My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2012 11:22:57 AM
Creation date
11/18/2010 5:05:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
11/22/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
418
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br /> 8.A <br /> Page116 <br /> Appeal of Issuance of Architectural Peimit Page 8 of 13 <br /> 448 Saint Francis St. <br /> Project No. AP-2010-9 <br /> I <br /> ii. 260 Myrtle Street would have been offered as clear evidence that an out-of- <br /> place architectural element can cause years of social disharmony in an <br /> otherwise cohesive neighborhood. <br /> iii. There are no residential examples of a quarter-round, curved standing seam <br /> metal roof anywhere within miles of 448 St. Francis Street. The closest <br /> example is a building at Woodside High School. This building stands <br /> above all other buildings on the campus and is physically and visually <br /> separated from the next building by at least 150' in distance and 50' in <br /> elevation. The next building has a flat roof, which in no way visually or <br /> architecturally conflicts with the quarter-round curved metal roof. In stark <br /> contxast, Applicants' Roof would be on exactly the same height as several <br /> roofs in the neighborhood, and within 40' of Appellants' gabled roof. The <br /> result will be a very undesirable clash of styles that will be aesthetically <br /> unpleasing and will reduce the property values on the neighboring houses. <br /> 2. Neighbors of other inappropriately designed and styled residences in the <br /> immediate area would have provided written or oral testimony that their property values <br /> decreased because the Planning Depardnent approved houses that were overbearing and <br /> discordant in their respective neighborhoods. <br /> a. The 2300 ft ultra-contemporary design — including the large quarter-round <br /> roof (approximately. 55' long by at least 10' high) and large flat planes of wall <br /> surface with unattractively few windows facing the street and Appellants' house — <br /> would be more appropriate on a grassy knoll west of Skyline Drive, not in a <br /> traditional community of bungalows and ranch houses, with ornamental elements <br /> on the fronts. Spec�cally, Applicants' proposed house would stand between two, <br /> small, traditionally old bungalows with traditionalIy ornamented facades and roof <br /> lines; the contrasting styles would be very discordant and the property vales <br /> would be adversely impacted. <br /> b. Appellants have been informalIy informed by an architect that Applicants <br /> could have easily and quickly provided a 3D contextual drawing of the plans <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.