PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF LONG RANGE PLANNING
TRANSMITTAL MEMO
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF LONG RANGE PLANNING
DATE: May 29, 2008
TO: SunPAC Members
FROM: Derek Johnson, Deputy Director Shaunn Mendrin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: SunPAC Meeting #9
SunPAC members, the items noted below have been included or referenced in preparation of the June 4, 2008 meeting.
1. Meeting Agenda. The meeting agenda for the June 4, 2008 meeting has been provided for your review. For further explanation, please see discussion below (Attachment 1, page 4).
2. Meeting Minutes. Action Minutes from the May 7, 2008 meeting are included for
you review and approval (Attachment 2, pages 6-11).
3. Meeting Materials. The following additional materials have been provided as requested by the SunPAC:
• Discussion of Height, FAR and understories (see Attachment 3, pages 13-15)
• Plans for 2410 Lillie Avenue, Kimsey Building (see Attachment 4, pages 17-18)
• Plans for 2420 Lillie Avenue, Perkins Building (see Attachment 5, pages 20-21)
• Draft Summerland Height Methodology (see Attachment 6, pages 23-25)
Note: We will need to reschedule some of the future meeting dates, please bring your calendars. You may also download the SunPAC materials on the following webpage if you have difficulties accessing the files attached in the email: http://countyofsb.org/plandev/comp/planareas/summerland/
1
MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF LONG RANGE PLANNING
MEETING AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008
Agenda Item 1
Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call Agenda Item 2
Public Comment period – This item is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today’s agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of the Chair. Agenda Item 3
Meeting Minutes - Review and approval of the May 7, 2008 meeting minutes. Agenda Item 4
Continued discussion of the “Working Draft” Summerland Commercial Design Guidelines.
1. Continued Discussion Height & Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and understories. You may also refer to materials from Meeting 8 for reference.
Note: The SunPAC indicated that a discussion of private views was warranted. Staff presented those materials at the March 19, 2008 meeting and the SunPAC took action on the issue. Please refer to those materials as we will discuss them further during the Residential Design Guidelines component.
Adjourn
Next meeting : SunPAC Community Plan Update Meeting #10 Topic: Residential Design Guidelines Meeting
Date & Location: TBD CC: Jeremy Tittle, Executive Assistant, 1st District Office John McInnes, Director, Office Long of Range Planning Amy Donnelly, Assistant Planner, Office of Long Range Planning
2
Attachment 1
Attachment 1 3
Questions or comments about the Community Plan Update may be directed to Derek Johnson at 805-568-2072 or [email protected] and further information may be obtained on the following web site: http://countyofsb.org/plandev/comp/planareas/summerland Attendance and participation by the public is invited and encouraged. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Hearing Support Staff (805) 568-2000. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Hearing Support Staff to make reasonable arrangements.
Summerland Planning Advisory Committee Meeting 1
Notice of Public Meeting
Summerland Planning Advisory Committee (SunPAC) Meeting #9
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Time: 6:00 PM
Location: Board of Supervisors Conference Room
123 East Anapamu Street, 4th Floor, Santa Barbara
Attendees: SunPAC Members, County Staff and Public Participants
Purpose/Discussion: Commercial Design Guidelines Discussion
Material to Read: 1992 Board of Architectural Review Design Guidelines for Summerland
Draft Commercial Design Guidelines for Summerland, April 2008
Material to Bring: SunPAC Meeting & Workshop Materials
Agenda Item Discussion Topic
CALL TO ORDER
# 1 Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call
# 2 Public Comment Period:
The Public Comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on
today’s agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of
the Chair.
# 3 Meeting Minutes from May 7, 2008
# 4 Continued Review of Draft Summerland Draft Commercial Design Guidelines
Adjourn Next
Meeting:
SunPAC Community Plan Update Meeting #10
Topic & Location: TBD
Adjourn
4
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
5
Page 1 of 6
SUMMERLAND Planning Advisory Committee
(SunPAC)
May 7, 2008 Meeting – Minutes
1. Meeting Called to Order: By Chair Donaldson at 6:06pm.
2. SunPAC Committee Members Present: Robert (Robin) Donaldson, David (Tom) Evans,
Jennifer Fairbanks, Betty Franklin, Paul Franz, David Hill, Mary Holzhauer, Nancy Kimsey,
Andy Neumann, Suzanne Perkins, and Wickson (Reeve) Woolpert.
