Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board backs concept for San Diego Road addition, asks applicant to study carport roof material
Summary
The Single Family Design Board continued concept review of a Spanish-Colonial house renovation and additions at 1036 San Diego Road, supporting an interior setback modification for a two-car carport but asking the applicant to study a roofing material alternative and to return with landscape details.
The City of Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on July 14 supported concept-level design for additions and exterior changes at 1036 San Diego Road and backed an interior setback modification for a two-car carport, while asking the applicants to study alternate roofing materials and return with landscape and detailing imagery.
At the meeting Chair Lewis and board members heard from owner Maria Boomer and city case planner Jillian, who explained the project is a restoration and addition to a 1922 Spanish Colonial residence on a 23,177-square-foot lot. The proposal would demolish a 213-square-foot bedroom and a 307-square-foot patio and add a 541-square-foot first-floor addition, a 163-square-foot second-story addition and a two-car carport. Staff said the proposed total of 2,578 square feet equals about 55% of the guideline maximum for the lot-area ratio and that the second story exceeds the 17-foot design review threshold.
Jillian, the case planner, told the board the new two-car carport ‘‘encroaches into the 10-foot required interior setback’’ and that the portion encroaching is about 18 square feet and will sit 8 feet from the property line. She said the hearing was for concept-review feedback and that neighborhood preservation, hillside design-district and slope-block findings will be required at project-design approval.
Owner Maria Boomer described the project as a careful restoration that keeps the homes Spanish-colonial character while adding living area and a carport set behind the house. Boomer said the site is ‘‘away from any public view, away from any street’’ and described planned new landscaping, a small 30-inch retaining wall and an outdoor shower located near the carport. The board confirmed the outdoor shower appears on the site plan adjacent to the proposed carport.
Board members were generally supportive of the concept and of granting the interior setback modification given the lots constraints. Board member Richards said the project is ‘‘attractive’’ and that the carport is located in the best feasible position. Vice Chair Sherry and other members recommended the applicant reconsider the carport roof material, noting the plans show a standing-seam metal roof that would be visible to occupants of the new second story even if not visible from the street.
The board moved to continue the item to the staff hearing officer and then to the consent calendar with comments that the design is appropriate to the residence, that the board supports the setback modification given site constraints, and that the applicant should study alternate carport roofing materials and provide landscape imagery and site-work details at the next review. The motion passed with all board members voting yes.
The staff hearing officer will consider the boards design comments, the requested interior setback modification and the required neighborhood preservation and hillside findings during the formal review process. No final appealable decision was made at the July 14 concept hearing.
