AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular

Browse Search

8.A Page 70 (somewhat analogous to the way calculus defines a circle as a series of adjoining flat planes). a. By doing this, a wide variety of architecturally interesting metal shingles could be applied to the Roof, bringing it much more into harmony with existing roofs in the neighborhood, while still permitting Applicants to have the economic, safety, and environmental benefits of a metal roof. b. In makin� this truly minor modification with respect to Applicants' desired interior space, the benefits to the Appellants — who would look directly look into the large (approximately. 55' long by at least 10' high), unbroken, imposing surface of Applicants' Roof from the kitchen, bathroom, and second bedroom/office, and from two decks — would far outweigh any aesthetic compromise the Applicants would make. Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning Department failed in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of the property owner with the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby property owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of Redwood City by unreasonably authorizing the construction of a quarter-round standing seam metal roof that is discordant with the neighborhood's dominant roof styles, thereby degrading a valuable element of the streetscape and the neighborhood. Offer of Proof with ResQect to Standard C and the Exuress and/or Implied Rieht of a California and U S Citizen to Reasonable Privacy and the Invasive Rear Deck ("Deck") 1. Appellants would have identified one or more architects, urban planners, and/or legal authorities who would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' un- terraced, second-floor deck would unreasonably invade the privacy of Appellants. a. Although the deck itself is not excessively deep, it sits at the rear of a house that is possibly twice as deep as the existing structure, resulting in a deck that penetrates deeply into the rear yard of the Applicants. Moreover, it is a second- floor deck that is on the same height as Appellants' second floor bedroom.