SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for Bosshardt Appeal of Planning and Development Denial of Land Use Permit 06LUP-00000-00245 Deputy Director: Zoraida Abresch Staff Report Date: October 13, 2006 Division: Dev/Rev North Case Nos.: 06APL-00000-00034, Supervising Planner: J. Karamitsos 06LUP-00000-00245 Staff Contact: Shelly Ingram Environmental Document: N/A Planner s Phone #: 934-6264 OWNER: Justin Bosshardt 3487 Willow Street Santa Ynez, CA 93460 (805) 688-3680 APPELLANT/AGENT: Curt Moniot P.O. Box 839 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 (805) 688-8539 Application Filed: March 15, 2006 Application Denied: July 14, 2006 Appeal Filed September 08, 2006 1.0 REQUEST This site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 143-400-017, known as 3457 Willow Street, Santa Ynez, Third Supervisorial District. Hearing on the request of Curt Moniot, agent to consider Case No. 06APL-00000-00034, [application filed on September 08, 2006] to consider the appeal of the Planning and Development Department's decision to deny Land Use Permit 06LUP-00000-00245, in the 10-R- 1 Zone District under Article III for a two story single family dwelling, and garage with second story Detached Residential Second Unit. The application involves AP No. 143-400-017, located at 3457 Willow Street, in the Santa Ynez area, Third Supervisorial District.
Page 2 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and conditionally approve Case No. 06LUP-00000-00245 marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara November 1, 2006 Planning Commission Attachment A", based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and based on the ability to make the required findings or deny the project based upon the project s inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, inability to make the required findings, and due to the resultant significant unavoidable adverse impacts (if applicable). Your Commission's motion should include the following: 1. Adopt the required findings for the project specified in Attachment A of this staff report. 2. Deny the appeal, 06APL-00000-00034, thereby upholding the Planning and Development Department s denial of Land Use Permit No. 06LUP-00000-00245. 3. Deny the Land Use Permit, 06LUP-00000-00245 Refer back to staff if the Planning Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION The proposed project is being considered by the Planning Commission based on, Article III, Sec. 35-327.2.1 of the Santa Barbara Code that states: The decisions of the Planning and Development Department on the approval, denial, or revocation of Land Use Permits, final approval of projects under the jurisdiction of the Director, or decisions of the Board of Architectural Review may be appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant or any interested person adversely affected by such decision. 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The Planning Commission hearing is de novo and the commission shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Department. 4.1 Land Use Permit A Land Use Permit was submitted on March 15, 2006 for a two story approximately 3,265 sq. ft. single family dwelling, a 2,119 sq. ft garage/workshop with a second story approximately 800 sq. ft. Detached Residential Second Unit on a recently created vacant lot in Santa Ynez.
