Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> 8.A <br /> Page 78 <br /> b. The 2300 ft ultra-contemporary design — including the guarter-round roaf und large <br /> , flat planes of wall surface with unattractively, few windows, facing the street and 'I <br /> Appellants ' house — would be more appropriate on a grassy knoll west af Skyline Drive, ' <br /> not in a traditional communiry of bungalows and ranch houses, with ornamental elements <br /> on the,T•onts. Specifrcally, applicants' proposed house would stand betweerr two, small, I <br /> traditionally old bungulows with traditionally ornamented facades and raqf lines; the <br /> contrasting styles would be very discordant and the property vales w�uld be adver.sely <br /> impacted. <br /> Staff Response: As previously stated, the existing neighborhood character contains a <br /> variety of architectural styles, as well as properties and residences of varying scales. <br /> The scale of the proposed residence is consistent with the requirements of the <br /> Redwood City Zoning Ordinance as well as with the existing neighborhood context. <br /> Furthermore, the proposed design has maintained a one-story scale from the street. <br /> The additional square footage has been incorporated into a lower-story in accordance <br /> with existing topography of the site. See project plans in Attachment 1. <br /> Conclusions�Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its dury (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of the <br /> property otivner with the rights, need.s, and interests of the adjoinin.g and nearby prope.rty <br /> owners, of the neighborhood, and af all resident.s of Redwood City by unreasonably authorizing <br /> the const�•uction of a yuarter-round standing seam metal r�oof that is discordant with the <br /> neighborhnod :s dominant roof styles, thereby degrading a valuable element of'the streetscape <br /> and the neighbvrhnod. <br /> Staff Response: For the reasons provided above, the Planning Department has not <br /> failed any duty and has issued this architectural permit in compliance with the <br /> requirements of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department <br /> followed the requirements of Article 45, including the Architectural Standards of Section <br /> 45.8, in approving the roof design, and consideration was given to the architectural <br /> design, streetscape, and neighborhood context. <br /> 2. Appellants tivould ha>>e identified one or more architects and urban planners w/to would <br /> have testified orally or in ia�riting that the Applicants' objective of c�•eating a large, vaulted <br /> interior space could also hui�e heen achieved by slightly modifying the Roqf design tn preservc� <br /> its essential cun�ed,form, but to do so tivith a series vf two, three, or more adjoining,flat planes <br /> thut would have created the circular,feel and appearance (.comewhat analogous tn the way <br /> culculus defines a circle us a series of adjoining.flat planes). <br /> a. By doing this, u wide >>ariety qf urchitecturally interesting metul shingles cvuld he <br /> upplied to the Roof, bringing it much more into harmony with existing roof,s in the <br /> 10 <br />