PC 102605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Janis McWilliams Miller, 1570 Poppybank Court, noted that she lived next door to the applicant and spoke in opposition to this itciri. She submitted photos of her property to the Cotrimissioners. Shc noted that she moved to Rose Park because of the strict architecture guidelines and CCB~Rs_ She obj cctcd to the awning, which had been erected over their common fenceline, because she believed it was unattractive, large, dark and very noticeable. Although Mr. Fischer moved the awning two inches from the fenceline, the size and feeling of encroachment did not diminish for her. She believed that while a wood patio cover and an awning served the same purpose, visually they were very diffarent_ She noted that wood patio covers blended with the homes in the community. She added that the Board of Directors stated that awnings do not add value to the coniniunity's aesthetics and that they diminished the curb appeal. She noted. that the Board. of Directors repeatedly denied his request. She noted that awnings were more appropriate for a detached home, not for duets such as theirs. She requested that if the Commission allowed the awning to remain, it be required to be set back a reasonable distai~ce from their fenceline_ Mark Voegele, 1693 Holly Circle, spoke in opposition to this item_ He noted that he was vice president o£ the HOA Board when the First complaint was received and when they first denied the request_ The Board believed that canvas would wear more quickly than other materials that could. be used, and fraying, tearing, and fading were a concern. The I30A has never approved anything but alatticework-type cover or anything not made of wood_ He noted that with respect to Mr_ Fischer's statement about avcniings for restaurants and other Downtown storefronts, they added to the aesthetic ambiance of the City and added that they ware commercial establishments_ He noted that such awnings received approval from. the Planning Commission or Planning Department. He noted that it was the responsibility of the purchasers in an HOA to read, understand, and sign the CCBt.Rs through the escrow process. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin why the Commission should become involved in this matter, Ms_ Decker replied that there was an interpretation that needed to be made regarding the nature of awnings and patio covers, which could be looked at in both fashions. Staff believed that rather than make that interpretation, it could be brought before the Commission as a major modification. Commissioner Roberts believed the prohibition against awnings was against awnings over windows, which would be a design problem in duets. She did not believe that a screen awning should be offensive, except that in looking at these photographs, this large awning being that close to the neighbor was a problem. She did not believe this awning belonged in that duet Commissioner Fox noted that when her complex was built, there were no satellite dishes or retractable awnings and that they had to be addressed after the technology was available. She inquired whether the awning produced noise when it was retracted. PLANNING G'OMMISSION MIN LITPS October 26, 2005 Page 5 of 14