Page 3 Planning and Development denied the permit on July 14, 2006 based on neighborhood incompatibility issues 4.2 Appeal of Permit Denial Appeal Issues: As presented in the appeal received September 8, 2006 the applicant/appellant contends that: 1) The Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department s methodology to define neighborhood compatibility was not uniformly applied within the Santa Ynez Township, 2) The determination regarding size, bulk and scale is not supported by the evidence, 3) The decision to deny the issuance of the land use permit was in error and an abuse of discretion, 4) The methodology used by P&D to define and analyze neighborhoods is flawed. The applicant/appellant proposes to appeal the following specific conditions: 1) The finding that the proposed Residence is in violation of Santa Barbara County planning policies, 2) The finding that the proposed Detached Residential Second Unit (DRSU)-Garage is in violation of Santa Barbara County Planning Policies, 3) The denial of a land use permit for the proposed residence, 4) The denial of a land use permit for the proposed DRSU and garage. 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 5.1 Site Information Site Information Comprehensive Plan Designation U Res. 3.3, Urban area maximum 3.3 dwelling units per acre Ordinance, Zone District Article III, 10-R-1, residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Site Size 0.37 acre (16,363 sq. ft. gross, 14,214 sq.ft. net) Present Use & Development vacant Surrounding Uses/Zoning North: Residential R-1 South: Residential R-1 East: Residential R-1 West: Residential R-1 Access Via private driveway from Willow Street Other Site Information Parcel created by TPM 14,617 Public Services Water Supply: Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Sewage: Santa Ynez Community Services District Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire Station #32, 906 Airport Road School Districts: College Elementary School District, Santa Ynez Valley High School
Page 4 5.2 Setting The subject parcel was created by TPM 14,617 in 2004. It is an Interior Lot defined as a lot that (1) has no street frontage or (2) the street frontage is less than 40 feet in width and the lot was not created by a subdivision resulting in five or more lots. The lot has a gross area of 16,363 sq. feet, 14,214 net and a development envelope of 6,303 sq. feet (imposed to protect a large oak tree.) (see attachment F1- site plan) The parcel in question is larger in its entirety (16,363 sq. ft. gross) than most of the surrounding parcels which are approximately 10,000 sq. feet; however the building envelope imposed by the tract map restricts development to an area of 6,303 sq. ft. Building permit records show 12 homes in the immediate surrounding area are 1,500-2,500 sq. ft. single story homes. A visual survey of the immediately adjacent neighborhood found it to be developed with single story structures with the exception of an attic room facing the street in one home and two second story homes designed to have the second level at street level, giving the appearance of a single story dwelling. 5.3 Parcel Validity The parcel on which the proposed structures would be located is recorded in Book 58, pages 36-37 as Parcel Two of Tract Map 14,617 in the office of the County Clerk & Recorder and as such is deemed a legally created parcel. 5.4 Description On March 15, 2006 Land Use Permit 06LUP-00000-00245 was submitted for construction of an approximately 3,265.5 sq. ft. two story single family residence (outside dimensions of approximately 50 by 37 ) with second floor balconies and an average height of approximately 22 and an approximately 2,119 sq. ft. garage /workshop (outside dimensions of 30 by 44 and 23 by 34 respectively) with a second story approximately 800 sq. ft. Detached Residential Second Unit with second story balconies. The structure is located on a legal parcel with a prescribed building envelope of approximately 6,303 sq. ft. 5.5 Background Information Due to the size and configuration of the proposed structures a general analysis of neighborhood compatibility issues relative to the smaller single story homes was conducted. A petition signed by several of the immediate neighbors and several telephone calls and emails opposing the project were submitted following the mailed noticing, dated March 30, 2006. 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 6.1 Environmental Review Pursuant to the Public Resources Code 21080(b)(1), the California Environmental Quality Act is not applicable to ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
Page 5 6.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency REQUIREMENT LAND USE ELEMENT Land Use Development Policy 4 (Land Use Element, p.82) Prior to the issuance of a use permit, the County shall make the finding that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed project. Visual Resource Policy 3. (Land Use Element pg. 91) 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. DISCUSSION Consistent: The project site would have adequate services and resources to serve the proposed structures Inconsistent: The proposed two story single family dwelling, detached residential second unit and workshop garage is not consistent with the character of the surrounding residences. The proposed two story single family dwelling (approximately 3,265.5 sq. ft.), is nearly 75% larger than the surrounding homes which average approximately 1,700 sq. ft., and are primarily single story. 6.3 Ordinance Compliance The permit application (Case No. 06LUP-00000-00245) was denied by Planning and Development on July 14, 2006, subject to a ten day appeal period. The appeal period was extended due to questions regarding an extension of that time period. The subject appeal was filed on September 8, 2006. The proposed project is ministerial in nature and requires only the issuance of a Land Use Permit. Planning and Development jurisdiction is based on Section 35-314.4 (Land Use Permit Processing) of Article III of the County Code, which states: The Planning and Development Department shall review the Land Use Permit application for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, this Article, and other applicable regulations, and shall decide to approve or deny the Land Use Permit. A Land Use Permit shall not be approved or issued by the Planning and Development Department until all necessary prior approvals have been obtained. Permit Findings: Article III (Sec. 35-314.5) requires that the following findings must be made before a LUP may be issued: (i) that the proposed development conforms to 1) the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) with applicable provisions of this Article III; (ii) that the proposed development is located on a legally created lot; and (iii) that the subject property is in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivisions, setbacks and any other applicable provisions of this Article, and such zoning violation enforcement fees as established from time to time by the Board of Supervisors have been paid.
