Laserfiche WebLink
� 8.A <br /> Page 77 <br /> Appellants ' gabled roof. The �•esult will be a very undesirable clash of sryles that <br /> will be aesthetically unpleasing and tivill reduce the prope�-ry values on the <br /> neighboring houses. <br /> iv Neighbors vf other inuppropriately designed and styled residences in the <br /> immediate area will provide written or oral testimony that their property values <br /> decreased because the Planning Department approved houses that were <br /> overbearing and discordant in their r•espective neighborhoods. <br /> Staff Response: In (ii) above, the appellants introduce 260 Myrtle Street in support of <br /> their appeal. However, 260 Myrtle Street is not relevant to the review of this project. <br /> The review, permitting, and construction process associated with the residence located <br /> at 260 Myrtle Street proved to be a challenging process for the City, homeowner, <br /> contractor, and neighborhood. The City has used this opportunity as a learning <br /> experience and has made some improvements to the entitlement process as a result. <br /> Yet, the design elements within this project are signi�cantly different from those of 260 <br /> Myrtle Street and cannot be compared. <br /> As to the appellants' assertions in (iii) above, staff is not aware of any single-family <br /> house with a curved standing seam metal roof. As previously mentioned, the use of a <br /> curvilinear roof is an introduction of a new roof form to this neighborhood that has a <br /> variety of architectural styles with different roof forms. However, Woodside High School <br /> is not a valid example of an existing building with a curved standing seam metal roof <br /> because of its significantly different scale and proportions nor a consideration for <br /> denying a project with a curved standing seam metal roof. Rather, the Zoning <br /> Administrator considered that as proposed, the applicant's residence would be <br /> approximately six (6) inches lower than the existing roof. Additionally, as previously <br /> stated, the proposed curvilinear roof form has less of a pitch that a typical 4/12 gable <br /> roof. Furthermore, the front elevation of the proposed residence maintains a one-story <br /> appearance with a height of approximately fourteen (14) feet, where the Zoning <br /> Ordinance allows for a maximum height of twenty-eight (28) feet. <br /> As to appellants' assertions in (iv), the Zoning Administrator issued the Notice of Official <br /> Action based on the information before the Planning Department. To the extent any <br /> , comments were provided, the Zoning Administrator took them into consideration. <br /> However, such testimony is outside the scope of consideration made by the Zoning <br /> Administrator in approving an architectural permit. The Zoning Administrator must base <br /> , the decision on the architectural permit on the Architectural Standards set forth in <br /> Section 45.8 (and repeated in the staff report), none of which authorize property value <br /> as a factor. <br /> 9 <br />