Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 75 <br /> Offer of Proof with Respect to Standa�-d C and the Standing Seam Quarter-Round Curved Metal <br /> Roo�(Roof") <br /> 1. Appellants would have identified one or mvre architects and urban planners who tivould <br /> have testifed orally or in writing that the Applicants' approved Roof�violated Standards B. and <br /> C. of the Guidelines, in that. I <br /> a. The standing seam metal roof is totally out of place in the immediate neighborhood <br /> and incompatible with the architectural and social harmony of the neighborhood. <br /> i. Among other proof, Appellants would have demonstrated that the standing seam <br /> metal roof that the Council approved,for the residence on Circle Road is starkly <br /> di,ff�erent Applicarats' Raqf (which the City Planning Departntent misleadingly <br /> identified in the NOA as "orre such roof "— implying that there are other such roofs <br /> in Redwood City, which, in,fact, is not true): <br /> (a) The Circle Road roof is a gentle pitched, half-round roof that runs,from eave <br /> to eave, and is,,for all intents, a traditional gabled roof with the pointed peak <br /> attr•actively rounded, whereas the Applicants' Rv�f is steep-pitched, which <br /> makes the unconventional metal roof much more visible from the street and the <br /> windows of neighbors; and, consequently, imposes its presence in the <br /> neighborhood to a much greater degree. Applicants ' Roof lvill be much more <br /> visible_from the street, creating a greater degree of architectural disharmnny on <br /> St. Francis Street than is the case on Circle Road. <br /> (b) The Circle Road roof is a half-round roof without shurp edges or radically <br /> contrasting planes, lvhereas the Applicartts ' quarter�-rnund Roof has a sharp, <br /> ve�y pronounced and visually imposing intersection of two �•oof planes that <br /> accentuates the oddiry of the roof in the neighborhood. <br /> (c) The mate��ials qf �Applicants' roof'stand out »rore in Appellants' neighborhvvd <br /> than on Circle Road. <br /> Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the Architectural <br /> Permit (AP2010-09) was consistent with the requirements of the Redwood City Zoning <br /> Ordinance, including the Architectural Standards B. and C. Additional discussion can be <br /> referred to in the Notice of Official Action (Attachment 3) and the staff report. <br /> The existing neighborhood is characterized by a variety of architectural styles, roof <br /> forms, and exterior materials. The proposed design represents another variation to the <br /> existing eclectic context. <br /> In response to the appellants' statements repeated above, Staff seeks to clarify that the <br /> property referenced on Circle Road does not have a standing seam metal roof. The <br /> project at 3705 Brand Rock Way was the example used for a standing seam metal roof <br /> 7 <br />