CCMIN010306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky questioned why Council would consider changing the PUD for only one lot as opposed to the entire jurisdiction of the Rosepark HOA and let the HOA decide whether it wanted to allow this. Mr. Iserson said it has been a common method and practice for single-family developments to request changes for only one lot. Mr. Brozosky believed it seemed fair to modify the PUD for every lot in the development and let the HOA and the CC&Rs dictate as opposed to treating everyone special. He referred to a letter dated October 18, 2005 from Mr. Alex Faymonville, Community Association Manager, on behalf of the Rosepark HOA Board of Directors that stated the HOA's Architectural Guidelines require a five-foot setback from the property line for awnings. He asked staff to explain the difference between the City's regulations and the Rosepark CC&Rs with respect to what constitutes a patio cover. Mr. Iserson said staff had not looked into the particular rules that the Rosepark HOA might have established. The City's rules state that a patio cover can extend all the way to the property line on the zero lot line side. Mr. Brozosky asked if the City's regulations allowed a solid patio cover or must it be a lattice cover? Mr. Iserson said from the City's standard point of view through the PUD, a patio cover can be solid and can extend all the way to the zero lot line side of the property line. Ms. McGovern pointed out the staff report indicated that on July 28, 1988, the City approved a minor modification to the PUD revising the site development standards for the complex to allow construction of decks, accessory structures, and patio covers closer to the property line than the approved RM-4,000 development standards. The revised standards do not allow architectural projections such as awnings. The staff report further indicated that the awning has been up for one year and eight months. She wanted to ask the applicant how the awning got placed on the building and did it take one year and eight months for someone to complain about it. Mr. Brozosky noted that a permit was required for a patio cover. He asked if a permit was required to attach a permanent structure such as an awning to a house? Mr. Iserson believed a permit would be required and the Building Department would need to make sure the awning was safely and sufficiently attached to the home. He did not believe the applicant obtained a building permit, as he did not have Planning approval. Mr. Sullivan asked what would occur procedurally if someone two houses down wanted to install the same type of retractable canvass awning in their backyard? Mr. Iserson said a neighbor would be required to submit an application for a modification to an approved PUD to allow for a retractable canvas awning installed to the rear of its existing home which would be heard and considered by the Planning Commission unless Council chose to amend the PUD for the entire Charter Oaks Development. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 11 01/03/06