Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board gives conceptual feedback and continues review of garage conversion and roof deck at 16 Alamita Padre
Summary
At a conceptual hearing the board reviewed plans to convert an existing garage to habitable space, build a detached three‑car garage with a roof deck and a pool at 16 Alamita Padre. Staff confirmed a minor zoning exception for a 6‑inch as‑built setback encroachment; the board requested neighborhood dimensioning, screening, plate‑height study and pool‑safety fencing before returning.
The Single Family Design Board provided conceptual feedback March 23 on a proposal at 16 Alamita Padre to convert an attached garage to living space, add a detached three‑car garage with a roof deck and install a pool and landscaping. Staff said the project requires a minor zoning exception for an as‑built door that encroaches about six inches into a five‑foot interior setback.
Project designer Ernesto said the detached garage and roof deck are set well back from the public right‑of‑way (approximately 125 feet) and that the roof deck would be largely concealed from public views; he described the roof deck plan as using a hip‑roof edge as a 42‑inch guardrail and showed preliminary landscape bio‑retention planters to manage runoff.
A nearby neighbor, Leon Smith, requested clarity about construction activity, privacy impacts from the proposed roof deck and whether barbecues or other activities would be allowed; Ernesto said the pool fencing and screening will be addressed at final review and that the roof deck would be concealed and screened by vegetation in most sightlines.
Board members asked for clear dimensioning to adjacent properties, confirmation of proposed pool fencing for safety, clarification of plate heights and guardrail details, and recommended showing the proposed vegetation screen and final material palette at the next submittal. The board voted to continue the item to the full board for further review, noting the board’s support for the minor zoning exception because the encroachment is not visible from public vantage points.