Page 6 Appeal Requirements: Under Section 35-327.2.1.d, Article III of the County Code, appellants of Land Use Permits must specifically state in the appeal how: 1) the decision of the Planning and Development Department on a Land Use Permit, or a decision of the Director or the BAR, is not in accord with the provisions and purposes of Article III; or 2) there was an error or an abuse of discretion by the Planning and Development Department, Director or BAR. The denial of the proposed Land Use Permit is an independent action and not related to any other discretionary permit. Had the Land Use Permit been required as clearance for a previously approved discretionary permit, the appeal requirements would additionally include: that the appellant identify how: (i) the Land Use Permit is inconsistent with the previously approved discretionary permit; (ii) the discretionary permit s conditions of approval have been unfulfilled; or (iii) the approval is inconsistent with noticing requirements. However, these requirements do not apply in this case. The proposed development is inconsistent with two sections of Article III: Article III, Sec.35-212.2 In areas designated as urban on the Land Use Element 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. Article III, Sec. 35-314.5.1 That the proposed development conforms to the applicable policies of 1) the Comprehensive Plan and 2) with the applicable provisions of this Article and/or falls within the limited exception allowed under Section 35-306.7. (see section 6.2) 6.4 Board of Architectural Review The Board of Architectural Review did not have jurisdiction in this case because the neither the locale nor other parameters of the development fell with in its specified purview. 7.0 APPEALS ISSUES 7.1 Grounds for Appeal: In the materials and letter dated September 8, 2006 the applicant/appellant asserts that: 1. The Santa Barbara County Planning and development department s methodology to define neighborhood compatibility was not uniformly applied within the Santa Ynez Township. 2. The determination regarding size bulk and scale is not supported by the evidence. 3. The decision to deny the issuance of the land use permit was in error and abuse of discretion. 4. The methodology used by P&D to define and analyze neighborhoods is flawed.
Page 7 Staff Response: The requested Land Use Permit was denied based on inconsistency with applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. The arguments provided by the appellant assert that there was an error or an abuse of discretion by the Planning and Development Department or Director. Staff acknowledges the methodology used to define neighborhood characteristics is somewhat subjective but maintains it was uniformly applied to the Township of Santa Ynez, which within its boundaries contains several neighborhoods of varying description. A survey of Building and Safety Division permits for 12 surrounding residences showed the immediate area to contain an average single story 1,700 sq. ft. home (see attachment D). A schematic provided by Mr. Moniot also showed the immediate neighborhood to the West as one containing only one story residences. The denial of the land use permit is supported by both visual photographic and building permit records evidence. The following discussion states the four appeal points as described specifically by the applicant, followed by staff responses. Appeal issues #1 and #2 address the findings relative to denial of the Land Use Permit for the Single Family Dwelling, Detached Residential Second Unit and Garage/Workshop. Appeal Issues #3 and #4 address the denial of the Land Use Permit. Appeal Issue #1 -. The Department s finding that the proposed Residence is in violation of Santa Barbara County planning Policies. Staff Response - Approval of a Land Use Permit requires a finding that the proposed project is consistent with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed two story single family dwelling, with second story balconies would not be consistent with the character of the surrounding residences. The immediately adjacent homes are on approximately 10,000 sq. ft. parcels and are primarily one story structures averaging approximately 1,700 square feet. The proposed two story single family dwelling (approximately 3,265.5 sq. ft.) is nearly 92% larger than the surrounding homes. The dwelling, as designed does not conform to Land Use Element Visual Resource Policy 3 (see section 6.2) and Article III, Sec.35-212.2 (see section 6.3). The applicant was given the option to redesign the project and chose not to pursue that option, therefore the permit was denied. Appeal Issue #2 The Department s finding that the proposed DRSU-Garage is in violation of Santa Barbara County Planning Policies. Staff Response Same as response to Appeal Issue #1 except as follows: The proposed two story single family dwelling, detached residential second unit and workshop garage would not be consistent with the character of the surrounding residences and accessory structures. There are no detached residential second units and few accessory structures in the immediately adjacent area. The two story structure with balconies is nearly 72 % larger than many of the surrounding main residences. Appeal Issue #3 - The denial of a Land Use Permit for the proposed residence. Staff Response The denial of the Land Use Permit was based on the inability to make the finding discussed in Appeal Issue #1 above.
