed on tree removal specifically outside of the development envelope, when MBAR expressed concern with the number of avocado trees proposed for removal. The appellant contends that it would be overly restrictive for the MBAR to also require tree preservation within the 1.5-acre development envelope of the 5-acre lot. Staff Response: The MBAR correctly applied the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards with respect to site design and tree preservation. As defined in the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards (Section III.D.1): "Site Design" is the layout of development on the property, including placement and orientation of structures, roadways, landscape and hardscape. The Guidelines further state (Section III.D.2): The unique quality of each site needs to be considered when designing projects. Careful consideration should be given to site specific qualities of natural topography, existing vegetation, drainage and site access. A project should demonstrate an effort to preserve and protect natural features through the design of building location, driveways, parking areas, and accessory buildings. The MBAR acknowledged the existence of the development envelope and did not specifically state that avocado tree removal should not be a part of the proposed project. Rather, the MBAR expressed concern with the number of trees proposed for removal within the envelope to accommodate the amount of development proposed. As such, the MBAR could not find that the proposed site design was developed with careful consideration of the unique quality of the site, including the existing vegetation. 6.3 Neighborhood Compatibility Issue: The appellant contends that MBAR s finding that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood regarding size, bulk, and scale, is erroneous. The appellant specifically contends that the compatibility of the proposed stable and barn should be judged in context with the entire Montecito community because there are no stables or barns in the immediate neighborhood. Staff Response: As defined in the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards (Section III.A.1): "Neighborhood compatibility" is the relationship between surrounding structures and their settings so that the effect of all structures taken together is aesthetically pleasing, keeping the neighborhood in harmony and balance. The Guidelines do not require the MBAR to consider the entire Montecito community when judging the compatibility of a given project to its neighborhood. In fact, the neighborhood compatibility definition clearly states that the MBAR should consider the relationship between surrounding structures and their setting (emphasis added). Based upon this definition, a neighborhood study has been prepared by staff that lists the total amount of structural development in the surrounding neighborhood, included as Attachment E to this staff report. For purposes of the neighborhood compatibility study, each of the Montecito Avocado Ranch (MAR) parcels are included, as well as

8 Page 8 each parcel on Pomar Lane that borders MAR parcels. The neighborhood study area is bordered by San Leandro Lane to the north, Pomar Lane to the west, North Jameson Lane to the south, and San Ysidro Creek to the east. As shown in the study, the neighborhood surrounding the project site comprises lots ranging from 0.40 to 5-acres in size. These lots are developed with single-family dwellings and accessory structures measuring in total square footage between 1,716-15,742 gross square feet, with an average of approximately 5,180 square feet and a median of 4,951 square feet of structural development per lot. In addition, two CDPs have recently been approved for development on AP Nos and , both within the Montecito Avocado Ranch on 5-acre parcels. Moreover, the MBAR could not make the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards finding number one, which states: Overall building shapes, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, fences, screens, towers, or signs) shall be in proportion to and compatible with the bulk and scale of other existing or permitted structures on the same site and in the neighborhood surrounding the property. With a parcel size of 5-acres, and with a total of approximately 15,232 square feet of proposed development including accessory structures, the project on appeal would far exceed the average of approximately 5,180 square feet of structural development in the neighborhood. As a result, the MBAR denied preliminary approval of the project. 6.4 Revised Plans Issue: On March 13, 2013, subsequent to filing the appeal, the applicant submitted revised plans that include revisions to the proposed stable and landscaping (see cover letter, dated March 13, 2013, Attachment G). According to the revised plans, (Attachment H), the proposed revised stable would be 2,781 gross square feet in size vs. the original size of 4,900 gross square feet, a reduction of 2,119 square feet. In addition, the height of the stable would be reduced by approximately 2 ½ feet, and the overall length would be reduced by approximately 50 feet. The proposed revised plan would reduce the total amount of structural development on the lot from 15,232 gross square feet to 13,113 gross square feet. Finally, the revised landscape plan would add three additional trees to be planted, for a total of 104 new trees vs. the originally proposed 101 new trees. Staff Response: The revised project would result in approximately 13,113 square feet of proposed structural development vs. the average of approximately 5,180 square feet and median of 4,951 square feet of structural development in the neighborhood. The approximately 14% reduction in the size of the revised stable, combined with the reduction of the overall length and height of the structure, would incrementally help to reduce the scale of proposed development as compared with the surrounding neighborhood. However, the proposed reduction in the size of the stable would result in a project that would still far exceed the average and median amount of structural development in the neighborhood. Because the revised landscape plan does not propose to reduce the number of existing trees to be removed, the proposed revision to add three additional new trees would not appear to adequately address the MBAR concerns with tree preservation as specified in the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards (Section III.D.1). For a full discussion of the tree removal