Staff Present: Amy Donnelly, Assistant Planner and Shaunn Mendrin, Senior Planner.
3. Welcome: Chair Donaldson welcomed participants, and provided opening
comments.
4. Public Comment for Non-Agendized Items: None.
5. Meeting Minutes: SunPAC Member Franz moved to approve the SunPAC Meeting
Minutes from April 30, 2008 with one correction to omit the basement definition voted
on at the 4/30/08 SunPAC meeting which will be clarified and continued in the current
meeting discussion. SunPAC Member Woolpert seconded. All were in favor. Motion
carried 11-0.
6. SunPAC Member Comments on “Working Draft” of the Commercial Design Guidelines:
SunPAC Members provided prepared comments on the “Working Draft” of the Draft
Commercial Design Guidelines (April 2008). Staff noted that all comments, except
those requiring further SunPAC deliberation and consensus, will be incorporated into
an updated version of the document.
David Hill:
Page 18 – Add language about living or green roofs.
Page 31 – Felt that 12’ plate height does not provide for a human scale.
Page 49 – Add language on lighting hours and protecting the night sky.
Page 51 – Add language on banner signs (see Betty Franklin’s comment).
Paul Franz:
Page 5 – “Review Process” should include cosmetic changes (i.e. paint color).
Page 12 – Add language about the distinction between E/W of Valencia to Block
Face Character.
Page 17 – Specify requirements of a Landscape Plan. (Shaunn Mendrin mentioned
these reside in the County’s LUDC).
Page 18 – Guideline 3.19 – Include sidewalk improvements (i.e. red brick in County
R-O-W).
Page 25 – Guideline 3.38 – Placing building parallel with the street may not work on all
sites it may further clarification for flexibility.
Page 52 – Clarify new paint versus repainting. New paint should require BAR review.
6
Page 2 of 6
Betty Franklin:
Page 13 – SunPAC agreed to omit Ridgeline & Hillside Development Guidelines
because all of Summerland is considered a Ridgeline & Hillside area.
Page 51 – Signage – Add language on banner signs “not permitted more than 30
days per 3 month period” as determined at the January 26, 2008 Workshop.
Andy Neumann:
None – gave his time to Tom Evans.
Reeve Woolpert:
Page 8 – “Design Phase” – insert “privacy and view” concerns.
Page 9 – Suggestion of Summerland BAR review should be enhanced/stronger.
Page 10 – Add Reeve’s description of Summerland Character here.
Page 11 – “Lot pattern” – Fix typo: tent lots are 25 x 60 feet not 25 x 50 feet.
Page 11 – “Lot pattern” – Add language on E/W Valencia block patterns. After
“rhythm” add “mass, bulk and scale” along with proximity.
Block Face Character: Under “Develop common rhythms” add language on building
upon positive elements (positive defined as elements consistent with these design
guidelines).
Page 12 – Defined visual character – should encourage
“appealing/desirable/preferred” elements (unified can still be ugly).
Page 12 – Doesn’t understand the figure. Both look mixed.
Neighborhood Character Guideline 2.1 – Add “streetscape photomontages” instead
of photos. Add “desirable” after “compatible”.
Page 21 – “Privacy & Views” – add language about views from streets.
Page 23 – Bottom of page after “Gateways” add “…and protect and enhance the
character of Summerland”.
Tom Evans:
Table of Contents: Add a placeholder for Story Poles and FAR Worksheet.
Page 12 – Sketch – Top row shows mixed but with correct scale, last residence is out of
scale (Shaunn Mendrin noted this is just a placeholder).
Guideline 2.5 – Not sure if breaks every 25’ are appropriate. Not as important as
gabled ends to retain small scale. No mention of gable proportioning. Robin
Donaldson noted to encourage a break every 25’ is too vague for an architect. Term
“gable” should appear in the Block Face Character section of the Design Guidelines.
