Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Remodel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architectural Review Board approves Rolfe residence remodel with condition to provide landscape plan
Summary
The Architectural Review Board granted final design approval for renovations at 4715 Aragon, including a rear living-room addition and a covered patio, while requiring the applicant to submit a landscape plan for staff review. The accessory dwelling unit above the garage was noted as exempt from design review under state law.
The Carpinteria Architectural Review Board on Jan. 16 granted final design approval for renovations at 4715 Aragon, the Rolfe residence, and directed the applicant to submit a landscape plan for staff review before final permitting.
The decision covers a remodel and additions to an existing two‑story house that currently totals 1,799 square feet of living area and a detached 461‑square‑foot two‑car garage. The approved project includes 852 square feet of first‑floor additions, a new laundry room that will attach the garage to the house, and a 408‑square‑foot covered patio. The applicant also removed about 237 square feet of existing structure plus a balcony; the applicant’s materials described the resulting total floor area as 2,875 square feet and a perceived bulk of about 3,283 square feet because the covered patio contributes to perceived mass. The maximum building height remains 22 feet.
City staff noted that the applicant has added an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage; Cindy, a city planner who presented the project, said the ADU "per state law is not subject to design review." That limitation was a recurring point in the board discussion: several members expressed frustration that the board could not review or condition aspects of the ADU even though the ADU affected the site plan and rooflines the board had reviewed previously.
Board members pressed several design and site‑planning issues during the hearing. Members asked why the currently filed set did not include a landscape plan. Cindy said the applicant had removed the original, more elaborate landscape design when the scope of the house work was scaled back and had instead submitted a minimal plan showing stone pavers, a single raised planter and synthetic turf in the rear; existing trees and an existing orchard were indicated to remain.
Board members raised neighbor concerns about views and privacy tied to the previously proposed, larger design. Patrick O'Connor (board member) and Richard Dixon (board member) referenced public comments and earlier preliminary plans that had included a larger second‑story addition over a new garage; those earlier plans were scaled back following the board’s preliminary review. Several members said they were uncomfortable with the sequence in which the ADU was approved by planning staff after the board’s preliminary review, because that approval changed the roofline the board had earlier considered.
The board ultimately approved the project on a motion to recommend final approval to the Community Development Director, with a condition that the applicant submit a landscape plan for staff review and that staff (the vice chair was authorized to review the plan at the staff level). According to the record, the board voted to approve the motion with all members voting in favor after the landscape‑plan condition was added.
The applicant, who spoke briefly during the meeting, said the construction set included revised reflected ceiling plans and detail sheets (referenced on the submittal as A1.4 and D‑1) and noted the project would remove the stated 237 square feet and a balcony. Materials called out in the submittal included dark composition roof shingles, dark brown exposed wood trim, a taupe/camel stucco, black windows and stone accents on chimneys and rear porch columns. Staff described the proposed exterior light fixture as an LED fixture with the element recessed inside a hood; staff characterized it as night‑sky friendly and asked the board to confirm that finding.
Board members who supported approval said the project had been substantially scaled back from the original submittal, and that the remaining design was well executed for the site. Members who expressed reservations cited the board’s inability to weigh in on the ADU and said they would have preferred a full landscape plan showing plant species and the location of an existing hedge that affects neighbor views. Staff agreed to accept a landscape plan at the plan‑check stage and to review it at the staff level once submitted.
The board’s decision completes the Architectural Review Board’s design review responsibility; final building permits will still be subject to plan checking and other ministerial reviews by Community Development staff.
ACTIONS AT A GLANCE: Recommend final approval to the Community Development Director with a condition that the applicant submit a landscape plan for staff review. Outcome: approved.
