Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Con-In-Ients in Objection <br /> <br />10 Ann Fischer, 1624 Holly Circleo She ~rote that a~nings are not allo~ed per the CC&Rso <br />She believes that the a~ning is too close to the side property line (see Exhibit G)o <br />2, Larry and Jan Miller, 1570 Poppybank Court. They stated that the a~ning is large and not <br />attractiveo If the aVlfning is approved, they requested that it be required to be set back <br />rather rrom the side property line (see Exhibits F and 1)0 <br />30 Mark Voegele, 1693 Holly Circleo Stated that the canvas ~ould ~ear more quickly than <br />other materials that could be usedo He stated that the HOA has never approved anything <br />but a lattice~ork-type cover or anything not made or ~ood (see Exhibits Hand 1)0 <br />40 Alex Faymonville, HOA Managero The HOA denied the a~ningo The HOA believes that <br />aVlfnings ~ould not add to the aesthetic value of the con"lmunity and Vlfould become ragged <br />and raded (see Exhibits E and 1)0 <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> <br />Projects orthis nature are categorically exempt from the requirements orthe Califomia <br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)o Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this <br />report. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />The proposed ordinance ~ould have no financial impact on the Cityo <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />Starr believes that the retractable canvas a~ning installed by the applicant is functionally a patio <br />cover and adheres to the site development standards orpatio covers ~ithin the Charter Oaks <br />PUDo Unlike a permanently constructed patio cover, ho~ever, the impact to the affected <br />neighbors is minimized since the aVlfning is retractable, is not typically extended to its full length, <br />and has a lo~ height (7' 9")0 Staff believes that, as conditioned, the approval of the retractable <br />canvas a~ning ~ould not cause undue adverse impacts to the neighbors or the development as a <br />Vlfholeo <br /> <br />Starr typically supports the position or homeoVlfners associations regarding design issues related <br />to their particular developmento Starr understands and respects the Rosepark HOA's position that <br />the aVlfning does not meet its aesthetic standardso HOVlfever, starf also considers requests such as <br />Mr. Fischer's in a broader context and tries to accommodate proposals that are reasonable and <br /> <br />SR 06:020 <br />Page 5 or 6 <br />