Traditional gable proportions are 15’ to 16’. (Shaunn Mendrin noted a more
appropriate section for this may be the Architectural Features chapter.)
Page 13 – Add language: “Solutions that enhance the residential feel of Varley Street
are encouraged”.
Page 15 – Guidelines should reference private views.
Page 16 – Guideline 3.11 – Should corner buildings be close to intersections? They
should be setback to create an open feel. A varied offset has a nicer feel.
Page 21 – Privacy – figure is poor (Shaunn noted this is a placeholder).
Page 23 – Guideline 3.35 – add language regarding views from roadways.
Page 26 – “Abandoned E/W R-O-W” – clarify owner gets 50% FAR credit.
Page 27 – Height – need to add language on understories.
Page 33 – Seaside example is good but too large for Summerland (Robin Donaldson
noted it looks too Craftsman).
Page 33 – Victorian example is too ornate for the simpler style found in Summerland.
Page 34 – Colonial Revival example is poor.
Page 35 – Contemporary needs to be removed. It’s “contemporary interpretation” of
allowed styles that is acceptable and encouraged.
7
Page 3 of 6
Page 42 – Should say “acceptable and encouraged”.
Materials: Float sand finish should be for additions only.
Figure of wooden siding is also a good example of window relief.
Guidelines 6.4 – Some non-factory finishes can also have glare.
Page 48 – Fixtures with shields are encouraged but should be required. Robin
Donaldson said it should read “Fixtures with solid, opaque shields should be required”.
Should we address good design for tree lighting?
Page 58 – SBAR Review Checklist is not as complete as current checklist. See current
checklist for reference to spot elevation, etc.
Mary Holzhauer:
Page 14 – Third Bullet refers to Toro Canyon (strike).
Nancy Kimsey:
Page 11 & 16 – Difference between E/W Valencia is not described. David Hill noted
east is more rural, west is denser. Nancy Kimsey disagreed. Robin Donaldson asked we
agendize to clarify.
Page 15 – Last sentence is not correct in her recollection (setbacks west of Valencia =
5-15’, east of Valencia = more than 15’? (Paul Franz, Suzanne Perkins and Nancy
Kimsey recall differently than the rest of the group). Agendize to clarify.
Landscape Plan required for all except SF dwelling. Don’t we want to require for any
development on Lillie? Shouldn’t this be required for the entire C-1 zone?
Page 21 – Privacy & Views – There is minimal description of the definition of a view
(add “existing” views).
Page 41 – Guideline 5.27 – Add language on hours of operation for garage doors, or
reference LUDC.
Page 9 – Asks “neighbor concerns” be respected. Noted all SunPAC members should
also respect other member’s concerns.
Suzanne Perkins:
Page 15 – Is unclear on setbacks for east of Valencia.
Page 17 – Philosophical question: Add language on landscaping maintenance?
(Shaunn Mendrin noted this would reside in LUDC as a requirement. We can add to list
of LUDC amendments.)
Page 23 – Privacy and Views – Need to tread lightly. Public versus private requires
involvement of County Counsel and Board of Supervisors. Problem with definitions and
enforcement. Robin Donaldson asked the item be agendized again.
Gateways: Need a roundabout at Padaro Lane and Via Real. Will discuss more during
Circulation Element update (Phase III).
Page 25 – “Primary mass of building” should not be parallel to the street. Needs to be
broken up on some blocks otherwise will appear too boxy and won’t promote the
desired village quality.
Page 35 – Need a better “Contemporary” style example. (Shaunn Mendrin noted this
is just a placeholder.)
Remodels should require curb, gutter, sidewalk and utility undergrounding (need to
come up with a monetary figure to trigger this work).
Robin Donaldson:
Page 32 – Architectural Styles – concerned about interpretation. It should be okay to
make a distinction between new and historical, and reference to Secretary of the
Interior’s guidelines here (refer to Chapter 8).
Design Review Process: Add language that non-architects are not legally permitted to
present plans to SBAR. CA law states plans must be brought forward by a licensed
architect.
8
Page 4 of 6
Landscape Architect: Should be required for projects in C-1.
