Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> 8.A <br /> Page125 <br /> p. 8 Item 2.b Appellants have been informally informed by an architecl thatApplicants I <br /> could have easily and quickly provided a 3D contextual drawing qf the <br /> plans using Gongle's free Sketch Up or some other reudily uvailable <br /> drawing program, which would have enabled the Planning Department <br /> und the neighbors to have a clearer understanding of the appearance vf <br /> the Roof and it.s interaction with the neighborhood. <br /> Staff Response: Sheet A3.1 of the project plans (Attachment 1) includes perspective <br /> renderings, often referred to as axonometric drawings, one for the front of the proposed <br /> residences and second for the rear. Sheet A0.2 of the project plans (Attachment 1) <br /> provides a proposed site plan, which places the proposed residence in between the <br /> neighboring properties. At its closest point the proposed curvilinear roof is <br /> approximately thirty-six (36) feet away from the appellants' residence. <br /> p. 9 Conclusion of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: <br /> (b) to reguire Applicants to submit adequate drawings thut wauld have <br /> permitted the Planning Department, Appellants, and other neighbur.s to <br /> undc�rstand the tmpact of the Roof in conte.xt. <br /> Staff Response: The applicant submitted, and the Planning Department reviewed, a <br /> complete application including all materials required by Article 45, Section 45.5 of the <br /> Zoning Ordinance. As previously mentioned, the City has on file, a full size set of plans <br /> that have been and remain available for review by the public, there were 2 <br /> neighborhood meetings on this project, and ongoing communication regarding elements <br /> of the project, including the roof. The Planning Department, and specifically, the Zoning <br /> Administrator, made a determination on the project based on the complete application, <br /> the submitted plan, and the administrative record. <br /> p. 11 Item 1.c.i. Applicunt.s will acknowledge that Jill Ekas, Planning Department Head, <br /> tivill maintain that the Planning Department did not "rubber stamp" <br /> Applicunts' application, but required numerous changes in Applicants' <br /> plans; however, Appellants will show that the Planning Department did, in <br /> fact, accept Applicants' proposals as proposed with respect to the three <br /> urchitectural elements subject of this Appeal, und that essentiuCly all three <br /> objectinnuhle elements remained after their review. Appellants ►vould <br /> argue thut t11is is tuntamount to a"rubber stamp" of Applicunt.s' <br /> objectinnable pr��posals <br /> Staff Response: A full account of the Architectural Permit Application Procedures & <br /> Project Chronology is provided in Attachment 2. The Planning Department conducted <br /> all necessary review of the project to determine its consistency with the Redwood City <br /> Municipal Code and the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. Significant time and effo�t <br /> 4 <br />