Page 8 Appeal Issue #4 - The denial of a Land Use Permit for the proposed DRSU and garage. Staff Response The denial of the Land Use Permit was based on the inability to make the finding discussed in Appeal Issue #2 above. 8.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of said action. ATTACHMENTS A. Findings B. Denial Letter dated July 14, 2006 ( with letter dated May 19, 2006 attached) C. Appeal Application dated September 8, 2006 D. Aerial view of surrounding homes (based on 1990 flood control survey information) E. 1. phone log 2. petition /letters in opposition F. 1. Site Plan 2. Elevations (4) G:\GROUP\Permitting\Case Files\APL\2000s\06 cases\06apl-00000-00034 of 06APL-00245\SR-PC Bosshardt.doc
Case Name, #: Page B-1 ATTACHMENT A: DENIAL FINDINGS 1 Pursuant to Section 35-314.5 of the Article III Zoning Ordinance, a Land Use Permit shall only be issued if all of the following findings can be made: 1.1 That the proposed development conforms to the applicable policies of 1) the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) with the applicable provisions of Article III and/or falls within the limited exception allowed under 35-306.7, Nonconforming use of Land, Buildings and Structures. As discussed in Sections 6.2, 6.3 of this staff report the proposed project does not conform to Visual Resource Policy 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Visual Resource Development Standard 1 in Article III (Section 35-212.1) and requirements set forth in Article III, Section 35-314.5.1. Therefore the finding cannot be made. The proposed two story residence and Detached Residential Second Unit and garage/workshop would be located on an interior lot surrounded by one story homes. The proposed structures are large, the main residence would be approximately 92% larger than the average surrounding residences and the DRSU/garage/workshop would be approximately 72% larger than the surrounding main residences. The immediately adjacent homes are on approximately 10,000 sq. ft. parcels and are primarily one story structures averaging approximately 1,700 square feet with few accessory structures. The design of the main structure features windows and French doors opening onto balconies on the second story that could intrude on the privacy of the surrounding residences. The DRSU has several second story windows and an outdoor stairway. Based on these and other related factors the residence and accessory structures would not be compatible with the nature of the surrounding residences. 1.2 That the proposed development is located on a legally created lot. While the subject parcel is identified as Book 58, pages 36-37 as Parcel Two of Tract Map 14,617 in the office of the County Clerk & Recorder and is a legally created parcel, the project is denied and this finding does not apply. 1.3 That the subject property is in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivision, setbacks and any other applicable divisions of this Article, and such zoning violation enforcement fees as established from time to time by the Board of Supervisors has been paid. This subsection shall not be interpreted to impose new requirements on non-conforming uses and structures under Section 35-305 et seq. While the subject property is currently in compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivision, setback and any other
Case Name, #: Page B-2 applicable divisions of Article III; the proposed project would result in inconsistency as described in Finding 1.1.1. Therefore, while there are no zoning violations relating to the project site, the project is denied and the finding does not apply.