Jennifer Fairbanks:
Page 25 – Primary mass of building should not be parallel with the street (see Suzanne
Perkins’ comment above).
Architectural Styles: Is Spanish creeping into the residential? It’s not encouraged.
Public Comment:
1. Mr. Blair Whitney commented that story poles are important, and they should
be altered to reflect any approved modifications to pending projects. He
noted any changes made to floor area ratio (FAR) calculations or allowances
may affect the 50% allowance on the east/west portions of abandoned rights-
of-way on purchased property and suggested this be kept as is. He
commented the SunPAC should take a field trip and walk down Lillie Avenue
and Varley Street to visually assess the dozen or so properties with
development potential. He said a landscape architect should be involved
with any landscaping on Lillie, which should be enforced by the County. He
further stated there should not be differentiation between east/west of
Valencia Street as all of the area is in the C-1 Zone and thus should be treated
the same. On the subject of views, Mr. Whitney stated a project applicant
should be required to take photos of the project site prior to performing any
demolition in order for the BAR to asses “existing” views. Lastly, he noted it
would be useful for the County to establish an email listserv to automatically
notify interested parties of upcoming BAR hearings.
2. Mr. Chris Roberts commented that while views need to be protected, some
balance is important. He noted the City of Valencia has handled the
protection of views by stipulating if a certain percentage of a view is
obstructed, landscape removal is required. He explained the bike trail in
Summerland is important, and bicycle access to the community should be
retained and enhanced. He suggested the need to address the historic
character of Summerland, proper landscaping for hillside areas that have
unstable plastic soil, and guidelines for enhancing the natural environment like
the creek by Greenwell Avenue. He noted he would forward these notes to
Chair Robin Donaldson.
3. A Summerland resident commented there should be an ordinance for stop
signs or traffic calming along Lillie and Padaro because of excessive speeding
in these areas.
Chair Donaldson identified the following comments on the “Working Draft” require
further discussion and consensus by the SunPAC:
•••• Private versus Public Views.
•••• Descriptive language of the difference between east versus west of Valencia
Street to add to the Draft Commercial Design Guidelines.
•••• Clarification on setbacks for areas east versus west of Valencia Street previously
voted on by the SunPAC at the March 19, 2008 and March 31, 2008 SunPAC
meetings.
•••• Floor area ratio (FAR), plate height, basements and building height discussion will
continue through this meeting and the next on June 4, 2008. (The outcome will be
incorporated into the Draft Commercial Design Guidelines.)
9
Page 5 of 6
7. Staff Member Mendrin led a PowerPoint presentation on the discussion items
continued from the prior SunPAC meeting concerning basements, plate height,
building height and floor area ratio (FAR).
Action: SunPAC Member Franz made a motion to approve a new definition for floor
area ratio (FAR) and a new definition and exclusions for basements for Summerland,
as amended below. SunPAC Member Perkins seconded the motion. All voted in
favor. Motion carried 11-0.
• Floor Area Ratio – Summerland: A measurement of development intensity
represented by the quotient of net floor area divided by net lot area.
o Exclusions:
• Parking located within, or portion thereof, a basement (see Figure X-
Basement Illustration),
• 100% of a true basement with no more that 18 inches above the finished
grade of the building footprint to be used for storage-accessory and/or
mechanical for a one story structure, OR
• 50% of a true basement with no more that 18 inches above the finished
grade of the building footprint to be used for storage-accessory and/or
mechanical for a two story structure.
• Basement – Summerland: A basement shall be counted as a story if its floor-to-
ceiling height is 6.5 feet or more, and the finished floor directly above is no more
than 4 feet above the finished grade.
o Additional Building Height Guideline:
• 4.3 – “Basements should be cut or dug into the existing grade. The use of
excessive fill to qualify a portion of a structure is discouraged.”
Action: Chair Donaldson moved to remove the current 9 foot plate height
requirement (which results in an incremental FAR penalty if exceeded) and accept
Staff’s recommendation to make plate height a guideline since the mass, bulk and
scale of the building is already controlled through floor area ratio (FAR) and building
height requirements. Further, the Design Guideline #4.4 will be amended as follows
and reference to 12 foot plates being “encouraged” will be struck:
“Commercial first floor space should provide a taller plate height. The second
floor plate should generally be less than the first floor.”
