Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays final approval for 224 Lyola, asks for architectural sections and railing details
Summary
The Single Family Design Board postponed final approval for a second‑story addition at 224 Lyola Drive and instructed the applicant to return to the consent calendar with detailed architectural sections, a Juliet‑balcony construction detail, an explicit off‑white stucco specification and confirmation that exterior lighting is dark‑sky compliant.
The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on June 1 postponed final approval for a proposed 751‑square‑foot second‑story addition at 224 Lyola Drive, citing missing architectural detail sheets and questions about balcony and railing construction.
The proposal would add the second floor to an existing 1,575 square foot single‑story residence in the coastal zone, yielding about 2,749 square feet of development on an 8,527 square‑foot lot (roughly 83 percent of the guideline floor‑area ratio). Staff told the board the project qualified for a categorical exemption under CEQA section 15301 (existing facilities).
At the hearing, the applicant described changes since the project’s March design hearing: consistent full‑glass balcony guards with white metal posts, a two‑foot cantilevered Juliet balcony to be engineered with a structural curb, and a lighting plan that uses recessed downlighting. Board members said they were comfortable with the overall direction but repeatedly pressed the applicant for missing construction details the board needs to verify final conformance — in particular (1) a section through the proposed Juliet balcony and its curb/support at the roof intersection, (2) guard‑rail and post anchorage details where railings meet angled roof surfaces, (3) a color and finish board that specifies the exact off‑white stucco (applicant referenced Benjamin Moore “Dune White”), and (4) dark‑sky fixtures and specs for exterior lighting.
Because those items were not on the set presented to the board, a motion carried asking the applicant to return on the consent calendar for final approval after providing the listed details and building sections that staff can use to confirm compliance at permit review. The board also recommended matching railing hardware to window finish for material consistency.
Next steps: The applicant will supply the requested architectural details and return to the board’s consent calendar for final review and ratification. No final approvals were granted at this meeting.
