SR 06:020 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . The applicant's neighbors vvho share the zero-lot line vvith the applicant expressed oppo- sition to the installation ot the avvning. Jan and Larry Miller ot ] 570 Poppybank Court object both to the aesthetics or avvnings in the development, as vvell as to the ract that Mr. Fischer is not in compliance vvith the developlnent's site development standards (see at- tached letter). 1 Mr. Fischer reterred the matter to the Rosepark Home Ovvners Associa- tion, On July 20, 2005 The Board of Directors denied his request for the installation or the avvning. The Board reels that avvnings vvould not add to the aesthetic value or the comlnunity. The Planning Departlnent strives to vvork vvith HaAs and support their determinations. In this case, hovvever, starr believes that Mr. Fischer's avvning is, in effect, an attached patio cover. Statt typically does not revievv projects or this nature, since at 7 reet 9 inches (7' 9") high, the avvning is not subject to adlninistrative design revievv through the Planning Departlnent. The administrative design revievv procedure is reserved tor accessory struc- tures and additions over 10 reet tall due to the visual impact ot these higher structures. The impact ot Mr. Fischer's avvning is further reduced since, unlike a permanently erected structure, the avvning is retractable and, according to the applicant, is rarely ex- tended to its tull 9 teet 2 inches. In addition, no portion ot the avvning is visible rrom the public right otvvay. PUBLIC NOTICE Statr sent notices otthe Planning COlnmission's public hearing on this item to all prop- erty ovvners and residents located vvithin ] ,ooo-reet or the subject property on October 13, 2005. Besides cOlnments rrOln the Millers and the Rosepark HOA, statthas received comlnent rroln one neighbor as or the vvriting or this statt report. Ann Fischer, ] 624 Holly Circle, e-mailed to express opposition to the avvning (see Exhibit F). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is exempt rronl environlnental revie"'" pursuant to the Califomia Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 1506] (b). Thererore, no environmental document accolnpanies this report. CONCLUSION Statl believes that the canvas retractable canvas a"",ning installed by the applicant is func- tionally a patio cover and adheres to the site developlnent standards ot patio covers 'within the Charter Oaks PUD. Unlike a pennanently constructed patio cover, hovvever. the inlpact to the arrected neighbors is Inininlized since the avvning is retractable, is not typically extended to its lull length, and has a 10'1.'1/ height (7' 9"). StafT believes that, as I ~rhe Millers initial forenlost objection "vas that as originally iJ1stalJcd~ Mr. Fischcr~s a'\.\!ning crossed over the side property line. Mr. Fischer has since rnoved the avvning so that it no longer crosses the property boundary. Item 6,{l" PUD-85-01-4A4 Page .J c~J 5 October 26, 2005