SunPAC Member Woolpert seconded. The motion carried 10-1 with SunPAC Member
Evans opposed.
Action: SunPAC Member Franz made a motion to maintain the existing floor area ratio
(FAR) allowances but with the provision that a formula be applied to adjust the
existing FAR percentages to retain the current development envelops, ensuring the
existing character of Summerland is retained. The FAR modification would be
recalculated based on the new methodology for calculating the floor area and other
adopted changes such as plate height. SunPAC Member Woolpert seconded. All
voted in favor with the exception of SunPAC members Perkins and Kimsey. Motion
10
Page 6 of 6
carried 9-2. Chair Donaldson noted the floor area ratio (FAR) and height discussion
would continue to the next SunPAC meeting on June 4, 2008.
8. Adjournment: Chair Donaldson moved to adjourn the meeting. SunPAC Member
Perkins seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried 11-0. Meeting
adjourned at 9:36pm.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 6:00pm
123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara
Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 4th Floor
Topic: Finalize Discussion of Commercial Design Guidelines
Minutes Approved:
_____________________________
Robin Donaldson III, Chair
G:\GROUP\COMP\Planning Areas\Summerland\2007 Summerland LRP Effort\Summerland PAC\SunPAC Meeting Information\1-Meetings &
Agenda's for Commercial Design Guidelines\8-Meeting 8\Minutes\5-7-08 Draft Minutes.doc
11
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
12
BUILDING HEIGHT & FAR COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDLEINES
Background
SunPAC members expressed concern regarding the extent of recommended
changes in methodologies and the resulting increase in the size of buildings. Staff has
recommended the following changes, those that have been approved by the
SunPAC include a check (�) next to them:
� FAR Calculation – Changed to methodology consistent with the County.
� Basement – Language has been modified to allow parking to be excluded
from the FAR for any portion meeting the Summerland Basement Definition.
Additional exclusion language was added for a “true basement” in which
accessory storage and mechanical equipment may be located based on the
number of stories of the structure. In addition, a guideline was added to the
draft document which discourages the use of excessive fill to qualify portions of
a structure as a basement.
� Plate Height – The definition of plate height has been retained and used as a
design guideline to allow more flexibility in design. This was done to make this
element consistent with the proposed design guidelines since they encourage
taller plate heights at the first floor level. In these cases, applicants should not
be penalized through a reduction of FAR as is the current practice.
Building Height – Staff has recommended the SunPAC adopt the current
methodology used throughout the County which uses a building height based
on the existing grade. This creates a “height” envelope over the site in which
the entire structure, including the roof, must be located. The methodology also
includes a maximum height, measured from the lowest point of the structure to
the highest point of the structure for those sites that qualify as Ridgeline and
Hillside Development. Staff and some SunPAC members have expressed that
the existing 22 foot height limit is too restrictive for commercial development.
In response, staff recommends the SunPAC change the building height in the
C-1 to 25 feet, which is consistent with the Countywide allowed height within
the Coastal Zone.
FAR – Staff has recommended that the existing FAR calculations of .29 for
commercial and .35 for mixed used be retained. The SunPAC indicated
concern about the extent of the adopted changes and the resulting increase
in the building envelope.
At the May 7, 2008 SunPAC meeting, the SunPAC continued the discussion of Building
Height and FAR to June 4, 2008. The SunPAC also indicated by a straw vote that they
would like staff to study existing projects based on the proposed new height
methodology and to consider a FAR that would keep the building envelopes similar in
size as existing development. The following discussion addresses the direction given
by the SunPAC.
Building Height
The current methodology for measuring building height is determined by the
calculating the average height by measuring from the grade to the midpoint of the
roof at various points around the structure. This allows for portions of a building to
have taller facades on one side and shorter facades on another, which may not
13
TRANSMITTAL MEMO BUILDING HEIGHT & FAR
necessarily be consistent with the topography of the site. Currently, the maximum
building height for “Urban Area” of the community is 22 feet.
