Laserfiche WebLink
9-A-27 <br />adequate size (6500 square feet)," does not necessarily mean lot shape should "automatically" <br />apply to this application However, certain other aspects of those findings made by the city <br />actually do pertain to our variance application (i.e., proximity to open space and tree cover) <br />Additionally, we found that California court opinions are split on the question of whether a lot of <br />odd shape is grounds for granting a variance [Guide to California Planning, Fuller, 1991] <br />Additionally (although we do not mean to imply that Redwood City must follow suit), we <br />tbund other cities on the peninsula that regularly grant sideyard and /or rear vard setback' <br />exceptions when they are adjacent to open space easements or parks. <br />With regard to another aspect of our application mentioned in your letter, specifically this' "A <br />number of the properties referenced in your submittal were built in accordance with the code at <br />the time the\ were constructed," we are confused. This item was given (and used by us) as part of <br />several findings made by the city on behalf of the Henderson application for variance (Please see <br />Notice of Official Action, File Number V10207 -8, 515 Teredo Drive). Clearly nonetheless, this <br />particular finding also applies to our application. <br />In another section of vour letter, regarding the "redesign of the proposed project," we respond <br />as tollows Although it may be possible to add to the front of the existing structure, along the left <br />side of the garage, our architect informs us of two things regarding that approach. First, it would <br />lead to narrow and irregularly shaped rooms. Next, there is a 70+ foot tall "heritage" redwood <br />nee in our front yard that we would like to keep. New construction would impose on its delicate <br />I oot SN'stem and cause other significant maintenance problems as well as creating concerns for <br />satet\ Further. the tree needs room to grow <br />- \Ithuugh our lot is rectangular in shape, its small size (relative to neighboring properties) does <br />ntal.e it difficult to develop under standard regulations The smallest lot size adjoining Marlin Park <br />is o. on ft The largest two lots in close proximity (only two and three doors away from us) are <br />hoth S.b'iS ft' Lookine beyond Marlin Park, within our subdivision, several lots are larger than <br />8.000 ft '. while none appear to be less than 6,300 ft'. Our 6,500 ft lot is clearly very close to the <br />lo" end of the ran_e. We feel that - of a variance is justified "in order to bring the <br />duad%antaged property up to the level of use enjoyed by nearby properties in the same zone" <br />[ Me /'lamiri irennni series: The lbrtunce, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 1997] <br />LastI1, since variances are quasi- judicial, we understand they do not deal with policy issues, <br />but. rather. with the application of city policy to one particular case - in this case, ours Our <br />property has a special circumstance that pertains to its location Will you please find in our favor? <br />If auu have any comments regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me anvtime (cell <br />phone b50 --4 -0795) <br />Sincerely, <br />C-sk— t,, . <br />Susan and Edward Wilson <br />