Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 7 <br /> When analyzing the potential introduction of a curvilinear roof form, again the Zoning <br /> Administrator considered a) the Architectural Standards provided in Article 45 of the <br /> Zoning Ordinance, including the general character of the neighborhood, b) the scale of <br /> the proposed roof in comparison to the profile of the existing roof, and c) whether the <br /> neighborhood or existing residence has a qualified Historic Character. Detailed <br /> discussions of these points can be referenced in the Notice of Official Action <br /> (Attachment 3) and the Staff Responses to the Offer of Proof (Attachment 11). In <br /> summary, the Zoning Administrator found that the proposed curvilinear roof form was <br /> consistent with the design requirements established in Redwood City, as evident by the <br /> fact that the use of a curvilinear roof form has been incorporated successfully in another <br /> location with similar neighborhood characteristics. <br /> 3. Rear Deck Size and Orientation <br /> A eal Ground 3: Permi ' <br /> pp ssron granted to construct a rear deck that unnecessarily <br /> violates the privacy of Appellanfs' bedroom — when reasonabte means are readily and <br /> practically available to preserve such privacy. <br /> The Architectural Permit process does not provide the City with the ability to regulate <br /> the use of a deck due to privacy concerns, nor does the City have a"privacy policy" that <br /> addresses rear yard decks. As such, the Zoning Administrator's decision approving the <br /> design of the deck is consistent with the purview of the Architectural Permit process and <br /> the mandate of Article 45. <br /> When evaluating the proposed rear deck the Zoning Administrator employed the <br /> following methodology: <br /> 1. Review the size, specifically the depth, of the rear deck on the existing residence. <br /> Along the eastern portion, the existing deck is approximately 15 feet in depth. <br /> Along the western portion, the existing deck is approximately 7%z feet in depth. <br /> 2. Review the size, specifically the depth, of rear decks on residential properties <br /> within the neighborhood. Based on the scaling of aerial photographs it appears <br /> that existing rear decks on properties within the neighborhood average <br /> approximately 10 feet in depth. <br /> 3. Review the size, specifically the depth, of the proposed deck to determine <br /> consistency of scale with a) the existing neighborhood context, b) with the <br /> proposed residence, and c) with the scale of the property, included the down- <br /> sloping topography. The proposed deck has a curved rear railing that mimics the <br /> shape of the rear property line; as such, the depth of the deck varies. The <br /> eastern portion of the proposed deck has a 13'8" depth_ The western portion of <br /> the proposed deck is approximately 13 feet in depth. To maintain consistency <br /> with the neighborhood context the Zoning Administrator restricted the rear deck <br /> to a maximum depth of 10 feet (Condition of Approval No. 17 to AP 2010-09). In <br /> the Zoning Administrator's decision, to approve a 10-foot depth, represents a <br /> scale consistent with the neighborhood context, provides ample depth for <br /> usability, remains consistent with the scale of the proposed residence, and <br /> minimizes the appearance of a void that is often created under rear decks that <br /> extend out on down-sloping parcels. <br /> 4. Determine the aesthetic compatibility with the proposed residence, i.e., ensure <br /> that the use of materials are consistent. Materials associated with the proposed <br />