Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Deck Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions visibility, privacy and railing design on as‑built Shoreline roof deck, asks for original plans
Summary
The board reviewed an enforcement/permit application to legalize a 354‑square‑foot Trex roof‑deck addition at 1618 Shoreline Drive. Members asked the applicants for the original 1992 plans, photos showing sightlines to neighbors, and alternatives to reduce the apparent height of the new railing.
The Single Family Design Board reviewed a proposal to legalize an as‑built third‑story roof deck at 1618 Shoreline Drive and continued the item to the full board, asking applicants to provide the original approved plans, sightline photos and alternative railing concepts.
Agent Brian Zant and owner/designer Dustin Dodgen said the project would add 354 square feet of Trex decking and powder‑coated aluminum posts with stainless‑steel cable infill to an existing 425‑square‑foot roof deck. Zant said the front edge of the area of work is about 32 feet from the front (south) property line and side setbacks are roughly 22–23 feet; the rear set‑back from the property line is about 55 feet.
“We’re proposing to add 354 square feet of Trex decking and cable guard rails,” Zant told the board. He said an existing parapet around much of the deck was about 4 inches high in places and that the new rail would be roughly 36–37 inches above the deck in parts of the revised layout.
Board members expressed concern about the raised portion of the deck, which sits roughly 3 feet higher than the rest of the roof deck adjacent to a vaulted primary bedroom. Several commissioners said the elevated rails create a visually heavy, “basketball‑court” appearance from Shoreline Drive and asked the applicants to study railing options that reduce perceived height. Member Richards said the raised section “was likely never intended to be a deck” and asked for a clearer showing of what was historically permitted.
The board moved to continue the application to the full board with a list of requested materials: (1) the original 1992 approved plans for the roof deck; (2) photos from the deck showing the relationship to neighboring properties; (3) alternative railing concepts that reduce visible height on the east/front elevation, especially between the curved lower deck and the higher parapet; and (4) additional neighborhood precedents. The motion passed unanimously.
No final, appealable decision was made at the hearing; staff and applicants will return with the requested materials for the full board to review.