9 Page 9 issue, please see section 6.2 above. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Commission deny the appeal,, thereby affirming the decision of Montecito Board of Architectural Review to deny preliminary approval of Case No. 12BAR PROJECT ANALYSIS 7.1 Environmental Review The proposed project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section [Projects Which are Disapproved] of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section statutorily exempts projects from CEQA review which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The MBAR denied preliminary Approval of the project and therefore staff recommends denial of the appeal. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA. Attachment B of this staff report contains the Notice of Exemption. 7.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency REQUIREMENT Coastal Act Policy 30251: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. DISCUSSION Inconsistent: As discussed in Section 6.4 of this staff report, the proposed project on appeal would include approximately 15,232 square feet of development which would far exceed the average of approximately 5,180 square feet of structural development in the neighborhood. As such, the project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood as required by Coastal and Montecito Community Plan policies. Coastal Plan Policy 4-4: In areas designated as urban on the land use plan and in designated rural neighborhoods, new structures shall be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Montecito Community Plan Policy LU-M- 1.1: Architectural and development guidelines shall be adopted, implemented, and enforced by the County in order to preserve, protect and enhance the semi-rural environment of Montecito and the natural mountainous setting.

10 Page Zoning: Land Use and Development Code Compliance The project would conform to the use, height, setback, and other applicable standards of the Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Some of the principal standards are discussed below. Allowed Land Uses. The proposed residence and accessory structures are listed permitted uses in the AG-I-5 zone (Section ). Height. The proposed structures would all comply with their applicable height limits. The height limit for the proposed single family dwelling, barn and stable is 35 feet (Section ). The proposed two-story dwelling at a height of 27 feet, 3 inches, the barn at a height of 24 feet, 6 inches, and the stable at a height of 20 feet, 1 inch would comply with this height limit. The height limit for the proposed garage/carport and well house is 16 feet (Section ). The garage/carport at a height of 15 feet, 6 inches, and the well house at a height of 11 feet, 5 inches would comply with this height limit. Lastly, the height limit for the cabana and guesthouse is 16 feet (Section ). The proposed cabana at a height of 14 feet, 8 inches, and the guesthouse at a height of 15 feet, 10 inches would comply with this height limit. Setbacks. The subject lot is a result of Case No. 08TPM / Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 14,758), approved by the Montecito Planning Commission on December 16, 2009, which applied a 1.50-acre development envelope for all structural development. As such, the standard AG-I- 5 zone setbacks would not apply. All proposed structures would be located within the development envelope in compliance with the parcel map conditions. 7.4 Design Review MBAR reviewed the project on October 29, 2012, and January 28, At the October 29, 2012 meeting, the MBAR s initial comments focused on the intensity of development being proposed and expressed that the scale of development is too much. The MBAR did not express major concerns with the proposed single family dwelling, but directed the applicant to lower the profile of the accessory structures and make the dwelling the principally visual structure on the lot. No action was taken, and the applicant was directed to return for further review. In response to the MBAR comments from the October 29, 2012 conceptual review hearing, the applicant proposed a revised project and requested to return to MBAR on January 28, 2013 for further conceptual and preliminary review, including a site visit by the MBAR members. On January 28, 2013, the MBAR conducted a site visit, reviewed the revised project, and heard comments from a number of neighbors. At that meeting, the MBAR again expressed concern that the proposed amount of development was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and voted (five in favor, none opposed, and one abstained) to deny preliminary approval of the project (please see the January 28, 2013 MBAR minutes included as Attachment D). 8.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE

11 Page 11 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. ATTACHMENTS A. Findings B. Notice of Exemption C. Appeal Letter, Montecito Board of Architectural Review Denial D. Montecito Board of Architectural Review Minutes (Case No. 12BAR ) E. Neighborhood Study Data F. Site Plan G. Appellant s Cover Letter for Revised Plans, March 13, 2013 H. Revised Site Plan, March 13, 2013 G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\APL\2000s\13 cases\13apl Handtmann\Staff Report MPC 13APL doc