Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 80 <br /> Off'er ofProo titi�ith Respect to Standard C. and tlte Express and/or Implied RiQht ofu California <br /> and U.S. Citizen to Reasonable Privacv and the Invasive Rear Deck ("Deck ") <br /> 1. Appellants would have identified one or more architects, urban planners, and/or• legal <br /> authorities who would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' un-terraced, <br /> second-floar deck would unreasonably invade the pri>>acy ofAppellants. <br /> a. Although the deck itself is not �icessively deep, it sits at the rear of a house that is <br /> possibly twice as deep as the existing structure, resulting in a deck that penetrates deeply <br /> into the rear yard of the Applicants. Moreover, it is a second-floor deck that is on the <br /> sante height as Appellants ' second. floor bedroom. <br /> b. Consequently, anyone standing at the end of the Deck can look directly into <br /> Appellants ' bedroonz. <br /> c. By terracing the Deck, Applicants can eliminate this possibiliry, tivhile possibly even <br /> gaining more usable space. <br /> Staff Response: "Privacy" interests are not within the scope of the Zoning <br /> Administrator's authority. The appellants contend that the Zoning Administrator failed to <br /> follow Architectural Standard C. However, pursuant to Architectural Standard C, the <br /> Zoning Administrator must consider "the extent to which the structure conforms to the <br /> general character of other structures in the vicinity insofar as the character can be <br /> ascertained and is found to be architecturally desirable." No reference or requirement is <br /> provided for the maintenance of privacy. <br /> As such, the Zoning Administrator reviewed and approved the submitted design in <br /> compliance with Article 45 of the Zoning Ordinance. The deck, as proposed, meets the <br /> setback requirements. But upon consideration of Architectural Standard C, the Zoning <br /> Administrator provided two conditions to the Notice of Official Action, which address <br /> aesthetic consistency and proportional size of the rear deck. Conditions 16 and 17 <br /> state: <br /> 16.The rear deck shall be constructed of materials and colors that are compatible <br /> with the residence. <br /> 17. The rear deck shall observe the required rear yard setback. Furthermore, the <br /> upper level deck (at the second floor, based on the rear elevation) shall have a <br /> maximum depth of 10 feet from the rear kitchen/dining room wall. <br /> In an attempt to respond to the privacy concerns, the applicant has chosen to <br /> incorporate an additional design feature on the rear deck, in the form of a screen wall. <br /> The opportunity also exists for the appellants to introduce screening elements that <br /> 12 <br />