In order to provide consistency within the County, staff has recommended that the
SunPAC consider the adoption of the height methodology used throughout the
County. This methodology establishes a height envelope over the subject lot, which
reflects the existing grade. On sloped lots, this encourages designers to cut into the
slope, which will lower the building profile. This also allows for increased design
flexibility and provides consistency with the proposed design guidelines.
Staff has noted that the existing building height of 22 feet is too restrictive to
accommodate good design. In the example provided at the May 7, 2008 meeting, a
two story structure with minimal plate heights of 8 feet and floor joists of 1.5 feet would
result in a 19 foot high structure, leaving 3 feet available for the roof structure. Staff
recommended the following for building height:
1. Adoption of the Countywide Height Methodology for Summerland.
2. Change the Building Height in the C-1 to 25 feet, consistent with the County
Coastal Area height limit.
Note: Staff has included a sample of the height methodology form for
Summerland.
Site sections for 2410 Lillie (Kimsey Building) and 2420 Lillie (Perkins Building) have been
included for your reference (Attachments 4 and 5 respectively). The first sheet in
Attachments 4 and 5 indicate the existing grade, the height envelope based on the
new methodology for 22 feet and 25 feet, and the buildings height measured from
the lowest point to the ridge as a reference. The second sheet indicates the same
measurements, but with topography changed to a flat site. Staff has included the 11”
x 17” set of plans for reference, which will be sent via mail and available at the June
4, 2008 meeting.
In comparing the two illustrations for each building you will see that the proposed
methodology at a 22 foot height envelope will limit the design flexibility. It also
important to note the design of these buildings and their rooflines were influenced by
the current methodology, which results in a roof structure slightly out of proportion with
the main structure and retail space that feels closed in. Table 1, indicates the heights
of building components that affect the overall height and interior space.
Table 1 Building Component 2410 Lillie 2420 Lillie
1st Floor Plate1 9’ 10’
2nd Floor Plate 11’ 9’
Height, based on proposed methodology2 22’ 22’
Height, based on existing methodology 17’ 18’ 1. The second floor plate height includes the floor joists.
2. The building height indicated is measured from the finished floor to the highest point of the roof
structure.
A good exercise prior to the meeting for SunPAC members is to walk into the Just Folk
commercial space to get a sense of the interior and then walk down to the Kimsey
and Perkins building just past Valencia. This will provide a gauge on how plate height
14
TRANSMITTAL MEMO BUILDING HEIGHT & FAR
influences the interior and functionality of a structure. Staff’s recommendation
remains the same as noted above.
FAR
At the May 7, 2008 meeting, the SunPAC also stated that in light of the changes
approved to date, which include FAR calculation methodology, removal of the plate
height FAR penalty and basement exclusions, the FAR should be adjusted accordingly
to ensure that the extent of building allowed (FAR) matches that of existing
development.
The existing FAR for commercial is .29 and mixed use is .35. As indicated during the
FAR methodology discussion, the resulting change FAR is approximately 6% to 7%
based on the examples used. Based on the direction of the SunPAC, this additional
floor area should be adjusted to ensure that the building scale remains similar to
current development. A reduction of 6% in FAR allowed on a site translates into
approximately .02. The resulting “adjusted” FAR would be .27 for commercial and .33
for mixed use.
Other factors that have changed include the elimination of a penalty for plate
height. Plate height penalty was unique in that was not always used by applicants.
Further reducing the FAR would restrict the design of commercial development, when
considering that generally commercial areas have a FAR of .50 or greater, and the
new design guidelines have a significant amount of additional guidelines to further
shape and mold a structure into a composition that is consistent and complimentary
to the character of the community.
Staff has not mentioned Understories since the guidelines generally deal with this issue
by requiring buildings to be set at or near the same level of the sidewalk. The issue of
understory affects the apparent height of building. Staff will propose other strategies
to address the understory or crawl space area under a structure in the Residential
Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends that the SunPAC retain the existing FAR calculations of .29 and .35
due to the depth of the updated design guidelines and comparison of interior space
of the Just Folk Building and the Kimsey and Perkins building past Valencia. The
additional square footage is minimal and would be unperceivable on a new
structure. Staff recommends that design flexibility for architects and should be
preferred with the expectation of a higher quality design within existing FAR.
