Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roofing And Second Story topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board continues La Cornia second‑story review, requests justification for existing S‑tile roof
Summary
The board continued review of a proposed second‑story addition at 1740 La Cornia Drive and asked the applicant to justify an existing S‑tile roof and provide photos of an unpermitted CMU retaining wall; members were otherwise generally supportive and waived additional FAR study requirements.
The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on May 19 continued a concept review for a second‑story addition at 1740 La Cornia Drive, asking the applicant for additional detail on an existing S‑tile roof and on an unpermitted CMU retaining wall visible from the street.
Architect Liz Hughes, presenting for Tom Moxon Architect, said the project proposes a 541‑square‑foot second‑story addition to an existing single‑story residence and that several as‑built, previously unpermitted features (a 30‑square‑foot dining‑room infill, a 6‑foot wood fence and a 3‑foot CMU retaining wall) will be included in the permit package. The proposal would raise the house from an existing ridge height of about 15 feet, 9 inches to roughly 22 feet and reach about 89 percent of the maximum FAR; the board agreed to waive additional FAR study requirements for the next stage.
Board members said size, bulk and scale of the addition appeared modest and generally acceptable, but debated whether the existing S‑tile roofing is appropriate to continue. The board referenced the SFDB guideline (section 34‑c) on use and installation of clay or S‑style tile and asked the applicant to show how the new work would meet the guidebook’s installation expectations (starter row, mortar details and mixing of field tiles to avoid a uniform appearance) or to propose an alternative roofing material consistent with the permitted roof originally shown in the city records (composite shingle).
Members also requested photos and clarifying information about an existing CMU retaining wall that runs along a portion of the front yard; the board asked whether that wall is exposed CMU or painted/plastered and requested that detail in the next submittal. Several members recommended small studies of the roof geometry where the new music‑room volume meets the bedroom volume so the eaves/ridge relationships read as a cohesive composition.
The board moved to continue the project to the full board for project‑design review, waived the FAR information packet for now, and asked the applicant to provide roofing justification or an alternative, plus photos of the CMU wall and additional roof‑geometry studies. The motion passed unanimously.