Additional language can be added to the Commercial Design Guidelines if
recommended by the SunPAC.
15
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
16
P/L
P/L
Existing Grade
22’25’
22’
15’
15’
22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
Setback
Setback
17
P/L
P/L
25’
22’
15’ 15’
22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
Lillie Avenue Varely
2410 Lillie Avenue, Kimsey Building Scale 1/16 = 1”
Setback Setback
P/L
P/L
Existing Grade
18
Attachment 5
Attachment 5
19
22’
25’
22’
15’
15’
P/L
P/L
22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
Setback
Setback
Existing Grade
20
P/L
P/L
25’
22’
15’ 15’
22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology
Lillie Avenue Varely
2420 Lillie Avenue, Perkins Building Scale 1/16 = 1”
Setback Setback
P/L
P/L
Existing Grade
21
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
22
Height Calculation Methodology
Except for structures located within the Coastal Zone on property zoned with the VC View Corridor Overlay, the height of a structure (not including fences and walls) is determined by the vertical distance between the existing grade and the uppermost point of the structure directly above that grade. If the structure is located within the Coastal Zone on property zoned with the VC View Corridor Overlay, then the height of the structure (not including fences and walls) is determined by the vertical distance between the average finished grade and uppermost point of the structure directly above that grade. The height of the structure shall not exceed the applicable height limit (see Diagram 1 below) except for certain limited exceptions discussed below. In addition to the height limit applicable to a structure as described above, a structure subject to the Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines shall not exceed a maximum height of 32 feet as measured from the highest part of the structure, excluding chimneys, vents and noncommercial antennas, to the lowest point of the structure where an exterior wall intersects the finished grade or the existing grade, whichever is lower (see Diagram 2 below). 1. In the case where the lowest point of the structure is cantilevered over the ground surface,
then the calculated maximum height shall include the vertical distance below the lowest point of the structure to the finished grade or the existing grade, whichever is lower.
2. This 32 foot limit may be increased by no more than three feet where the highest part of
the structure is part of a roof element that exhibits a pitch of four in 12 (rise to run) or greater.
EXCEPTIONS 1. Chimneys, church spires, elevator, mechanical and stair housings, flag poles,
noncommercial antennas, towers, vents, and similar structures which are not used for human activity may be up to 50 feet in height in all zones subject to compliance with the F Airport Approach Overlay and the VC View Corridor Overlay. The use of towers or
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Planning and Development www.sbcountyplanning.org
Methodology applies to: Structures located inside the Summerland Planning Area.
23
Height Calculation Methodology – Summerland Page 2
similar structures to provide higher ceiling heights for habitable space shall be deemed a use intended for human activity.
2. Portions of a structure may exceed the applicable height limit by no more than three feet
where the roof exhibits a pitch of four in 12 (rise to run) or greater. 3. Architectural elements (portions of a building that exceeds the height limit and extends
beyond the roof of the building) with an aggregate area less than or equal to 10 percent of the roof area or 400 square feet, whichever is less, may exceed the height limit by no more than eight feet when approved by the BAR.
4. Special exemptions for oil/gas equipment (see Article II, Section 35-127.1.a). DEFINITIONS Existing Grade: The existing condition of the ground elevation of the surface of a building site at the time of permit application, including Board of Architectural Review applications, that represents either (1) the natural grade prior to the placement of any fill on the site or the excavation or removal of earth from the site, or (2) the manufactured grade following the completion of an approved grading operation including grading approved in conjunction with the subdivision of the site. Finished Grade: The height of the manufactured grade of that portion of the lot covered by the structure following the completion of an approved grading operation. Finished Grade, Average: The average height of the manufactured grade of that portion of the lot covered by the structure following the completion of an approved grading operation. Height Limit: The maximum allowed height of a structure as established by an imaginary surface located at the allowed number of feet above and parallel to the existing grade.
Diagram 1
24
Height Calculation Methodology – Summerland Page 3
Diagram 2
25